Is Motorola KILLING Apple?

[MacManiac1224]

Is Motorola KILLING Apple? I just read this article: http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17368.html

Motorola is really dragging thier asses on the PowerPC project. I think Apple should drop them, Intel is kicking Apple's ass with high clock speeds, i know, i know, the megahertz myth, but let's be honest, the 1 ghz powermac can't even run OS X efficently. I think IBM should take over the reigns of the new processor desgin. Maybe use Power 4 chips in the up and coming Macs. What do you guys think?

[kishba]

hey i don't think they're dragging there asses too much

motorola keeps restructuring and laying off people... plus they must get chewed out by steve a bunch :)

[alex_ant]

Blah blah blah Apple is dying, blah blah blah Intel is killing them, blah blah blah. Please, go back and read the discussion forum archives. We've already discussed this crap at least a half dozen times. It's getting quite stale.

Alex

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by alex_ant
Blah blah blah Apple is dying, blah blah blah Intel is killing them, blah blah blah. Please, go back and read the discussion forum archives. We've already discussed this crap at least a half dozen times. It's getting quite stale.

Alex

Here here.... Oh and MacManiac1224, if you think that a dual GHz G4 can't run OS X efficiently then wake up and get some coffee. UNLESS you have REAL world comparisons to other Mac systems running OS X (exact same versions only) then shut the ***** up!! You are blowing some noxious fumes out of your posterior with statements like that, which can't be all that easy since you appear to have your head up there too.

Before you start whining and complaining, you asked for what we think... don't ask if you can't handle the truth...

[kishba]

hey AlphaTech...

you better add that you are a card carrying member of the anti zealot group!!

[Kid Red]

Originally posted by alex_ant
Blah blah blah Apple is dying, blah blah blah Intel is killing them, blah blah blah. Please, go back and read the discussion forum archives. We've already discussed this crap at least a half dozen times. It's getting quite stale.

Alex

Do you mind if I copy and paste your quote for the dozens of topics that come out about Apple dying, Apple going down, Apple's HW sucks, etc? I'm really tired of saying exactly what you said and figured it would a lot easier just to copy and paste your reply as it is exactly what i was going to say every time I see a topic like this one.

[buffsldr]

Wow. Why all the emotion? It's obvious, dude gets off by comparing Apples and PC's. Fine. Motorola is killing Apple. Killing them into back to back profitable quarters, my friend. NOW WHAT?

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by kishba
hey AlphaTech...

you better add that you are a card carrying member of the anti zealot group!!

You want to suck my what????? Sorry, I only allow woman to go there.

The only membership card that I carry is for the NRA. I also have my permits to carry concealed weapons in two states... So don't ***** with me bubba... :D

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Kid Red
Do you mind if I copy and paste your quote for the dozens of topics that come out about Apple dying, Apple going down, Apple's HW sucks, etc? I'm really tired of saying exactly what you said and figured it would a lot easier just to copy and paste your reply as it is exactly what i was going to say every time I see a topic like this one.
That would be okay with me. Consider it public domain. ;)

Alex

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
The only membership card that I carry is for the NRA. I also have my permits to carry concealed weapons in two states... So don't ***** with me bubba... :D
Well, why don't we do something useful with this thread...

*** Commence topic hijacking ***

All guns should be outlawed, and the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be repealed! The murder and crime rates would decrease and people everywhere would be safer.

Thank you, carry on. :)

Alex

[AlphaTech]

Don't get me started alex_ant... you wouldn't like me once I get started...

[alex_ant]

And I forgot to add - Charlton Heston is a wrinkly, senile old codger who should be strapped to a bed in a nursing home, if not a sanitarium! What kind of name is "Charlton," anyway? A name for a wacko nutcase, THAT's what kind of name!

[Mr. Anderson]

alphaTech and alex_ant, you two want to take it outside?

Is there a full moon tonight? Seesh. So motorola could be draggin their feet, so what. Apple's still doing great. Imagine that, someone voiced their opinion and asked for replies, and you to start a little dance. Maybe Taft was right and this forum needs a little flaming and a battle.

I have to give alex_ant some points, Charlton is getting a little long in the tooth. Have either of you seen the NRA headquarters? Its on Rte 66 around Viena, VA. A large, mirrored glass building, highly visible from the road. Not very appealing actually.

[MacAztec]

Originally posted by AlphaTech


Here here.... Oh and MacManiac1224, if you think that a dual GHz G4 can't run OS X efficiently then wake up and get some coffee. UNLESS you have REAL world comparisons to other Mac systems running OS X (exact same versions only) then shut the ***** up!! You are blowing some noxious fumes out of your posterior with statements like that, which can't be all that easy since you appear to have your head up there too.

Before you start whining and complaining, you asked for what we think... don't ask if you can't handle the truth...

I love this guy! And yes...1234, go take a trip to an apple store and try one out. And then...shut the ***** up! :D

[MacAztec]

Originally posted by AlphaTech


You want to suck my what????? Sorry, I only allow woman to go there.

The only membership card that I carry is for the NRA. I also have my permits to carry concealed weapons in two states... So don't ***** with me bubba... :D

Hehe, I can imagine it now....
Alpha on his harley, with a shotgun in each of his saddle bags, with one of those....leather things filled with crushed bricks....

Come pick me up Alpha! We could be a team, and beat some sence into those....PC users/people against the NRA/that kind of stuff!

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by MacAztec


Hehe, I can imagine it now....
Alpha on his harley, with a shotgun in each of his saddle bags, with one of those....leather things filled with crushed bricks..

Now you've got me thinking of the guy in Raising Arizona who got blown up by one of his own grenades. Dual shot guns, hadn't washed since the last rainstorm, catches flies in his finger tips....

Don't mess with him:D

[MacAztec]

Originally posted by dukestreet


Now you've got me thinking of the guy in Raising Arizona who got blown up by one of his own grenades. Dual shot guns, hadn't washed since the last rainstorm, catches flies in his finger tips....

Don't mess with him:D

Hehehe, yep....that sounds pretty exact?
Are we close Alpha?

Nah...just kidding if I am starting to push the limit...;)

[j763]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alex_ant
All guns should be outlawed, and the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be repealed! The murder and crime rates would decrease and people everywhere would be safer.

We also need to make the U.S. a democratic country. No, it's not one of the world's best democracies at all... It's totalitarian. Look at the State of the Union address by George Dubulya... Everyone in the congress on both sides stands up and applauds! When I saw that, it reminded me of the Chinese Government... I mean, republicans and democrats, same wine, different bottle... The only reason the US has got guns legalised is because the gun industry has $$$ and all the corrupt politicians are take it...

Now for the NRA's stupid argument -- "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". What the hell is wrong with them??? What purpose do guns serve? Killing stuff. Is there any reason that we'd need to kill a person or an animal? Nope.

"But people can use knives, not guns"

The fact is that gun control does work. Look at Australia and New Zeland,for instance. We have only had 1 shooting in the past 6 years... And we've never had a school shooting at all...

[MacAztec]

Originally posted by j763
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alex_ant
All guns should be outlawed, and the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be repealed! The murder and crime rates would decrease and people everywhere would be safer.

We also need to make the U.S. a democratic country. No, it's not one of the world's best democracies at all... It's totalitarian. Look at the State of the Union address by George Dubulya... Everyone in the congress on both sides stands up and applauds! When I saw that, it reminded me of the Chinese Government... I mean, republicans and democrats, same wine, different bottle... The only reason the US has got guns legalised is because the gun industry has $$$ and all the corrupt politicians are take it...

Now for the NRA's stupid argument -- "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". What the hell is wrong with them??? What purpose do guns serve? Killing stuff. Is there any reason that we'd need to kill a person or an animal? Nope.

"But people can use knives, not guns"

The fact is that gun control does work. Look at Australia and New Zeland,for instance. We have only had 1 shooting in the past 6 years... And we've never had a school shooting at all...

Wow, we have a liberal on board.
I have a question for you....who fires the gun? No gun just goes off and kills people. Its the mind behind the gun....
Guns do serve a purpose on the earth. And, guns are used for hunting, protection, and for collectors.

Now, please...dont be such a democrat. You sound like my grandmother with that attidude.

[AlphaTech]

The gun legislation in this country is getting sick. It takes a hell of a lot more $$ for us to keep the rights we have been given then it does to take them away.

For the record, for the limp wristed liberals in here (you know who you are), I use my pistol (just one) for competition shooting. I also have the RIGHT to carry it for protection, and the licenses to back that up. I have had background checks run on me, which is part of the process up here in the tax state. Never mind the fact that I had a high security clearance for one of my past jobs (for a DOD contractor no less). All that means that the FBI, NSA, DOD, as well as police (if not more agencies) in at least two states have full files on me. I have NO criminal history of ANY kind, but they still did the full background check, even after I had the security clearnace.

As for the murder and crime rates dropping if all the law abiding citizens no longer had firearms, that's just so much *********. Do some research bubba... Notice how the states that made it easier (not easy, just easier) for LAW abiding citizens to LEGALLY obtain firearms had a drop in the number of violent crimes. You will NEVER completely eliminate firearms, if someone wants one bad enough, they will get one. Just like when they had prohibition all those years ago, where it was illegal to drink alcohol... remember how well that worked??? :rolleyes:

One last thing... compare the numbers of people killed each year by cigarettes (yes killed) as well as in auto 'accidents' with deaths from firearms. I think you might be surprised.

[alex_ant]

Bwahahaha! My hijacking was a success! Now, the next thread that talks about Apple dying, I'm gonna start up an abortion debate.

Alex

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by alex_ant
Bwahahaha! My hijacking was a success! Now, the next thread that talks about Apple dying, I'm gonna start up an abortion debate.

Alex

Dude, you have WAY too much free time on your hands.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
Dude, you have WAY too much free time on your hands.
So do you, apparently. :)

[MacAztec]

Originally posted by alex_ant

So do you, apparently. :)

Hehe. I do too, but I just got home from my baseball game about an hour ago. I blasted a triple! Hehehe....

Anyways....

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by MacAztec
Hehe. I do too, but I just got home from my baseball game about an hour ago. I blasted a triple! Hehehe....

Anyways....
Ahem! The topic is, "is Motorola killing Apple?" Stop trying to steer us off-course, you dirty thread-hijacker you!

[MacAztec]

What'd yall have for din din tonight? I had a pizza. Mmmmmmm mushroom pizza.

I am addicted to this web-site, I swear, its worse than smoking!

[alex_ant]

Dorm food. :( I hate you. I hate ALL of you who eat real food every night!

[MacAztec]

Originally posted by alex_ant
Dorm food. :( I hate you. I hate ALL of you who eat real food every night!

MmmmmmmmMMMMmm....last night was home-made meatloaf. And the night before I believe was subking. MMMMMMM!!!

P.S.- I am now the hi-jacker of this thread!
But my friend, its time for bed.
I say good-bye to you all,
See you another day,
Because this site,
Will be viewed in my dreams....

Im gonna make a lil rap...

I went to...MacRumors
Saw the headline, and then went boomers!
Looked around the web,
And saw what I saw,
Then decided to play baseball.
I believe that this site is great,
It is really addicting...especially really late!
Now my friends, its time for bed,
Hopefully tomorrow...I wont be fed.
Fed up with the crap, about the NRA,
And the crap that I heard...on the news today!

Thats all, it kinda sux, but....night all!

[rainman::|:|]

Originally posted by alex_ant
*** Commence topic hijacking ***

All guns should be outlawed, and the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be repealed! The murder and crime rates would decrease and people everywhere would be safer.

Alex you bastard. :) I didn't chime in on the 2nd amendment threads, but i'm an opinionated little prick so I hafta share at some point. I'm fairly liberal on many things (i'm a libertarian tho - don't be calling me a damn dirty democrat ;) ) but gun control?? come on, i don't give a flying ***** whether or not the authors of the 2nd had any foresight, the fact is, we do have the right, which brings me to my point: as soon as i'm of age, i'll be purchasing a nice glock to ...hunt with, yes (looks around and laughs) Seriously, I don't see why i shouldn't be allowed to keep a gun in my nightstand... I'd like a license to carry concealed, but they're hard to get i understand... i can't imagine a situtation where i would want to pack, but it'd be nice to know i could.

So in summary, all you gun control nuts can bugger off.
:)

and if you get the thread started on abortion, Alex, i will never forgive you-- every other topic can be handled very well, especially by the kind and courteous members here, but that one is best left to some other site. no one is going to change anyone's minds so just leave it alone :) i realize you were joking, but still...

hehe
pnw

[alex_ant]

Wow! That was great! That should be the official Macrumors rap. I especially like the rhyming of "Macrumors" with "boomers"... and you could make the official site slogan out of lines 6 & 7! Just put it on a banner or something.

I believe that this site is great,
It is really addicting...especially really late!
Gold!!

So: The right to bear arms. Fundamental and necessary for the preservation of freedom, or an impediment to healthy civilization? Discuss!

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
Alex you bastard. :) I didn't chime in on the 2nd amendment threads, but i'm an opinionated little prick so I hafta share at some point. I'm fairly liberal on many things (i'm a libertarian tho - don't be calling me a damn dirty democrat ;) ) but gun control?? come on, i don't give a flying ***** whether or not the authors of the 2nd had any foresight, the fact is, we do have the right, which brings me to my point: as soon as i'm of age, i'll be purchasing a nice glock to ...hunt with, yes (looks around and laughs) Seriously, I don't see why i shouldn't be allowed to keep a gun in my nightstand... I'd like a license to carry concealed, but they're hard to get i understand... i can't imagine a situtation where i would want to pack, but it'd be nice to know i could.
Thanks, Paul. I actually don't care much about the topic of gun control - I just wanted to find a topic that would get people riled up, so I jumped on it when AlphaTech brought it up. So, I'm just curious - how do you feel about countries like Australia and the UK where gun ownership is not legal? Specifically, how would you feel about the topic of gun ownership if you were a citizen of either of those countries? Again, I don't have much of a stance, although if I had to lean one way I'd lean slightly toward pro-gun-control - I'm just wondering what the other "side" thinks.

Alex

[rainman::|:|]

Originally posted by alex_ant

Thanks, Paul. I actually don't care much about the topic of gun control - I just wanted to find a topic that would get people riled up, so I jumped on it when AlphaTech brought it up. So, I'm just curious - how do you feel about countries like Australia and the UK where gun ownership is not legal? Specifically, how would you feel about the topic of gun ownership if you were a citizen of either of those countries? Again, I don't have much of a stance, although if I had to lean one way I'd lean slightly toward pro-gun-control - I'm just wondering what the other "side" thinks.

Alex

Kind of assumed you were just trying to change the subject. I suppose if one never knew of gun ownership, one would not find any reason to desire it. Australia may not have gun ownership, but if I remember right they have some particularly brutal serial killers from time to time, who get by just fine without. The UK is the same, to a lesser extent. There was an experiment in gun control once, in Nevada I believe (forgive the vagueness, it's been a while)... A gated community where everyone owned at least one gun, and to live there you and every member of the family had to take gun safety courses... The results were pretty surprising, less crime than ever. That's not to say guns make things safer, but they do prove to be a deterrant... If i'm a burglar, i wouldn't break into a house/mug someone who had a gun. IMHO, if you want to kill someone, you'll do it no matter what... There are plenty of very deadly object lying around the average house. True criminals rely on guns for many illegal activities (does gun blackmarket count? ;) ) but again, they would just resort to something else... So to sum up, i think guns get a much worse rap than they deserve, and the real fault lies with people. The saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" may be cliché, but it's true if you think about it.

Tho I think if you're going to have kids, a gun in the house isn't the best parential decision you can make... But my grandmother and her husband have a handgun collection, in full working order that they practice with often... Lots of kids staying/visiting there at one time or another, and no kid has ever bothered a gun. It's a blend of keeping them out of access, and teaching respect for them.

I'm not trying to start up the 2nd amendment thread again, because it's been done, but then i've not been talking about the 2nd :) just the "philosophy" of guns and criminals...

pnw

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
I suppose if one never knew of gun ownership, one would not find any reason to desire it. Australia may not have gun ownership, but if I remember right they have some particularly brutal serial killers from time to time, who get by just fine without. The UK is the same, to a lesser extent.
Hasn't the U.S. seen many, many more very brutal serial killers than either of those countries, though? Not just in absolute terms, because obviously the U.S. is a lot bigger, but even per capita.
There was an experiment in gun control once, in Nevada I believe (forgive the vagueness, it's been a while)... A gated community where everyone owned at least one gun, and to live there you and every member of the family had to take gun safety courses... The results were pretty surprising, less crime than ever. That's not to say guns make things safer, but they do prove to be a deterrant... If i'm a burglar, i wouldn't break into a house/mug someone who had a gun.
I agree that I wouldn't want to break into a gun-owning house if I were a burglar, but is that to say it would be a good idea if all families owned a gun in order to deter against crime? This seems to me to be a bit similar to a nuclear arms race, where country A (the criminal) acquires the bomb (the gun), and country B (the innocent bystander) feels a need to protect itself against this bomb because it doesn't want to get blown up, so it acquires the bomb also. So country A acquires more bombs, and country B sees this and acquires even more bombs than country A, to the point where both countries have more bombs than they could ever possibly need to blow each other up. In other words, instead of everyone owning a gun, wouldn't it be better if nobody did?
IMHO, if you want to kill someone, you'll do it no matter what... There are plenty of very deadly object lying around the average house. True criminals rely on guns for many illegal activities (does gun blackmarket count? ;) ) but again, they would just resort to something else...
I agree that if someone really wants to kill another person they'll find a way, but certainly guns make it easier. You can't kill vast quantities of people very rapidly with knives, for instance, unless you're a ninja or something.
So to sum up, i think guns get a much worse rap than they deserve, and the real fault lies with people. The saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" may be cliché, but it's true if you think about it.
I guess gun control sounds to me like taking prescription medication for depression. You can take Prozac and it may alleviate your symptoms, but the underlying cause(s) of those symptoms will still be there. So I guess it's just a question of whether or not we ought to tackle the cause of gun violence or just tackle the gun violence itself (by removing people's access to guns, for example). I would say that #1 would be ideal, but #2 would be easier. (Although that doesn't mean I would choose #2.)
The saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" may be cliché, but it's true if you think about it.
I agree. But along the same lines, the saying "hydrogen bombs don't kill people, people kill people" is also true. Yet, what else are you gonna use a hydrogen bomb for? :)

The reason I asked what you thought about Australia and the UK was because it seemed to me that the US would be so much better off if guns were simply not a part of its culture, as is the case in the UK. In that case, nobody, especially criminals, would feel any need to have anything to do with guns, and therefore nobody would feel the need to own guns in order to protect themselves from criminals. I've heard that in the UK, not even police officers carry guns! Because they don't have to. That's just awesome, in my opinion. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like it's possible to consciously move in that direction. :( (But this is all just my opinion, of course.)

Alex

[rainman::|:|]

whew, i was afraid i'd killed a good thread by getting all serious and stuff. Ahem <mind trick="jedi">*waves hand* you WILL give me a powerbook</mind trick> hehe sorry couldnt resist...

Originally posted by alex_ant
Hasn't the U.S. seen many, many more very brutal serial killers than either of those countries, though? Not just in absolute terms, because obviously the U.S. is a lot bigger, but even per capita.

Hmm, would like to look into this further... I'll bet the per-capita is very close if Australia isn't higher... i have no idea the population of Australia... this sounds like a job for www.crimelibrary.com... the US's serial killers seem more plentiful, because we as Americans hear about them in great detail when they happen... Not talking spree or mass-killings, i'll get to that in a moment...

I agree that I wouldn't want to break into a gun-owning house if I were a burglar, but is that to say it would be a good idea if all families owned a gun in order to deter against crime? This seems to me to be a bit similar to a nuclear arms race, where country A (the criminal) acquires the bomb (the gun), and country B (the innocent bystander) feels a need to protect itself against this bomb because it doesn't want to get blown up, so it acquires the bomb also. So country A acquires more bombs, and country B sees this and acquires even more bombs than country A, to the point where both countries have more bombs than they could ever possibly need to blow each other up. In other words, instead of everyone owning a gun, wouldn't it be better if nobody did?

This is a hard one to answer... In pure ideology, yes a gun-free society would be better... It's interesting to look at the gun-free countries, from an American point of view, since guns are so much a part of our society... The hunting aspect is always there, and rifles are just as good for blowing a hole in someone as a semi-automatic handgun... It's all in the attitude of the society. As you say below, for better or for worse, guns are here to stay...

I agree that if someone really wants to kill another person they'll find a way, but certainly guns make it easier. You can't kill vast quantities of people very rapidly with knives, for instance, unless you're a ninja or something.

I think a look at Japan would be appropriate... They have always been a rather peaceful society, and they saw their first serial killer not too long ago. But remember the gas attacks on the subway... There's always a way. True guns put the ability to kill more, faster, and are more readily accessible... that's certainly a flaw in the gun-friendly society. I think the fact that we have people wanting to do this type of thing is the real problem... Mental illness aside, we kind of breed a violent rhetoric into people. That's another discussion tho!

I guess gun control sounds to me like taking prescription medication for depression. You can take Prozac and it may alleviate your symptoms, but the underlying cause(s) of those symptoms will still be there. So I guess it's just a question of whether or not we ought to tackle the cause of gun violence or just tackle the gun violence itself (by removing people's access to guns, for example). I would say that #1 would be ideal, but #2 would be easier. (Although that doesn't mean I would choose #2.)

Gotta say, just on a technicality, the type of depression that Prozac works on is indeed cured by the prozac - but not indefinitely. Chemical depression is when the seratonin levels of the brain fluctuate in ways they weren't supposed to. As long as one stays on an SSRI antidepressant, the cause itself is actually removed. Now i'm just nitpicking, but I understand what you're saying... I agree that the easiest course of action is not the best in this case. Unfortunately to get to the root of what makes people violent, we have to look at the fundamental way our society is shaped, and no one wants to do that. I'm not sure if it's even possible to change, anymore. Violence breeds violence, and it's a cycle that's broken less often than a new one is started--

I agree. But along the same lines, the saying "hydrogen bombs don't kill people, people kill people" is also true. Yet, what else are you gonna use a hydrogen bomb for? :)

The reason I asked what you thought about Australia and the UK was because it seemed to me that the US would be so much better off if guns were simply not a part of its culture, as is the case in the UK. In that case, nobody, especially criminals, would feel any need to have anything to do with guns, and therefore nobody would feel the need to own guns in order to protect themselves from criminals. I've heard that in the UK, not even police officers carry guns! Because they don't have to. That's just awesome, in my opinion. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like it's possible to consciously move in that direction. :( (But this is all just my opinion, of course.)

Ever read The Utopia? ;) I would certainly like to see more countries with less of a violence problem. Kind of makes you wonder why some countries are non-gun and some are pro-gun... Perhaps it's a question of where each country was, in their respective evolutions, when the gun was invented. It would make sense for most countries except Australia, but they don't let people take guns to prison, do they? ;) gotta rile up the Aussies.

Now that England is decriminalizing pot, I think we could learn a lot from them... hehe...

must say, Alex, you make some good points :)
pnw

[Geert]

Originally posted by alex_ant
Bwahahaha! My hijacking was a success! Now, the next thread that talks about Apple dying, I'm gonna start up an abortion debate.
Alex

I hear yeh alex_ant:D
You are all right: stories of Apple dying come by the bunch, but they pass just as quickly as they came:p
they have been telling that Apple was dying since the late 80ies (or even earlier) but we're still here, banging away on our pro-keyboard, real pissed off by anyone who says one negative about Apple. hehehe
I like that in you guys!
That is why I love putting posts here;)

[guv]

man a lot of u guys are real dosers, since wen wasnt an opinion valid?! ur sounding more like microsoft every day!! think of it from a slightly different perspective and blah blah blah blah seems to make sence.

[gelbin]

If you've got to carry a gun to keep your fragile seat at number one, this is a bullet you can't outrun.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
Hmm, would like to look into this further... I'll bet the per-capita is very close if Australia isn't higher... i have no idea the population of Australia... this sounds like a job for www.crimelibrary.com... the US's serial killers seem more plentiful, because we as Americans hear about them in great detail when they happen... Not talking spree or mass-killings, i'll get to that in a moment...
I'll agree with that. I was just guessing about Australia's per capita serial killings being lower, because whenever I envision Australians I think of them living in peace and harmony along with their countless pet kangaroos and koalas. (Thank you, Paul Hogan, for being part of such a fine geographical documentary as "Crocodile Dundee.") :)

Well, you make some good points too, so good in fact that I really don't have anything else to say. :) I just wanted to get a feel for the opinion of the "other side" on this, because so often the discussion never gets more articulate than "Guns good!" "No, guns bad!" and thus it's difficult to tell where the respective sides are coming from.

Although, I didn't know the UK was legalizing marijuana. I'm going to have to get over there some day. :)

Cheers,
Alex

[rainman::|:|]

Originally posted by alex_ant
Although, I didn't know the UK was legalizing marijuana. I'm going to have to get over there some day. :)

Cheers,
Alex

I think so, could someone from the UK verify? i heard tho there's nothing official, there's a amsterdam-style cafe operating, and tho it got busted on it's first day, since then the cops are just watching to see how well it works. You can get two different strains, and a hash, i think... but we're getting a little technical on taboo subject ;)

Very interesting conversation, thank you Alex :)

pnw

[jefhatfield]

there should be an amendment to own macs...sometimes looking around i think it must be illegal

there is more heroin around these parts than macs...let's change that

we just need to get past the tin horn man named bill gates...that is who is killing apple, not motorola

but i would like to see a high end mac with an ibm processor, too

[iH8Quark]

Listen, folks. I don't want to get sucked into this, but all this talk of outlawing guns is really disturbing. Yeah, so some crazy people want to go around killing each other. FINE! Natural selection the way I see it. Let the crackheads and ignorant people kill themsilves, and each other. FINE WITH ME.

But the whole reason that we have guns, and the entire reason for the 2nd is that the people should have the ability, and the right, to rise up and overthrow the government should it turn into a totalitarian state, or dictatorship, or fail to reflect the will of the people. It's a way to keep power in the hands of the common man.

Very disturbing that some of us have been lulled into a utopia. Very disturbing. As it is, we all live in a society where corporations have become more powerful than our govenment. Where our desires and wishes are spoon-fed to us through a series of television commercials and boy bands. And where art and free speach and the right to openly criticise is stifled by high-dollar suits, corporate interest lobying, and copyrights. They've even found a way to copyright parts of the human genome. THAT's what's sick and disturbing. Not a bunch of idiots running around killing other idiots.

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by iH8Quark
Listen, folks. I don't want to get sucked into this, but all this talk of outlawing guns is really disturbing. Yeah, so some crazy people want to go around killing each other. FINE! Natural selection the way I see it. Let the crackheads and ignorant people kill themsilves, and each other. FINE WITH ME.

But the whole reason that we have guns, and the entire reason for the 2nd is that the people should have the ability, and the right, to rise up and overthrow the government should it turn into a totalitarian state, or dictatorship, or fail to reflect the will of the people. It's a way to keep power in the hands of the common man.

Very disturbing that some of us have been lulled into a utopia. Very disturbing. As it is, we all live in a society where corporations have become more powerful than our govenment. Where our desires and wishes are spoon-fed to us through a series of television commercials and boy bands. And where art and free speach and the right to openly criticise is stifled by high-dollar suits, corporate interest lobying, and copyrights. They've even found a way to copyright parts of the human genome. THAT's what's sick and disturbing. Not a bunch of idiots running around killing other idiots.

Amen brother.... We need to skim the gene pool some.

I am waiting for some hicker to get attacked by wild animals, and survives because he has a firearm with him. Or dies because he doesn't.

[LethalWolfe]

Yes, before guns were invented humans were much more civilized and there was no such thing as murder or crime. :rolleyes: :p

People are the problem, not guns (or knives, or baseball bats, or axes, or pillows, or poisons, or big sticks, etc.,) . Mass genocide was carried out in Rwanda with machetties<sp?> and farm tools.

The kids who shot up Columbine High School had rigged 2 propane tanks (place in the cafeteria I think) to explode (thankfully they didn't go off). I'm pretty sure those two tanks exploding would have killed more people/done more damage than the shooters did.

And making more gun control laws is pointless because criminals don't obey laws. We should spend $$$ enforcing our current laws not making more. The only regulation I'd like to see passed is all gun buyers should take/pass a basic gun safety course.

IMO, why people kill people should be of bigger concern then what was used to do the killing.


Lethal

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
YThe only regulation I'd like to see passed is all gun buyers should take/pass a basic gun safety course.

Already in place in MA. I believe that you need that as well in FL to get a license to carry firearms. In BOTH states, the dealers are required to run background checks before you can purchase pistols. That is the dealerships that are legit that is.

There will always be ways around the checks in the system. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by iH8Quark
Listen, folks. I don't want to get sucked into this, but all this talk of outlawing guns is really disturbing. Yeah, so some crazy people want to go around killing each other. FINE! Natural selection the way I see it. Let the crackheads and ignorant people kill themsilves, and each other. FINE WITH ME.
Wow. Kind of an extreme viewpoint, isn't it? I'm a bit disturbed by this. What if one of those crazy people were one of your friends, or one of your siblings? Would you still feel the same way?
But the whole reason that we have guns, and the entire reason for the 2nd is that the people should have the ability, and the right, to rise up and overthrow the government should it turn into a totalitarian state, or dictatorship,
Yes, we would raise our Smith & Wessons to the heavens and give those F16s and B22 bombers something to really be scared of. If you want to put the ability to overthrow the government back in the hands of the citizens, you'd better equip every household with grenade launchers, tanks, and SAMs, because that's about what it would take to stop the combined forces of the US Military. A couple 9mm pistols in your nightstand isn't gonna cut it.
or fail to reflect the will of the people.
You might want to define that. For instance, it's arguable that G.W. Bush was not actually elected President. Now, I'm not saying he's not a legitimate president, but just assume for a moment that I'm an Al Gore supporter (I'm not, actually) and I think he's not. And I have some very strong arguments as to Bush's illegitimacy. Does that give me the right to overthrow the government, due to its ceasing to reflect the will of the people?
Very disturbing that some of us have been lulled into a utopia. Very disturbing. As it is, we all live in a society where corporations have become more powerful than our govenment. Where our desires and wishes are spoon-fed to us through a series of television commercials and boy bands. And where art and free speach and the right to openly criticise is stifled by high-dollar suits, corporate interest lobying, and copyrights. They've even found a way to copyright parts of the human genome. THAT's what's sick and disturbing.
Yes, that is disturbing, but I don't see how it's relevant to the topic of gun control.

Alex

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Why don't outlaws generally have guns in the UK or in much of Europe, Japan, and China?

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Yes, before guns were invented humans were much more civilized and there was no such thing as murder or crime. :rolleyes: :p
I'm picking up on some sarcasm here. Before guns were invented, there was murder or crime, of course, but guns have been an enabling factor in dramatically widening their scale.
People are the problem, not guns (or knives, or baseball bats, or axes, or pillows, or poisons, or big sticks, etc.,) . Mass genocide was carried out in Rwanda with machetties<sp?> and farm tools.
Aren't both guns AND people the problem, though? Guns can do more damage per person than most other weapons, excepting nuclear, chemical, and biological ones. The Rwandan mass genocide you speak of involved many people. Think of how much additional killing they could have done if they had had machine guns. I'm not saying if guns were removed from society somehow that all killing would stop - I'm saying it would lessen.
The kids who shot up Columbine High School had rigged 2 propane tanks (place in the cafeteria I think) to explode (thankfully they didn't go off). I'm pretty sure those two tanks exploding would have killed more people/done more damage than the shooters did.
Yet, however much damage the propane tanks would have done (let's assume a lot), the shooters would have tacked on even more killings.
And making more gun control laws is pointless because criminals don't obey laws.
How does that differ from "making murder laws is pointless because murderers don't obey laws?" Obviously gun control laws aren't gonna solve everything. It would take a lot of work to enact them, and it would probably be impossible to get *all* guns off the streets. But it would be possible to get a great majority of them confiscated and destroyed within several years.

IMO, why people kill people should be of bigger concern then what was used to do the killing.
Yet it's so much easier to put energy towards the cause of protecting gun rights than to establish reasons for and ways to prevent homicidal tendencies. The NRA, for example, doesn't really seem to genuinely care whether or not people kill each other, and therefore can't be bothered to conduct research into the social and psychological factors that lead to homicidal tendencies in an effort to preclude such tendencies. What I'm saying is, "if guns don't kill people, and people kill people, then perhaps it would be a good idea to get rid of guns until we can do away with the underlying behavior that would cause people to use guns in a malicious manner, after which time it would be safe to legalize gun ownership again." Because legalized gun ownership is an ideology that many people unwillingly die for every day.

Alex

[alex_ant]

See, isn't this SO MUCH more fun than talking about Motorola killing Apple? :)

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
Amen brother.... We need to skim the gene pool some.
Wow. An anti-gun-controller openly advocating murder. I didn't think you were THAT uncivilized.
I am waiting for some kicker to get attacked by wild animals, and survives because he has a firearm with him. Or dies because he doesn't.
Because a single instance of a singular unlikely event should be the basis for an entire amendment to the Constitution?

Alex

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by alex_ant

How does that differ from "making murder laws is pointless because murderers don't obey laws?" Obviously gun control laws aren't gonna solve everything. It would take a lot of work to enact them, and it would probably be impossible to get *all* guns off the streets. But it would be possible to get a great majority of them confiscated and destroyed within several years.

Alex


It differs 'cause murder isn't protected by the Constitution. ;) Comparing murder to gun control laws is like comparing apples and oranges. You can legally buy/own a gun in the US, you cannot legally murder someone (killing someone in self-defense would be considered justifiable homicide not murder ;)). Placing more and more restrictions on legally buying a gun hinders a lawful person much more than it hinders a criminal.

We can't keep drugs or illegal immegrants from getting into the country, what makes you think we can stop guns at the border? Not to sound cliched, but assuming all legal guns are taken and destroyed who is going to be left armed? And comparing the US to the UK just isn't realistic. Not only from a cultural point of view, but from a logistical one. The UK is a small (compared to the US) island country that naturally has difficult borders to sneak across. The US, on the other hand, is a big country w/thousands of miles of pretty porous border.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need guns, locks, or M$ and communism would work. But this is a real world, not a perfect one, so idealogical solutions (like taking away all the firearms of private US citizens) are never gonna happen.

alex_ant, you've done a really good job of spoutin' off 'bout why guns are bad (and keeping this topic waaayyy OT ;)) but I've yet to see one feasable solution from you yet. Personnally, I think education and better enforcement of current laws is a good place to start...


Lethal

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
It differs 'cause murder isn't protected by the Constitution. ;) Comparing murder to gun control laws is like comparing apples and oranges. You can legally buy/own a gun in the US, you cannot legally murder someone (killing someone in self-defense would be considered justifiable homicide not murder ;)). Placing more and more restrictions on legally buying a gun hinders a lawful person much more than it hinders a criminal.
I don't see what you mean. I don't see how the Constitution is involved - only legality. I'm not comparing murder to gun control laws - I'm comparing murder laws to gun control laws. That said, your statement that "making more gun control laws is pointless because criminals don't obey laws" could be applied to any type of law, thus nullifying it.
We can't keep drugs or illegal immegrants from getting into the country, what makes you think we can stop guns at the border? Not to sound cliched, but assuming all legal guns are taken and destroyed who is going to be left armed?
I agree that it's a tough logistical problem, but I don't think it's impossible. Well, it is impossible given the current climate towards guns in the US, but it's not theoretically impossible. Guns are very different from drugs in that drug addicts HAVE to have their drugs, whereas gun users presumably don't feel that kind of withdrawal and therefore would presumably not go to such extreme measures as smuggling in their magnums sourced from a foreign cartel and smuggled into the country via some vast underground network of "gun-lords." Again, other, similar countries, like Canada (which is similar in both geographical, social, and ideological composition), do a decent job of keeping guns out.
And comparing the US to the UK just isn't realistic. Not only from a cultural point of view, but from a logistical one. The UK is a small (compared to the US) island country that naturally has difficult borders to sneak across. The US, on the other hand, is a big country w/thousands of miles of pretty porous border.
For the sake of guns, it's not really any more porous than that of the UK. Mexico is (mostly) walled off, guns are illegal and mostly nonexistent in Canada, and the only thing on the border of the US besides Canada and Mexico is ocean, the major US ports on which are covered pretty well by customs.
alex_ant, you've done a really good job of spoutin' off 'bout why guns are bad (and keeping this topic waaayyy OT ;)) but I've yet to see one feasable solution from you yet. Personnally, I think education and better enforcement of current laws is a good place to start...
I really wish some group or organization or other entity, or the government, would step up and put some effort into this education and better enforcement you speak of. At the same time, I wish that everyone involved in this debate would acknowledge that there is a problem, and no matter which side of the ideological divide they stand on, I wish they would be more open-minded to compromise and not so extremist - e.g. "We must ban all guns and repeal the 2nd Amendment immediately" vs. "The right to own guns should be as basic as freedom of speech and everyone and their dog should own guns."

I'm not trying to present my own solution - ****, I wish I had one - I'm only here to pick people's brains and keep the topic of the thread away from Apple dying. And it looks as if I'm going a dang good job. :)

Alex

[Rower_CPU]

I know I'm getting in on this late, but I feel the need to comment on a couple of things.

There are several key issues to keep in mind about gun control. You can debate the meaning of the 2nd Amendment until you're blue in the face, but the original intent of our forefathers in known only to them. People will read into it what they want, find their own "proofs" and excuses, and say "this is what they intended". No document (especially political ones) is completely clear and to the point.

For those of you advocating the right to keep guns in the home, please think of the accidental deaths that could be prevented. Young children die because they play with guns similar to their own toys and don't realise there's a difference. Many deaths during robberies could be prevented if guns were never there in the first place, since they only come into play when the homeowner brings it out.


The long and short of it comes down to education, good parenting and open discussion (like we're doing here). Attitudes in this country are all over the map, from raging psychos like Heston, to radical flower-children types. Consensus is pretty much an impossibility.

Sorry if this is fragmented, but I'm tired and trying to watch SNL at the same time. My opinion is that it's a sad world where we need guns in the first place. :(

[edesignuk]

Originally posted by MacManiac1224
...the 1 ghz powermac can't even run OS X efficently.

Are you kidding???? The 1Ghz and for that matter slower G4's run OS X like a dream!

[jefhatfield]

the issue may not be the point of the computer hardware, but having some future version of osx run more efficiently

osx is still a work in progress, and while things are going slow, osx is a masterpiece and worth the wait

my guess is that it will eventually run very well on g3 based computers...but by then, apple may not have any g3 based machines

[LethalWolfe]

OS X runs great on my dual gig G$ :D

And I totally agree that there is a problem w/gun violence in this country, and removing firearms from society will do a lot to curb gun violence. But I'm willing to bet that the cases of people getting stabbed and beaten to death will skyrocket (as compared to current stats). What have we accomplished by replacing one form of violence with another?

It doesn't make sense to me to focus on the symptom of a problem, but not the cause. Less than a year ago a friend of mine commited suicide w/a pistol. Would he still be alive if the gun wasn't around? I dunno. Maybe he would have O.D.ed, or wrapped his car around a tree. Maybe he wouldn't have. My point is that my friend took his own life because wanted to die.
He didn't take it because he knew a gun was in the house. The gun didn't make him do it.

It's amazing the power many people think a hunk of machined metal has. People don't hurt/kill others because they have a gun/knife/bat/rock/big stick/piano wire in their hand. People hurt/kill others because they want to.

Things like these are always going to a problem in a free society because being free means you have personal resposibility, which some people can't handle. Does that mean that everyone should be punished because of an immature minority? Should we get rid of cars because some people drive recklessly and kill others? Or alcohol because some people over indulge and become violent or drive drunk? No, we find ways to educate people and try to keep the people with problems away from the bottle or out of the drivers seat.

As for the "gun laws/murder" thing how about we drop that and I'll come at it from a different angle. The problem is criminals using guns. So the focus needs to be on cracking down on criminals who use guns and/or people/businesses that sell firearms illegally. Hampering the ability for a lawful cizten to get a firearm does nothing to hinder a criminal from illegally obtaining a firearm. Like I said before, disarming America is not a viable solution, so people (in general, I'm not pointing at you alex_ant) need to stop bringing it up as an option.

And he's a lil' info 'bout me so you know where I'm coming from. I'm an "Army brat" and some of my first memories are learning to shoot down in middle-of-nowhere Texas w/my family and relatives. Whenever I'd be home from college, on break or what not, my dad and I would always hit the local range. Shooting is a bonding point in my family. We all (I'm the youngest of 3) had gun safety drilled into us, and I have a very healthy respect for firearms. Some of my friends are damn near phobic of firearms yet they've never even seen one in real life. Some how they've come to the assumption that guns are evil... I wonder how that happened...:rolleyes:


Lethal

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
People don't hurt/kill others because they have a gun/knife/bat/rock/big stick/piano wire in their hand. People hurt/kill others because they want to.

The only difference is that a knife/bat/rock/big stick/piano wire require the use of force to be lethal, and a gun simply requires a finger's pressure on the trigger...

[bonehead]

For those who say stabbings, bludgeonings, etc. would skyrocket if guns were eliminated, please consider the effort required to kill someone by those methods. If you want to kill someone with a knife, for example, you have to walk up to them and stab them. That takes time. Time for you to think about it and time to do it. Assuming you don't have complete surprise, there's going to be a struggle. Is this person larger than you? Are they stronger, quicker, tougher than you? All these things factor into the outcome. Assuming you've considered all that and decide you really want to hurt this person you then have to do it. That takes a few seconds to a few minutes assuming they don't/can't run away screaming for help. With a gun, you could be standing there thinking about shooting someone and in a second pull that trigger and that's it, someone is seriously hurt or is killed. It's hard to outrun a bullet. Before you could think your way through it you're done. I say this because records show that most people are murdered by someone they know, not burglars or assassins or jackbooted thugs. If people had to go through all the effort to use a knife to kill their friend/spouse/relative would they? I'm not sure. Guns make it too easy to shoot first and think later.

I've never killed anyone or tried so don't post any replies asking, "how do you know, have you ever done it?" It's just common sense.

Another thing about the 2nd Amendment, most NRA types leave out the phrase, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" before the "right to bear arms" part. So you see, it's not just "we get to have guns just because". I'm also pretty sure that the security of our free State is handled by law enforcement agencies and the armed forces and not by the guy down the street with a glock. Furthermore, when that was written, the flintlock or matchlock (someone please confirm) was an arm. Does
this mean we should only be able to keep these? If you suggest that the writers meant whatever arms of the day, does that give you the right to have a bazooka? A mortar? Cruise missile? Tactical nuke? I know I'm exaggerating but bear with me. If you say no to any of the above then you are in favor of some kind of control of arms so why not guns?

Here's a compromise gun control idea. Outlaw hand guns but keep rifles and shotguns (over a certain length) legal. Make the penaly for hand gun posession stiff and rigorously enforce the law. Here's my thinking. Handguns are easy to conceal and rifles aren't. Most robberies committed with guns are committed with hand guns. The law abiding gun owners that like to hunt can keep on hunting with their rifles. The law abiding target shooters can shoot with rifles. Ditto for skeet/trap enthusiasts. The only people that get screwed are hand gun owners collectors. How about offering a tax credit to them for turning in their guns? If they really must shoot, get a rifle to take to the range. If they really must shoot with a pistol, I suppose an air pistol isn't the same but it might be better than nothing. "But the criminals will still be able to get hand guns", you say. They can get them now too and look where we are. If hand guns were criminalized, those who had them would be criminals and would be dealt with accordingly. I'm sure this would never be proposed and anyone is free to shoot holes in it but I wanted to put it out there. There are already laws that make some guns legal and other illegal, why not this?

One last thing, if you are going to respond to this, please do so in a civil manner. I'm not foaming at the mouth about this and my intention isn't to insult or enrage someone. After all, if you're mad after reading this, you probably have a gun!
:D

To open this thread up even further, let's discuss the death penalty!

[cleo]

What does "sticky" mean?

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
And he's a lil' info 'bout me so you know where I'm coming from. I'm an "Army brat" and some of my first memories are learning to shoot down in middle-of-nowhere Texas w/my family and relatives. Whenever I'd be home from college, on break or what not, my dad and I would always hit the local range. Shooting is a bonding point in my family. We all (I'm the youngest of 3) had gun safety drilled into us, and I have a very healthy respect for firearms. Some of my friends are damn near phobic of firearms yet they've never even seen one in real life. Some how they've come to the assumption that guns are evil... I wonder how that happened...:rolleyes:

I also grew up around firearms. When I was about 8, my father (a NRA instructor) took me to the range and taught me how to shoot. Even before that, I was taught all about gun safety and how they are NOT toys. At one time, I believe that there were over 20 firearms within the hour. A mixture of rifles of different kinds (a shotgun, bolt action files, as well as old west repeaters) as well as revolvers and pistols. Since my father didn't want to give me something that I couldn't handle, I started off on a single shot, bolt action, .22 rifle. I then progressed through to the .22 pistol, .38 revolver, .45 pistol and finally the big dog, a .357 magnum (8" python, one hellova wheel gun). My favorite then, and now, is the .45. I actually have one of my own that I use in competitions.

I think that one of the issues with gun 'accidents' is that the parents don't teach their children about guns. That, or they are not secured well enough. I am not talking about trigger locks, since those are more dangerous then they are helpful. Our pistols were always locked up, with ammunition being in a seperate location.

As for people killing themselves, if someone wants to off themself, then they will do it. Even if no firearms are available, they will find a way. That has always been the case. Unless you live in a rubber room with no sharp corners or edges, it will happen.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
I think that one of the issues with gun 'accidents' is that the parents don't teach their children about guns. That, or they are not secured well enough. I am not talking about trigger locks, since those are more dangerous then they are helpful. Our pistols were always locked up, with ammunition being in a seperate location.

How about the category of "freak accidents"?

Take Brandon Lee, for instance. He was killed on the set of "The Crow" when the wadding from a blank cartridge shot from a shotgun ejected and acted just like a bullet as it hit him in the chest. Here's situation where every precaution is taken, live ammo is not a factor, and someone still ends up getting killed.

Now, someone may have the best intentions in keeping their ammo separate from the actual gun, but how easy is it to forget the one bullet in the chamber, or a cartridge you put in the rifle? Human error must be accounted for, and putting deadly weapons in error-prone situations is just plain wrong.

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Now, someone may have the best intentions in keeping their ammo separate from the actual gun, but how easy is it to forget the one bullet in the chamber, or a cartridge you put in the rifle? Human error must be accounted for, and putting deadly weapons in error-prone situations is just plain wrong.

Responsible gun owners NEVER put a firearm away loaded. People that are taught gun safety KNOW to treat EVERY firearm as though it was loaded UNLESS YOU CLEAR IT YOURSELF. That was the core of gun safety that I was taught and is taught by all the certified instructors that I know. That is also common sense.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
Responsible gun owners NEVER put a firearm away loaded. People that are taught gun safety KNOW to treat EVERY firearm as though it was loaded UNLESS YOU CLEAR IT YOURSELF. That was the core of gun safety that I was taught and is taught by all the certified instructors that I know. That is also common sense.

I'm not questioning the training or rules or even common sense, but when you have to qualify gun owners with the word "responsible" that means that you acknowledge the fact that not all gun owners are.

If you aren't taught gun safety, how should you be expected to treat every gun as if it's loaded? Kids playing with Daddy's gun don't know to check first before they look down the barrel or point it at their friend.

So what's my argument then? Gun education as part of general public education might be an ideal, but it would never happen. Licensing won't work because people come across them whether they're licensed or not.

Or get rid of the friggin' things...and no-one will go for that because they'll be scared that someone out there still has them, and they won't have any "protection".

This is a great debate (and obviously very important to people), but I'm not sure if us Mac heads can find an answer that nobody's been able to for a long time.

[LethalWolfe]

Yes, it is easier to kill someone w/a gun than with, a sharp/blunt object. But my point is that many people (again, I'm speaking in generalities and not pointing at any in this thread) see the gun as the root of all evil and think that if the gun is banned in America this country will become a nearly crime free paradise over night. Okay, so maybe I'm exaggerating a little ;). In the spring of 2000 I spent the semester in London. While I was there there were 2 seperate incidents of people being attached by sword. The 2nd sword attack happend in the office of an Memeber of Paralment. He was hurt and one of his aides was killed. Also, one of my friends gut mugged by knife point. And another get attacked by a bum w/a broken bottle (thankfully he escaped w/minor cuts). Being some place "without" handguns gave many of us (I was there w/a group of students) a false sense of security. I think the same thing will happen in the US (if guns get banned or heavily regulated). Targeting firearms is an over simplification of a multifacited issue.

I ask again, how will taking the guns away from legal gun owners significantly reduce the amount of firearms that people obtain illegally? I know this is a fairly extreme example, but if you look at the weapons that the LAPD has take from gangs it's amazing. Many of the weapons aren't able to be legally sold in the US and were bought/smuggled from Mexico. The US can't stop people or drugs or guns from entering this country illegally. Again, I'm not trying to sound cliched, but if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns. You can't legally buy weed, crack, or acid either but I'm still pretty sure you can get all that and more in the US... ;)

And since everyone else has brought up the NRA I might as well too. Personally, I think the NRA is too rigid and too far to the right. Everytime I see the NRA speak out I cringe 'cause they usually make all gun owners sound like ultra-right-wing gun nuts that have a massive weapons cache in the basement just in case U.N. troops invade the US. Instead of railing against gun control they need to work with law makers to devise measures that make it harder/less desirable for criminals to get/use firearms w/o infringing on the ability of the average Joe to buy a firearm.

As for freak accidents... Well, you can't really do anything to prevent a freak accident otherwise it wouldn't be called a freak accident now would it? How many millions of blanks do you think Hollywood goes thru in a year? How many people have died from them? A guy, in Rhode Island I believe, fell on his coffee cup a few weeks ago and died. A ceramic shard from the cup cut a vein/artery<sp?> and he bled out in minutes. Weird stuff happends that you can't predict or protect yerself from.

As for little Bobby playing w/Daddy's gun and shooting his sister... Little Bobby shouldn't have been playing w/Daddy's gun in the first place. This is where education comes in. Education and gun safes/locks. We teach kids not to play with fire, not to talk to strangers, and, if guns are in the house, not to play w/guns. If a parent leaves the gate the backyard pool open and a neighbor hood kid wanders in, falls into the pool, and drowns is it the parent's fault for not securing the gate, or is it the pool's fault for being there? Or is it the dead kid's parents fault for not teaching their, now dead, kid not to play around a pool unless an adult is around?

Again, we are looking at a minority report (accidents, criminal use, etc.,) and using it try and justify the removal of legally owned handguns from the majority of people who never use their gun to commit a crime, or accidently shoot someone (I'll bet that fewer than 5% of legally owned/obtained firearms are used in criminal acts or accidental shootings). Am I the only one that finds that logic a bit odd? Look at it this way... Just because some people use thier computers for illegal acts does that mean we should give the government or a corporation free reign to access everyone's computer whenever they want to? I'm not trying to say guns and privacy are the same thing, but just that should the acts of a small minority warrent sevrely punishing the majority?

I'll admit that some of my examples are definetly the exception and not the norm. But so are some of examples some of ya'll are using too. ;)

Just out of curiosity how much firearm experience do the "anti-gun" people have?

Lethal

P.S. I'm glad everyone has stayed level headed and no naming calling or juvenille attitude has been thrown around.

[Rower_CPU]

Lethal-
Good points. Here's my rebuttal:

I don't think people see guns as the root of all evil (that's $$$), they see them as needlessly destructive tools that are all to often abused.
As for your sword example, let me ask you this: How many people do you think would have died if he went in with a gun instead of a sword?
I agree that targeting guns as the ultimate goal is short-sighted, at best.

We're not bringing up the argument that gun regulation in this country will somehow magically stop all guns from coming into the country...that would be naive. But by decreasing the number of guns available AT ALL, you will assuredly decrease the chances of them being used illegally/accidentally.

I know that my "freak accident" examples are far-fetched, but they serve to provide examples of situations where if guns were not present such accidents would never have happened. Go talk to some mother whose kid died playing with Daddy's gun and see if she feels that the statistical improbability of the event lessens her grief any.

Like I said in my earlier post responding to Alpha about training, people are by nature prone to make mistakes. Even the most well-meaning, responsible people make fatal mistakes. And then you have irresponsible people who just don't give a damn, and do whatever they want with their guns, because who is that gun safety guy to tell HIM how to handle his guns, he knows what he's doing, he's not stupid...BANG...oops.

I'm sorry if you feel that 5% of the cases are acceptable losses. Once again, tell that to the families who lost loved ones. I'm for making the world a safer place, cheesy, I know. But the logic behind your stance is a little strange too. You're taking the position that since the criminals DEFINITELY have guns, you need one to protect yourself. Wait, that sounds familiar...now where have I heard that before?...oh, yes, the Cold War. Russia's got nukes so we gotta have 'em too to blast them into oblivion if they fire at us. How does that make the world a safer place?

PS. My firearms experience is as follows: I have fired and done very limited target practice with .22 rifles, .38 hangun and a shotgun. So there! :p

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Just out of curiosity how much firearm experience do the "anti-gun" people have?
I have absolutely none. Well, I killed a mushroom (yes - a mushroom) with a BB gun once. I've only seen a real gun (not including guns on police officer belts) once, and it scared the bejeezus out of me. Guns were not a part of the culture in which I was brought up at all, so I would reckon that yes, the culture in which one is raised probably does play a very big part in one's beliefs on this subject.

Alex

[Mad Max]

just FYI Motorola was ahead of its time with the G4 CPU. The G4 was using an .18 micron process two years before Intel or AMD (I know, I work in the industry)... I currently use the latest AMD CPU based on the .18 micron process. By comparison, the Mac benchamrked better in real-world applications than the PC... Hard proof froom a PC user. Please don't quote me, I can get fired for this type of statement.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Just out of curiosity how much firearm experience do the "anti-gun" people have?

Lethal

Just out of curiosity... what does that have to do with being anti- or pro-guns?

For me as a german it is surprising, that really some US citizens seem to believe it is the end of the world, if fire-arms are banned. I didn't raise with guns and I didn't really miss them. So does that make me incompetent to have my own opinion about it?

Almost anything can be used to kill somebody. No matter if it is a knife, a pencil or a stone. But guns are meant to kill, that's their purpose and why they exist. And items like that shouldn't be available for the public. Otherwise I can legalize everything: drugs, any chemicals, TNT, ... whatever... people are mature and educated enough not to use it for criminal activities. Right?

By the way, I raised and live in Berlin, one of the biggest cities in Europe and I was enjoying a lot to go out at night when I was a few years younger, even using public transportation in the middle of the night on a regular basis. It happened one time during all the years that I got attacked when I was 16. And that was by a stationed soldier from UK (no offense, just fate) that was drunk and needed to "release" his energy! I don't want to know what would have happened, if he would have been allowed to bear his gun in public!

I am sure that the potential to actually kill someone is higher with a gun, since it is not much effort to do that, compared to other methods, as some people pointed out before. Also it is unlikely that a criminal will use his gun against someone who is unarmed, as long as the person means no thread to him. As soon as the other side has a gun too, he is under pressure to maybe really using it. "If I don't kill him, he will kill me!" And .... boom!

I don't see anything heroic to defend yourself by killing someone else! In most cases it is better anyway to play along and to give them what they want to prevent unnecessary violence!

I think the only problem is, that there are so many firearms in the US, that it is almost impossible to get rid of them within a short time. But it would be a good start to have the laws, even it takes years to get everything under control.

groovebuster

[Mr. Anderson]

I just love coming into a thread once its had a chance to shift topics, you never know where it will go.

More gun talk, huh. Haven't we already gone over this a couple of times before? That an the 2nd Amendment.

If Apple made a gun, what would it be? iMac10? And you could choose from several different colors, but I'm betting a TiMac10 would be slick!:D

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by alex_ant

I have absolutely none. Well, I killed a mushroom (yes - a mushroom) with a BB gun once. I've only seen a real gun (not including guns on police officer belts) once, and it scared the bejeezus out of me. Guns were not a part of the culture in which I was brought up at all, so I would reckon that yes, the culture in which one is raised probably does play a very big part in one's beliefs on this subject.

Alex

Have you ever been educated about firearms, other then to fear and hate them?? In my optionion, EVERYONE should know what to do with a firearm if them come upon it. That is one of the things that one NRA program goes out of it's way to do. The Eddie Eagle program is there to teach kids. The first thing that they are instructed it to never touch a gun that they 'find'. Go, get a parent or adult, show them where they saw it, and let the adult handle it. I wish more people would look at the programs that the NRA has in place to educate people before bashing them. Yes, there are issues with all organizations, but which doesn't have issues??? Even churches do (as shown by the mollesting priests).

Blaming guns for violent people is just plain stupid. If someone wants to kill someone else, they will do so. How many serial killers commit their acts with guns?? Not many. Education is one way to prevent the accidents, both freak and otherwise.

There have also been cases where people having guns (legally, and carrying them) has stopped a criminal act. There have also been more then a few times where an armed family member has saved his/her (yes women too) family from being brutalized/killed.

In my own experience, I have found that women shooters are excellent. I have been beaten more then once in a competition by a woman, just because she is a better shot then I am. I could try to come up with excuses, but the end result is that she is/was better then me and deserved to win.

[gelbin]

My solution:

require all guns to be registered to the owner. Any gun that is used to kill or commit a crime makes the licensed owner de facto responsible until they can prove some reasonable precautions were taken to maintain control over the gun through trigger locks, using a safe, etc.

don't say it is not guns, look at the 13 year old boy in florida that killed his teacher. he found the gun in the cookie jar. come on man, if there is skimming that needs to be done on the gene pool, the most effective place to start may be with card carrying members of the nra.

dispel your fears and grow a spine.

[gelbin]

then idiots don't follow gun safety rules. if the reason not to have laws is because people break them, i don't see how your safety courses are any less suspect. requiring a fool to go to a course when they then go home and put a loaded gun in the cookie jar seems to be invalidated by your same logic, or lack thereof.

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by groovebuster
I didn't raise with guns and I didn't really miss them. So does that make me incompetent to have my own opinion about it?

Does that mean that if never had any experience with a car, never took a driving class, that you would be qualified to talk about people driving?? I know you wouldn't be able to drive, at least not in the US... I don't know what they allow where you are, but you can get in deep sheep dip without a driving license.

Opinions are like a$$holes... everyone has one, but you don't have to like anyone elses... that is one of the advantages of having a free country.

One last thing... We have the bill of rights, but there was also talk about having a bill of responsibilities (never got drafter to my knowledge). In a free society, you need to be responsible for your actions, not blame someone, or something, else.

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by gelbin
My solution:

require all guns to be registered to the owner. Any gun that is used to kill or commit a crime makes the licensed owner de facto responsible until they can prove some reasonable precautions were taken to maintain control over the gun through trigger locks, using a safe, etc.

don't say it is not guns, look at the 13 year old boy in florida that killed his teacher. he found the gun in the cookie jar. come on man, if there is skimming that needs to be done on the gene pool, the most effective place to start may be with card carrying members of the nra.

dispel your fears and grow a spine.

In MA, guns are registered to the owner. The state has that on record and can look and see what you have at any time.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by AlphaTech


Have you ever been educated about firearms, other then to fear and hate them?? In my optionion, EVERYONE should know what to do with a firearm if them come upon it.

And why? What is so important about it?

That is one of the things that one NRA program goes out of it's way to do. The Eddie Eagle program is there to teach kids. The first thing that they are instructed it to never touch a gun that they 'find'.

If there are no guns you can't find them. Neither I "found" any gun in my whole life (I am 32) nor do I know a person who did...

Go, get a parent or adult, show them where they saw it, and let the adult handle it. I wish more people would look at the programs that the NRA has in place to educate people before bashing them. Yes, there are issues with all organizations, but which doesn't have issues??? Even churches do (as shown by the mollesting priests).

To compare the NRA with the church...? I hope you are not serious about that!

And again! If there isn't any guns you don't need programs like that at all.

Blaming guns for violent people is just plain stupid. If someone wants to kill someone else, they will do so. How many serial killers commit their acts with guns?? Not many. Education is one way to prevent the accidents, both freak and otherwise.

It is also plain stupid to give criminals easy access to guns. Serial killers are not the main problem, since their are not the common criminals. Most "accidents" happen in other situations.

There have also been cases where people having guns (legally, and carrying them) has stopped a criminal act. There have also been more then a few times where an armed family member has saved his/her (yes women too) family from being brutalized/killed.

I doubt that the number is significant compared to killings being prevented by banning guns.

In my own experience, I have found that women shooters are excellent. I have been beaten more then once in a competition by a woman, just because she is a better shot then I am. I could try to come up with excuses, but the end result is that she is/was better then me and deserved to win.

Interesting that you have to come up with that. Does it have any impact on the original subject? I think especially being a good shot or not is not a question of sex... like almost everything else.

Regards,

groovebuster

[gelbin]

I am not saying simply register, but impose a rebuttable presumption of liability for anything that happens with the gun.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by AlphaTech


Does that mean that if never had any experience with a car, never took a driving class, that you would be qualified to talk about people driving?? I know you wouldn't be able to drive, at least not in the US... I don't know what they allow where you are, but you can get in deep sheep dip without a driving license.

Opinions are like a$$holes... everyone has one, but you don't have to like anyone elses... that is one of the advantages of having a free country.

One last thing... We have the bill of rights, but there was also talk about having a bill of responsibilities (never got drafter to my knowledge). In a free society, you need to be responsible for your actions, not blame someone, or something, else.

I don't get your point, what does a driver's license has to do with bearing a gun? And of course I can have an opinion about cars in general and if they should be used or not, even if I am not allowed to drive or don't even have a license. The question is not, if I can handle a gun, it is if people should have access to them. That's two totally different things. By the way, I have license (it is much more harder to get one here than in the US) and I also was driving in the US already. But that's totally o/t.

Oh.... and do you try to tell me, that the US are the only free country in the world and that I am not living in a free country? Freedom is not represented by access to guns, at least that's my opinion.

And about your last thing... the bill of responsibilities is a nice thing. If it would work that well we wouldn't need any laws and no courts. But as long as this is not the case people need to be protected from themselves and others by laws. That's how it works anywhere in the world (especially in the "free" countries). And that doesn't mean at all to blame others for my actions, it is to protect me from their actions.

groovebuster

[jefhatfield]

does motorola kill apple or do guns kill people

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
does motorola kill apple or do guns kill people

There's not enough coffee in the world for me to think about that one.

How about we just agree to disagree about the firearm issue?? That is one thing that is NOT going to stop overnight, nor is there an easy fix.

With that being said... how about we try lighting a fire under motorola's collective a$$ to get the G5 produced in quantities that will allow Apple to use them in systems??? Wasn't that the hold up with the G4 processors not too long ago??? Apple wanted to release them, but motorola wasn't making them fast enough (or enough of them).

[jefhatfield]

maybe motorola is getting on it but can't really say much to us people on the outside

the woz thinks that the whole speed issue thing will die down and is certainly is not as big as when amd first broke the 1 ghz mark with their athlon

even though intel quickly followed suit with their pentium 3, the roar over speed was then on the downhill

when we are at 3 and 4 ghz in a couple of years or less, who will really care about speed then?

features will be most important...and i suspect features outside of speed top many a mac user's list right now

since i don't have firewire on my two newest machines, my next computer will be determined by that factor alone...i don't care about speed that much...especially since apple came out with a 1 ghz machine...i mean a dual 1 ghz machine

but it would be nice to see 1.5 ghz and 2 ghz, but after that, you won't see me talking about speed as even one of the top five issues

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
but it would be nice to see 1.5 ghz and 2 ghz, but after that, you won't see me talking about speed as even one of the top five issues

Wasn't there someone who said that a computer doesn't need more than 640kB of RAM? ;)

Did you ever think in 1990, that you would edit videos like you do today on your computer or how you use Photoshop these days on your machine? At least I didn't... not in such a short time!

You are right, that for the current software and the work that has to be done we hardly need more power than we have in our hands at the moment, except maybe video-decoding/editing and 3D-stuff in general. Those apps need still a lot more juice than is available these days to run in real-time.

But with all the power you also can do things you never thought about before. Video-Editing will be as "yawny" as simple word-processing with a recent computer. But there will be new fields for revolutionary software, that needs a lot more power than is available today with single processors. But those high-end machines will become more and more only interesting for a little group of people who need that power just for that one task they need to do.

But also about that I am anything but sure. Who knows what the computer of the future is capable of because it is just providing the power to realize it, giving the people the space for new ideas put into a piece of software.

Power will be always an issue in which way ever.

groovebuster

[mischief]

I will now make this thread coherent:


1. Moto IS the primary sticking point in Apple's development and manufacturing.

2.The second amendment was written intending a state like unto Switzerland, Everyone posesses and/or knows how to use and is trained for the use of everything from 9mm M1911 handguns up through the Saab Eurofighter and AAMRAM missiles.

The key is training. Every layer of gun regulation has been followed by a SURGE in production of guns to be outlawed for production the folloeing year. Gun regulation actually increses the number available. I think you should be able to get any weapon system you want so long as you are trained for it.

The term "arms" refers not to fire arms specifically but to a broad class of tools classifiable as weapons. Theoretically a slingshot or (dare I say it) G4 counts.

3. If anyone wants to argue the "foreign AND domestic" issue, consider this: The US millitary could lock this country down in seconds no matter how many handguns, rifles or even SMGs and battle rifles were out there simply on scale. What would 10 rednecks with small arms do to a cruise missile full of flechettes? Nothing.

4. Gun violence. Gun violene is prevalent for 2 reasons:

a. It's a "hot" topic that swings a lot of votes. Everyone thinks they're an expert even though mot have zero experience.

b. Guns are the most impersonal way to attack someone short of a WoMD. If I have a beef and a Gun I'm way more likely to act than if I have a sword. Guns allow Cowards to act out.


Add to that the fact that most US handgun owners never get trained and don't know what constitutes safety. This negates both the protection arguement and he regulation arguement because an untrained goof with a Glock and no record who passes his background check is WAY more dangerous than a well trained individual with a Felony "Electronic Espionage" conviction who therefore can't buy a handgun.


Here's what I'd like to see:

You shoud be able to buy any weapon you want, but ONLY after being trained by professional Police/Millitary personnell and psych screened. I think you should be required to carry a sword. It keeps things personal and you can't conceal it.

I think if we want to overthrow an unjust government we should encourage the NRA to be as millitant as possible cuz Mac owners are far more dangerous in the hands of talented hackers than a few rifles ever could be.

[AlphaTech]

mischief, interesting points... I have one correction and one question/statement to make before ending comments on this subject (I hope).

One, the M1911 is .45 caliber (I have my father's and my own clone of it, both in .45). Granted, you can chamber it to other calibers, but the most common is .45.

Two. Every gun owner that I KNOW has been trained/educated. We are talking at least 100+ people across several states. You meet people in competitions that you wouldn't normally be able to meet.

I agree fully that everyone should be educated/trained in the use of firearms, even if is a shotgun or rifle. Not everyone can handle a pistol properly. There are products out there that make it very obvious that a weapon isn't loaded. Essentially, they are large plastic flags (flourecent colors) that go into the chamber of the firearm (where a round would go) and no round can go in there when it is in place. They also have barrel locks that fit down the bore of firearms if you really want to lock them down. That can be very dangerous if you forget about it and need to use the weapon in question. Essentially, firing the weapon with that in place will most likely kill (or seriously hurt) you.

Ok, all done on this... can we move onto Mac related items again???

[mischief]

Milady got her law enforcement cert in firearms about a year ago. That's where the untrained-loaded-gun comment came from: Law enforcement gun-related Accidental Death & Dismemberment stats.

I also firmly believe "a well regulated millitia" now constitutes not firearms owners but Hackers.

[Taft]

Just thought I'd chime in with my opinion on the gun issue...

I ride a line between wanting the gov. to allow guns and wanting them to take them all away. On one hand I hate government regulation: I hate the government trying to protect us from ourselves and writing a lot of laws to regulate us and control our daily lives. On the other hand I think most people can't make educated decisions and act stupidly if not regulated.

The bottom line is that I think guns are a very dangerous thing. More than any other weapon, they are very difficult to defend against and have the extreme potential to do harm not only in the hands of the malicious but also in the hands of the extremely innocent and uninformed. This makes me extremely nervous.

My analogy is grenades. Sure they are completely different weapons (and certainly guns have more legitimate uses), but they both have similar capacities for harm. Would we ever consider giving members of the general public grenades or making them easy to get. No way. And yet if I got my hands on a gun, I could walk into a room and almost immediately kill/hurt lets say six people. Probably similar damage as I could do with a grenade. I find that scary.

And to say, "How many serial killers kill with guns?" is not accurate. How many gang related killings (even innocent people living in the "wrong" neighborhood) occur at the hands of a few with guns every year. The only reason these murders aren't brought to the attention of the media is the type of crime and who they happen to (namely poor minorities). I consider these people serial killers and their ability to kill each other and innocent people in the process is greatly aided by their posession of guns.

The ability of criminals to perpetrate crimes is also greatly aided by guns. Would I consider trying to disarm a man armed with a knife? Maybe. A gun? Forget about it.

Sure, at the core of the problem is bad people or people willing to commit bad acts. But guns do make it easier and less personal, as someone else pointed out.

My question to gun people is this...I know you want the right to owna gun, and I'll admit guns are not necessarily at the core of the problem. But isn't it possible that if we take guns out of the hands of the general public we would all be safer? Isn't that possible??

I submit that the presence of guns can only serve to make this world a more dangerous place and serves only to allow people a small amount of enjoyment from firing them (or stroking them or whatever you guys do with them).

I am somewhat familiar with guns as I'm from the UP of Michigan and my family (as well as most families there) is full of hunters and we had a number of guns in the house. And unfortunately, even though most people are trained with guns, too many are very irresponsible with their guns and I see this kind of behavior all of the time.

Taft

[groovebuster]

AlphaTech, why do I have the feeling you are ignoring my posts?

groovebuster

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by groovebuster
AlphaTech, why do I have the feeling you are ignoring my posts?

groovebuster

Maybe because I am.... If you read my last one, you would understand why.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by gelbin
If you've got to carry a gun to keep your fragile seat at number one, this is a bullet you can't outrun.

indeed...

[LethalWolfe]

groovebuster

My Q regarding who has gun experience and who doesn't was simply a matter of curiousity<sp?> No need to get defensive.

Yes, guns are designed to kill. But can someone please dig up some recent, unbiased (as unbiased as humans can be) stats on the number of legally purchased firearms that are used to commit violent crimes in the US? I read recently (recently being w/in the past month) that more people die in the US from poisoning then from accidental shootings. It was a print article and I'll scan/post it if I can find it. Until then you can either take my word for it, or disregard it.

I've said it once, or twice :D, and I'll keep saying it until someone counters it. But how will restricting the ability for lawful citizens to own firearms curb the criminals who have illegaly obtained them? I cannot legally buy, sell, or manufacture pot/crack/LSD but that doesn't mean it's not easy to come buy. Prohibition failed to keep alcohol out of the publics' hands. Why would guns be any different than drugs or alcohol?

Gun violence is a serious issue in the US, I've never contested that. But why are we focusing on the people who *haven't* broken the law instead of the people who *have*?

Getting firearms out of the general population will not make this country a safer place, because the general poplulation doesn't commit violent crimes. And the people who do commit violent crimes w/firearms most likely didn't get their guns legally in the first place, so they are not hampered in any significant way in regards to getting more guns.

So, in short, we need to focus on the people who break the law, not the people who obey the law.

Lethal

[Taft]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

I've said it once, or twice :D, and I'll keep saying it until someone counters it. But how will restricting the ability for lawful citizens to own firearms curb the criminals who have illegaly obtained them? I cannot legally buy, sell, or manufacture pot/crack/LSD but that doesn't mean it's not easy to come buy. Prohibition failed to keep alcohol out of the publics' hands. Why would guns be any different than drugs or alcohol?

Lethal

Thats a really good point that I had honestly never thought of. But the question then stands: if people get guns illegally now when they are regulated, would more or less people get guns illegally if they were banned? Or would deregulation be the answer?

I guess there is no easy answer for this. For me, what it comes down to is that I don't like guns. I find them unnecessary and they make me nervous. But as I say for most everything, to each his own. The only problem with saying that as guns may become my problem someday if the situation isn't addressed. Tricky business.

Taft

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by Taft


Thats a really good point that I had honestly never thought of. But the question then stands: if people get guns illegally now when they are regulated, would more or less people get guns illegally if they were banned? Or would deregulation be the answer?

Taft

I think there would probably be a short term drop in gun violence as buyers and sellers made new connections. For example, John can't get guns from Bob anymore, but it's only a matter of time until John finds a new black market gun "dealer." After this "adjustment" period I think gun crime will get around previous levels again. There might be a sustained drop, but I doudt it would be a significant amount. And I think law makers would go "Well, that didn't work to well. What next?" In the US generally cities/states w/the strongest gun control laws are usually high on the list for violent and/or gun related crimes. People simply leave that city/state to purchase their firearms then re-enter the state w/the now illegal guns. If the entire country cracked down like that then people would just bring in guns from across the border.

Personally, I think all firearms need to be registered. IMO, it's a bit unnerving that there is no registration in Indiana. If a gun is found, that might have been used in a crime, I think it's dumb that the cops have no way to trace where that gun has been. I mean, you might be able to track the serial number by starting at the gunmaker and following it to the reginal/local distribuator, then to the gun store, then to the buyer... Of course there are more Orwellian people out there who would disagree w/me. But I think the good outways the potential bad in regards to gun registration.

I think a big key is education. IMO, too many people are "blaming" guns for crime instead of looking at what really causes crime (lack of education, drugs, poverty, etc.,). Bad things happen when people are unhappy and desperate. And very bad things happen when unhappy and desperate people arm themselves. So what's a better solution, disarming everyone or working to reduce the number of people who are unhappy and desperate? Disarming is only a quick fix. I realize this is a simplified view, but it's better to start simple/small then work yer way up to big/complicate. ;)

The US has a bad habbit of labeling things "wrong" or "bad" and sweeping them under the rug (drug and sex education come to mind). Instead of solving the problem, or educating people, we hide it or find a scapegoat (guns and video games seem to be popular these days ;)).


Lethal

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
groovebuster

I've said it once, or twice :D, and I'll keep saying it until someone counters it. But how will restricting the ability for lawful citizens to own firearms curb the criminals who have illegaly obtained them? I cannot legally buy, sell, or manufacture pot/crack/LSD but that doesn't mean it's not easy to come buy. Prohibition failed to keep alcohol out of the publics' hands. Why would guns be any different than drugs or alcohol?

Getting firearms out of the general population will not make this country a safer place, because the general poplulation doesn't commit violent crimes. And the people who do commit violent crimes w/firearms most likely didn't get their guns legally in the first place, so they are not hampered in any significant way in regards to getting more guns.
Lethal

I already suggested then to legalize everything. ;) Since you can buy LSD anyway around the corner, why not legalizing it? But still I don't get the similarity between guns and drugs? Two total different subjects brought together in a dangerous way.

And a society without firearms IS a safer place. I live in one, so wonna tell me about it? If you can't buy guns at every corner anymore you also make it harder for the criminals to get one! But the US has the problem, that there are so many of them in circulation that it would take years even decades to get rid of them, since criminals would hamster them before the laws would be official. But is that still a reason to not doing it? I don't get you folks!

groovebuster

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by groovebuster
I don't get you folks!

I don't get us either! ;)

This is definitely one f*cked up country...scary thing is that it's a whole hell of a lot better than most of them out there...

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by groovebuster


I already suggested then to legalize everything. ;) Since you can buy LSD anyway around the corner, why not legalizing it? But still I don't get the similarity between guns and drugs? Two total different subjects brought together in a dangerous way.

And a society without firearms IS a safer place. I live in one, so wonna tell me about it? If you can't buy guns at every corner anymore you also make it harder for the criminals to get one! But the US has the problem, that there are so many of them in circulation that it would take years even decades to get rid of them, since criminals would hamster them before the laws would be official. But is that still a reason to not doing it? I don't get you folks!

groovebuster

I bring up the drug thing 'cause many people think that banning guns will get rid of them, but it won't. Just like banning drugs hasn't kept them out of this country. I just needed an example of how it would be "easy" to smuggle guns into the US. Assuming every gun in America was destroyed it would only take a few years for the "gun trade" to fully develop and then you'd have gun dealers right next to the drug dealers.

And I totally agree that a society w/o firearms is a safer place, but there is no way to remove every firearm from the US and make sure no new firearms get smuggled in. And I don't feel that a society where only criminals have access to firearms is a safer place.

And about not getting us... Well, in some aspects, we're from very different cultures (you're German or living in German, yes?). I don't expect people from other countries/cultures to understand Americans (especially when it comes to firearms). Americans, as a society, hold individual freedoms paramount and we are nearly paranoid about those freedoms being eroded away. The police in London have closed circut cameras all over that city an no Londoners seem to mind. At at Superbowl a couple of years back there were cameras using face recognition technology in and around the stadium and when people found out they went ape *****. I swear every other word on the news was either "Orwell", "1984", or "Big Brother." Many Americans want to have their cake and eat it too. They want complete security/safety and complete freedom. Yet the fail to realize that it's a give and take. Personally, I'd be willing to give up a little bit of my freedom so the cops could have an easier time getting the bad guys, but I might be a little optimistic that the "extra" power given to the police/government woudn't be abused. I know it's all a balancing act, and in the end if we are going to err, I'd rather we erred on the side of too much freedom than too little.

Sorry for this OT rant...


Lethal

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Sorry for this OT rant...
This thread has been off-topic since page 1... just the way any good Apple dying thread should be! And it's all thanks to ME! Buuuahahahahahaha!

[Mad Max]

OK I admit, my first post was of the topic of gun control, but there are some things that just need to be said.

There are many good and valid points being made here, and there only seems to be a few biased arguments being made to whether or not people should be allowed to own guns.

I also believe that everyone agrees that education is necessary, What I am wondering is... how do you properly educate.

I grew up around guns, and it was not until I went hunting with my dad fir the first and last time that I understood what they are capable of.

The question remains, given that it is too late for our generations (and it is), how do you propose that we help our children make a difference.

Do you take your kid's elementary school class out into the soccer field and blow away the class hamster so they all get the idea that guns not only hurt the hamster (really really bad) but that it can also hurt the people that care for the hamster.

Its a cruel and crude example, but how do you teach children and others the value of life and what it means to actually pull the trigger.

I say, let's quit arguing about ownership and all that, just focus on making it safer for our kids and grandkids by educating them well.

We should be discussing how we should teach those new to firearms the benefits and consequences... and most of all, respect for both the gun and the man.

[groovebuster]

I bring up the drug thing 'cause many people think that banning guns will get rid of them, but it won't. Just like banning drugs hasn't kept them out of this country. I just needed an example of how it would be "easy" to smuggle guns into the US. Assuming every gun in America was destroyed it would only take a few years for the "gun trade" to fully develop and then you'd have gun dealers right next to the drug dealers.

I think that really is also a question of mentality as you already mentioned. We were not raisede with guns present in our daily life, so we don't have an afinity to them. I think it is how a whole society is handling that subject and how it is part of their thinking and life-style. It is not that we are living in a cage with no borders here. The EU doesn't have controlled borders inside since a while anymore. So if you want to bring something from Germany to France, just sit in the car and bring it there. No checkpoint you have to worry about. But since the laws about guns are pretty much the same in the other countries of the EU that isn't really problem. The real problem for us (and Germany in particular) is the border to the former east-block, especially Poland. There is gun smuggling from Russia, where you can buy a gun for a few bucks with loads of ammunition. Since the borders are "open" to the former communistic countries, we have of course an increase of illegal guns in Germany and also criminals who use them. But still not as bad as in the US. I still believe that banning guns would help in the long run, but that's something you guys have to decide.

And I totally agree that a society w/o firearms is a safer place, but there is no way to remove every firearm from the US and make sure no new firearms get smuggled in. And I don't feel that a society where only criminals have access to firearms is a safer place.

But less firearms are making it a safer place. Less firearms -> lower possibilty of someone using them. Even if 20% of the criminals don't have access anymore and therefore can't use them i would consider that a big success.

And about not getting us... Well, in some aspects, we're from very different cultures (you're German or living in German, yes?). I don't expect people from other countries/cultures to understand Americans (especially when it comes to firearms). Americans, as a society, hold individual freedoms paramount and we are nearly paranoid about those freedoms being eroded away.

Paranoid is maybe the right word. All internet traffic in and out the US is controlled by the government/intelligence and nobody seems to give a *****. But when it comes down to firerarms people literally freak out. That is also shizophrenic in some way. People don't mind to be profiled by companies, like when you a have a "member card" of a grocery-store chain, but taking away their guns makes them upset. That is really kind of strange for me. Here in Germany we have very strict laws to protect the privacy of people, much more harder than in the US. Privacy is what I call freedom, because even a gun can't bring it back to you, once it is lost. Maybe it would be interesting to define the word freedom?

The police in London have closed circut cameras all over that city an no Londoners seem to mind. At at Superbowl a couple of years back there were cameras using face recognition technology in and around the stadium and when people found out they went ape *****. I swear every other word on the news was either "Orwell", "1984", or "Big Brother." Many Americans want to have their cake and eat it too. They want complete security/safety and complete freedom. Yet the fail to realize that it's a give and take. Personally, I'd be willing to give up a little bit of my freedom so the cops could have an easier time getting the bad guys, but I might be a little optimistic that the "extra" power given to the police/government woudn't be abused. I know it's all a balancing act, and in the end if we are going to err, I'd rather we erred on the side of too much freedom than too little.

Of course they don't mind, because it is regulated exactly by law, what they are allowed to do with the collected data. If somebody is not a suspect they have to delete the data right away again. So if you are not a criminal, you don't have to fear anything. As I said before, they can track and profile you just by the use of your credit-card or the use of your cell-phone. They can do that easily and they do. The question is, if there are the laws to protect privacy of the individual. And as far as I learned it the regulations on that subject in the US are much "lazier" than in european countries.

Sorry for this OT rant...


It's OK, but maybe we really should get back to the original subject! ;)

groovebuster

[Mad Max]

my wife even has her own just like it:D

[Mad Max]

what about stiffer punishment as a deterrent? seems to me that if violent offenders were faced with having their hands chopped off, people might think twice about about a life without hands before shooting someone (aside from the accasional fit of rage):p

[mmmdreg]

umm...what happened to the topic?

[Mad Max]

Along the lines of my original post... my meaning was that Motorola was actually helping Macintosh by have the edge of innovation already at hand. Other rumors have it that theyr are still getting ready to move forward again. this time at the same time as the PC industry. When the PC CPU makes the move to the .13 microm core, you will most likely see motorola do the same with a new offering...the G5. They are not on their laurels over there at motorola, they are just trying to keep in pace with the Mac industry.

I think Mac users have had it easy... while they pay a high price for their computer, it actually lasts longer. The PC user can expect at least one upgrade of some kind every six months. So in the end, PC users are actually paying more for their pasty rag-tag machine than thos who purchased the most elegant Mac Titanium.

I don't remember who said that Mac users pay too much for old technology, but i HAVE to disagree with that.

Coming from a PC user (I use my pc more than my mac) that should be something.

[Mad Max]

which topic were you referring to? Death by gun or death by motorola?:D

[Mad Max]

I think some good chocolate ice-cream and brownie dessert would be good right now... it is awfully hot over here in Taiwan.

What's the weather like in Sydney, Dreg?

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by Mad Max
Along the lines of my original post... my meaning was that Motorola was actually helping Macintosh by have the edge of innovation already at hand. Other rumors have it that theyr are still getting ready to move forward again. this time at the same time as the PC industry. When the PC CPU makes the move to the .13 microm core, you will most likely see motorola do the same with a new offering...the G5. They are not on their laurels over there at motorola, they are just trying to keep in pace with the Mac industry.

I think Mac users have had it easy... while they pay a high price for their computer, it actually lasts longer. The PC user can expect at least one upgrade of some kind every six months. So in the end, PC users are actually paying more for their pasty rag-tag machine than thos who purchased the most elegant Mac Titanium.

I don't remember who said that Mac users pay too much for old technology, but i HAVE to disagree with that.

Coming from a PC user (I use my pc more than my mac) that should be something.

I think you are right that Motorola tries to keep pace, but in the last two years they hardly did. In fact on performance the gap widens more and more to the Intel/AMD world. It doesn't help to have the better core design in your processor when you can't make those puppies flying. And even if for more and more users raw power isn't the only thing they are concerned about with a new machine, there are still a lot of pros out there who just need as much power as they can get. For those people the price of a machine is secondary in most cases, because time is money. If I run mainly Photoshop on my workstation I hardly find any argument anymore why I should use a Mac. The underlying OS is not really important, since PS works exactly the same within the application. I doubt that a machine like that, used for a certain task is outdated faster than any Mac these days. Those times are over, it is equal. If you are running a lot of different tasks on your machine the OS plays maybe a bigger role, but even then... Standard (pro) apps work the same on both platforms, and in most cases faster these days on a Windows box.

Don't get me wrong on that, I'm a Mac user since 12 years and it was always my preferred platform, no matter if for busniness or private use. But even I start to think about it meanwhile to maybe get a Non-Mac if they don't get things faster straight. Loyality is something very important for me and I stayed with Apple even in hard times. But my workstation isn't just a hobby, I have to make money with it. And what counts is the result. The faster I get it, the better I stay competetive. From a certain point on I can't be picky anymore, if I run Windows or MacOS X under my apps, time is money.

Last year I bought a G4/733 Quicksilver to pass the time until they introduce really fast and new high-end machines. I didn't feel like buying the top of the line G4 since I considered it wasting money, I wanted to save the money for somthing really fast. But that's 6 months ago and it is almost May now. Where are the significantly faster machines? Not even announced, while Intel/AMD have processors with more than 2GHz! The money is burning in my pocket and wants/has to be spent. I start to become impatient.

So even if the G5 will be as amazing as everybody hopes, AMD is introducing the Hammer soon, so will the G5 really be faster then? Nobody knows so far.

But one thing is for sure... if the G5 isn't there by summer, I will switch systems for the tasks that demand real power. I can't wait any longer then.

So somehow Motorola is killing Apple with their lack of perfomance. The pro users are very important for Apple and they start to become pissed and want to spend their money for boxes without an Apple label, if nothing happens very quickly. Sad for apple, since they have great products, but that's how it is, when you are dependend on one chip manufacturer these days.

That Apple sticks with "old technology" in their machines isn't surprising at all for me. I am pretty sure that also Apple didn't expect that it would take Motorola that long to finish the G5. The designs are probably finished since months, just the processor is missing. To put the old processor into the new board would be probably more complicated as we might think and the few % of better performance overall wouldn't be worth it.

I don't know what to expect from the future for Apple, they are healthy still but that can change very quickly as we know. It is all depending on finally getting lightning fast processors to be an alternative to other platforms again. At the moment the Mac is like a fully equipped luxury Mercedes with the engine of a lawn mower. And if I have a Mercedes, then I want to move it fast if necessary and not just going 50 km/h at the max.

groovebuster

[Mad Max]

Originally posted by groovebuster


So somehow Motorola is killing Apple with their lack of perfomance. The pro users are very important for Apple and they start to become pissed and want to spend their money for boxes without an Apple label, if nothing happens very quickly. Sad for apple, since they have great products, but that's how it is, when you are dependend on one chip manufacturer these days.

That Apple sticks with "old technology" in their machines isn't surprising at all for me. I am pretty sure that also Apple didn't expect that it would take Motorola that long to finish the G5. The designs are probably finished since months, just the processor is missing. To put the old processor into the new board would be probably more complicated as we might think and the few % of better performance overall wouldn't be worth it.

groovebuster

You have some valid points, but remember that in a time when the industry was accepting very few Macintosh, if Motorola had released what they had available for the price it would cost to make it, Apple surely would not be around today.

They actually have the new CPU's already, but if they released the G5 one year after the G4, they surely would have shot themselves in the foot.

One thing that does prove that MHz doesn't mean performance.. go to www.tomshardware.com and look at the comparison between the P4 and the Athlon. Actually you will find that a 1.4 GHz Athlon outperformed a 2.0 GHz P4. Remember that performance is relative to the task at hand. THe G4 really kicks @$$ in true graphics processing, while the PC take the cake for office apps.

I would like to see a video car GPU based on the graphics power of the G4...He He He:D

[PCUser]

I seriously doubt that they have the new CPU's already. Do you think Apple would not release those new CPU's if they had them? I don't. Apple would have loved to have a huge performance gap in their favor. But right now, it's not.

Yes, performance is relative to the task at hand. However, if you have a task that doesn't utilitize AltiVec, then you won't see the G4's strength.


I have never seen an Athlon 1.4GHz beating a P4A 2.4GHz (P4A's are the only P4's at 2.4GHz) in any test at Tom's Hardware, or anywhere else. That's just wishful thinking. However, I did see an overclocked Athlon XP at 1.918GHz keeping pace with a P4A at 2.4GHz with 400MHz RAM (usually coming neck-and-neck), but generally falling behind a P4A at 2.4GHz with 533MHz RAM. (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q2/020402/p4_2400-08.html)

If you notice, each progressively higher clocked P4A gets less percentage better in the scores. In the first test (I think I have percent better then math right, but I'm a bit rusty) a 2.4GHz P4A scores 4% better then a 2.2GHz P4A, 10% better then 2.0GHz P4A, and 17% better then a 1.8GHz P4A. (A 2.0GHz P4A scores 8% better then a 2.0GHz P4). Logically, if megahertz was simply an indication of speed (such as FLOPS), then the 2.4GHz P4A should be 10% faster then the 2.2GHz P4A, 20% faster then the 2GHz P4A, and 30% faster then the 1.8GHz P4A.

Simply because Intel is at 2.4GHz doesn't mean it is 140% ahead (it IS ahead, just not anywhere that much) of Motorola.

Anyway, end of rant.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by Mad Max


You have some valid points, but remember that in a time when the industry was accepting very few Macintosh, if Motorola had released what they had available for the price it would cost to make it, Apple surely would not be around today.

They actually have the new CPU's already, but if they released the G5 one year after the G4, they surely would have shot themselves in the foot.

One thing that does prove that MHz doesn't mean performance.. go to www.tomshardware.com and look at the comparison between the P4 and the Athlon. Actually you will find that a 1.4 GHz Athlon outperformed a 2.0 GHz P4. Remember that performance is relative to the task at hand. THe G4 really kicks @$$ in true graphics processing, while the PC take the cake for office apps.

I would like to see a video car GPU based on the graphics power of the G4...He He He:D

Why would they have shot themselves in the foot? The G3 processor is really an oldy meanwhile and like the G3 and the G4 where coexisting for years now, they will do the same with the G4 and the G5. The G4s will be in the consumer products, the G5 in the pro machines. Don't forget that Apple is just one of several customers for their Chips. And fact is that they had problems the past 2 years to really speed up their G3s and G4s. I doubt that there is a masterplan behind it. It is just that they had problems to make progress. Of course there is prototypes of the G5 already, but considering the problems with the G4 I am pretty sure it is not a question of marketing by motorola that it is not released so far, it is just not ready to be manufactured in big quantities and reasonable clock-speed. Also the G4 was late when they introduced it.

I know about the fact the the Athlon is faster than the P4 because of the design flaws Intel built into it. But a 1.4 GHz Athlon isn't state of the art anyway anymore. You get the Athlon MP 2GHz for 299$. A 1GHz G4 outperforms a 2 GHz Athlon? Both as MP systems? I don't think so... even not with Altivec. I sat at a dual Athlon 1.8Ghz lately and the machine was blazingly fast. The DP G4 1Ghz right beside was slower in general, no matter what. I am an Apple fan since 12 years, but that demonstration how noticeably slower the Hi-End Mac is compared to a windows box almost made me cry. And you get the MP Athlons clocked higher meanwhile at 2 GHz. So Apple and Motorola have to do something quickly. Just another speed bump of the G4s to maybe 1.2 or 1.4 GHz won't make it, especially not with that antique board around it. And it's not that Intel and AMD won't improve their processor speed too. And what about the Hammer? Maybe a lot of us folks stop cheering about the G5 so much when in real world tests it turns out, that the Hammer is faster than the G5... you never know.

groovebuster

[Ifeelbloated]

I wish we could get insider information from Motorola. Does anyone know anyone that works in the semi-conductor labs at Motorola? Is it top secret? Does Steve Jobs have a closed circuit camera set up at the front entrance so he can observe going ons?
Let me go off on a tangent here; when I was young I saw some of those Pink Panther movies and remembered Clouseau's butler, the Chinese guy. I forgot his name but anyway, one of his jobs was to attack Clouseau when he came home so the Inspector could practice his martial arts skills. I thought their bouts were hilarious. I always fantasized that as some kind of dream job. It'd be cool if Steve and I could have an arrangement like that. :D

[AlphaTech]

How long have we seen the celeron processors being marketted along with the pee3's and pee4's??? Are the celeron's considered 'dated' or 'oldies'?? Probably by people that are in the know, but the average consumer probably just looks at the speed numbers and figures that most are created equal (even though they are not).

Oh and groovebuster, where did you find a 1.8GHz and 2GHz Athlon??? They don't exist. The top speed for the Athlon XP processor is 1.73GHz (XP 2100+). I have also seen those (the 2100+) chips in a retail package listing for $257 (US$). See for yourself at http://www.googlegear.com/jsp/ProductList.jsp?ThirdCategoryCode=010413 if you don't believe me. They also list the real speed rating of the processors, not just the name number. Those retail packages include a heat sink, fan and 3 year warranty. The OEM ones only have a 30 day warranty, which is why the site also recommends getting the retail version.

Don't give numbers that are that false... they show up in neon colors over here. Just like if I said I had seen/used a G4 dual 2GHz system... don't exist (yet at least) unless I meant that combined it was 2GHz which also isn't true.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Ifeelbloated
I wish we could get insider information from Motorola. Does anyone know anyone that works in the semi-conductor labs at Motorola? Is it top secret? Does Steve Jobs have a closed circuit camera set up at the front entrance so he can observe going ons?
Let me go off on a tangent here; when I was young I saw some of those Pink Panther movies and remembered Clouseau's butler, the Chinese guy. I forgot his name but anyway, one of his jobs was to attack Clouseau when he came home so the Inspector could practice his martial arts skills. I thought their bouts were hilarious. I always fantasized that as some kind of dream job. It'd be cool if Steve and I could have an arrangement like that. :D

Kato!!!!

[PCUser]

He was probably using an Athlon XP 1800+ (1.53GHz), and a rig with the top dual Athlon, which is the Athlon MP 2000+ (1.67GHz). AMD put those version numbers on the CPU's specifically so that end users who didn't know better would assume an AMD Athlon XP/MP 1800+ was 1.8GHz, etc. That move by AMD really irked me.

Also, the best price I've seen for a single Athlon MP 2000 chip is $261 (including shipping) on www.pricewatch.com, but the warranty sucks.

[AlphaTech]

PCUser... to hell with pricewatch.com... look at www.googlegear.com for parts... they have the AMD XP 2100+ for the $257 I posted (as of today, not last week). They also have the MP 2000+ listed at $268 WITH a 3 year warranty... plus it includes the heat sink and fan (NOT an OEM version). I haven't ordered from them (yet) so I don't know what they do for shipping. Really worth looking into.

[PCUser]

Pricewatch.com is a sampling of many vendors, not just the lowest ones. It lists product info (such as warranty), price, shipping, and company. Right now the best price/warranty/shipping I can find on pricewatch for the Athlon MP 2000+ is *drumroll* GoogleGear. But if someone comes up with a better price/warranty/shipping setup, I can find out about it. Why lock yourself into vendor?

BTW, the price I quoted was from today, not last week. Where did last week come from?

(I removed the comment about the XP/MP thing because the first time I read your post I didn't notice that you mentioned the price of the MP. Doh!)

[AlphaTech]

I know that the MP and XP are different, hence me listing BOTH with their listed prices (both right from googlegear.com's site).

Are you getting prices on OEM or retail versions??? I am listing the retails since they have the 3 year warranty (you mentioned crappy warranty) as well as a heat sink and fan (good to have the ones AMD knows are rated for those chips).

[PCUser]

Both. Pricewatch doesn't just list retail or OEM, it lists whatever the vendors it checks are selling it for. GoogleGear is listed as selling OEM with 30 day warranty for $261 with $10-$12 shipping, and then a few entries later as retail with 3 year warranty for $268 with $10-$12 shipping. With heatsink and fan, as well. Hmm, sounds like the same deal you quoted to me. And if I was looking for the best deal and looking to purchase today, I would go through GoogleGear... because they beat out the other vendors.

This time GoogleGear was the best. If someone else beat GoogleGear, I'd go with them. I don't just buy from one vendor. Why should I?

(The closest deal listed is from "Jazz Technology", but it doesn't have 3 year warranty.)

[mischief]

does all this PC crap have to do with the price of powdered mouse testicles in Taiwan?

Nada.

Neither does it have anything to do with the A/I/M alliance.

[AlphaTech]

I usually check prices between a few vendors that have done well by me in the past. I also have a local guy that usually matches the prices from online, or comes damn close to it. He is close enough that I can go there and pick it up (eliminates shipping charges). If I do need it faster, it's typically $8 shipping and I have it the following morning.

In my opinion, spending a few extra dollars to get the 3 year warranty plus the heat sink and fan is a good deal. Considering how much heat sinks can go for (up to $15-$20 with or without fans). That's usually the deciding factor for me. I am waiting for a guy to want my 1.4GH AMD Athlon (thunderbird) before I order up the XP 2100+. I also have to check and see if the current bios level on my motherboard will work with it, or if I need to wait for another revision to come out.

Have fun with the new chips... and hope you have good dip to go along with them :D

Spoke too soon... I just checked, and there is a new bios update out (F9) that supports both the XP 2100+ and the 2200+... guess they are coming out with another chip soon (if it isn't out already).

[eirik]

Originally posted by Mad Max


I think Mac users have had it easy... while they pay a high price for their computer, it actually lasts longer. The PC user can expect at least one upgrade of some kind every six months.

Every once in a while, I realize that I've taken something for granted too long and get in a rut. I've long accepted the premise that Mac's generally 'last longer'. For the most part, I have done so because I read many TCO comparisons spanning one or more upgrades.

The Mac was great for upgrading because the supporting components were generally high-end that would be useful for longer durations. And, Apple made this practical with the daughercard architecture.

When one upgraded an x86 machine in a major way, component incompatabilities would compell additional upgrades, adding to the upgrade cost.

Well, I haven't seen any TCO comparisons for more than four years. I am now beginning to wonder if I can any longer accept the 'Mac's last longer' premise.

Another aspect to this, how do the product cycles of Mac's compare with those of Dell, Gateway, and other x86 makers? That is, is the PowerMac at 9 months for speed bump upgrades and 18 months for motherboard upgrades (I just made this figures up BTW.). If Dell, for example, has shorter upgrade cycles, then this would be to Dell's favor. Offering an improved widget does not necessarily make yesterday's widget obsolete. In fact, until broadband and even more digital hub applications pervade the market, the average Joe can get along quite nicely with older computers.

Although, Apple's MacOS X, is a contradiction to that last point.

Cheers,

Eirik

[Mad Max]

Here are the hard facts. read this article before continuing...and notice the benchmarks.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q4/011031/index.html

All I am saying is that MHz doesn't mean performance. An 1800+ Athlon (1533MHz) outperforms a 2 GHz P4. There is more than 466MHz Difference (467 to be exact) between the two. Is this not proof that regardless of the naming shceme, MHz don't matter anymore?

Personally, I am glad that you all are looking so closely at the Athlon processors:D (Stock going up, evil laugh). And I assure you that the Hammer A.K.A. the K8 is going to change the industry radically (If you had seen the Hammer running 32 bit Windows and 64 bit Linux on the same CPU at the same time, you just know....).

My point was, that Motorola continues to be a leading manufacturer of other technologies (look at their GSM phones). To say they can't improve their own processor is saying your fingernails won't grow back if you cut them.

If motorola and Apple released products that the market wasn't ready for, billions of dollars would be wasted on marketing and production.

In real-world tests (again) the G4 was (and still is) more than adequate. Until there is software that will take advantage of the G5 architecture, it would be a waste of time and money to market it.

Find someone who works for Adobe and ask about their product roadmap. Ask if it incorporates G5 instructions. You'll be surprised!


:p :p :p

[eirik]

Originally posted by Mad Max
Here are the hard facts. read this article before continuing...and notice the benchmarks.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q4/011031/index.html

All I am saying is that MHz doesn't mean performance. An 1800+ Athlon (1533MHz) outperforms a 2 GHz P4. There is more than 466MHz Difference (467 to be exact) between the two. Is this not proof that regardless of the naming shceme, MHz don't matter anymore?

Personally, I am glad that you all are looking so closely at the Athlon processors:D (Stock going up, evil laugh). And I assure you that the Hammer A.K.A. the K8 is going to change the industry radically (If you had seen the Hammer running 32 bit Windows and 64 bit Linux on the same CPU at the same time, you just know....).

My point was, that Motorola continues to be a leading manufacturer of other technologies (look at their GSM phones). To say they can't improve their own processor is saying your fingernails won't grow back if you cut them.

If motorola and Apple released products that the market wasn't ready for, billions of dollars would be wasted on marketing and production.

In real-world tests (again) the G4 was (and still is) more than adequate. Until there is software that will take advantage of the G5 architecture, it would be a waste of time and money to market it.

Find someone who works for Adobe and ask about their product roadmap. Ask if it incorporates G5 instructions. You'll be surprised!


:p :p :p

Very intriguing post!!! This thread needed a shot in the arm.

Your last paragraph, however, puzzles me. Its my understanding the software developers write their code to the OS and its API's, not the CPU. If a new CPU is involved, then they must recompile, provided a compiler is available. Is this what you mean by G5 instructions?

If Adobe were writing in machine language to get extra performance, I should think that that would be incredibly impractical.

This isn't to say that the CPU is entirely irrelevant in programming. In the case of the G4, for example, one should program algorithsm in the form of matrix operations to exploit AltiVec. AltiVec loves matrix operations! :p

Any of you programming studs mind confirming or correcting me?

I see that you work for a motherboard company in Taiwan, according to your profile. I noticed that my mouth started to water when I read this. Wow, we may have someone aboard with inside or first-hand knowledge of the Hammer and possibly the G5. I'm looking forward to reading more of your posts.

Eirik

[cb911]

everybody, chill!!! Motorola isn't killing Apple they're making the next generation EUV (Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography) chips. chips made with EUV will be able to have way smaller curcuit patterns printed on them. this will result in speeds of 10GHz or faster.....

[eirik]

Originally posted by cb911
everybody, chill!!! Motorola isn't killing Apple they're making the next generation EUV (Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography) chips. chips made with EUV will be able to have way smaller curcuit patterns printed on them. this will result in speeds of 10GHz or faster.....

Well, they're also working on Silicon Germanium hybrid semiconductors too. But, I haven't heard of a credible source saying we'll see anything from this or EUV anytime soon, such as in less than two years. Do you have a source on this EUV stuff?

Eirik
:rolleyes:

[Mad Max]

Originally posted by eirik


Your last paragraph, however, puzzles me. Its my understanding the software developers write their code to the OS and its API's, not the CPU. If a new CPU is involved, then they must recompile, provided a compiler is available. Is this what you mean by G5 instructions?

If Adobe were writing in machine language to get extra performance, I should think that that would be incredibly impractical.

This isn't to say that the CPU is entirely irrelevant in programming. In the case of the G4, for example, one should program algorithsm in the form of matrix operations to exploit AltiVec. AltiVec loves matrix operations! :p

Eirik

You are not mistaken. I was trying to put it simply given Adobe (and other software companies) usually use the term "instructions" for end-users with little knowledge of programming...just to make their lives easier:D

You might also find that new advances in technology (or CPU cores to be more specific) usually will have a software that takes direct advantage of it. Of course, the software must be "backwards compatible" in order to get the most out of their sales.

My only point was to say, you can confirm with software vendors that they are currently "tweaking" the software to perform with the G5 specs... proof of the G5.... you decide.

About EUV... does the term "Non-disclosure Agreement" mean anything to you?!?!:p People have lost their jobs for saying less (I know what you wrote is available online freely, I just don't want to put anyone on the spot, like me for example).

All I am trying to do is say that Motorola is in a position to give Apple a big breath of Life. The times they are a'changin';)

btw. the new AMD Thoroughbred CPU even kicks the P4 Northwoods @$$.

Money money muuunneee!

[Mad Max]

Originally posted by eirik



When one upgraded an x86 machine in a major way, component incompatabilities would compell additional upgrades, adding to the upgrade cost.


Eirik

This is too true:mad: Now when you upgrade, it isn't just RAM...(although RAM doesn't hurt, he he he);) but you usually find yourself with a new CPU, Motherboard, Memory and VGA card to boot! Given the cost of the High-end cards can be as much as USD$400 (finally found out what my motivation was to work for a Motherboard/VGA manufacturer;) )

[mischief]

Hypothetically,

If Moto OR IBM just scaled their existing dies down for EUV would that mean one could....say......put 4 G3 CPU's on the same size chip as an existing .13 cut chip?

How about 4 G4 CPU's on the same size chip as Apollo.:D

This would explain the comments about "the G4 has a lot of life left in it.":p

Perhaps Steve will pull something out of his orofice.:eek:

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by mischief
Perhaps Steve will pull something out of his orofice.:eek:
If there's one reason NOT to watch the MWNY keynote...

[wake up Jobs!!!]

DEMOCRATS SUCK!!!!!!!!!
look at all there failures, Bay of Pigs, Ellian Gonzalez(stupid kid), 18th ammendment (ban on alcohol)(i think). All democrats do is get layed in the oval office (kennedy, clinton), raise taxes, destroy our military , take money away from schools and enducation to give to poor fu*ckers who don't want to work and jack off.
This is why democrats suck!

All this from a 14 year old, and to think.. you guys are fighting over guns, why don't you go shoot your selves.(not to be taken seriously)

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by wake up Jobs!!!
DEMOCRATS SUCK!!!!!!!!!
look at all there failures, Bay of Pigs, Ellian Gonzalez(stupid kid), 18th ammendment (ban on alcohol)(i think). All democrats do is get layed in the oval office (kennedy, clinton), raise taxes, destroy our military , take money away from schools and enducation to give to poor fu*ckers who don't want to work and jack off.
This is why democrats suck!

All this from a 14 year old, and to think.. you guys are fighting over guns, why don't you go shoot your selves.(not to be taken seriously)

And just when this thread was starting to wind down...

It's actually the Republicans that are taking money away from schools with their ridiculous tax cuts...

Please grow up and come back to the forums when you have something worthwhile to say.

[jefhatfield]

i used to hate democrats because i thought they were all southern rednecks like jimmy-boy carter and i was 14 then

now i am almost 40 and in the last three elections i have voted for, were for southern democrats

clinton is a redneck and gore is from, uh, tennessee with a banjo on his knee...but at least they have the pulse of the nation more than the current republicans who only seem to watch out for the rich and "pretend" to watch out for the religious of america

w is doing a good job and is the first republican that i have liked since gerald ford and nixon...but like i said the party now, like it has been since reagan, only looks out for the ultra rich and this is bad for the morale of america and working stiffs like me

[jelloshotsrule]

go nader!

yowza

[cb911]

it may seem like motorola isn't coming up with the goods, but they are planning for the long-term. forget all this speculation about the G5, all you need to know is that when it is released it will be a whole different era.
oh, by the way, personally i think that we'll see the G5 at SF.:D

[Mad Max]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


clinton is a redneck and gore is from, uh, tennessee with a banjo on his knee...but at least they have the pulse of the nation more than the current republicans who only seem to watch out for the rich and "pretend" to watch out for the religious of america

w is doing a good job and is the first republican that i have liked since gerald ford and nixon...but like i said the party now, like it has been since reagan, only looks out for the ultra rich and this is bad for the morale of america and working stiffs like me

Why do you think I moved to Taiwan?;) One hint...the last presidential election. It wasn't w or g specifically, but I'd rather have seen C. Powell in office. But I think he was too smart to want the position:D .

What ever happened to Perot:p ? He still could have done a good job I think...no wait, I don't think...okay I think again:D

[eirik]

Over the months that I've read your posts, I've grown to respect many people. I've learned much about many things.

I completely by-passed all of the gun discussion because it is too much like abortion. Everybody has an opinion, of course. But like abortion, the rationale does not precede the position, it only serves to justify the position, which is most often derived from the gut. Gun control and all of that is another irreconcilable issue.

So long as one extreme or the other doesn't completely have its way, I'll be content.

As for the Democrats and Republicans crap, please, please stop! The posts thus far are pathetic and way beneath the caliber of the posters, as demonstrated by their posts on Mac hardware/software issues.

Democrats versus Republicans banter is similar to that of the abortion battle. I refer to the party bashing drivel as "football politics". Generalizations, stereotypes, misinformation, ignorance, and emotion obfuscate any semblence of clarity in argument.

Too many people think in too simplistic and ignorant a manner, harking to their favorite team, preferring not to spend the hours and hours (understandable) required to really understand what the hell is going on in politics. And when people appear to be a slave to 'football politics', they tend to damn both parties.

Its too often 'my team' versus 'their team'; 'they all suck'; or Joe Perfection 'would be awesome'.

BTW, Ross Perot, was and still is a nut.

I love Colin Powell and would be pleased to have him as President. But, what I've seen in the last year of Powell, and when he was JCS, is that he may tend to be too deliberative and too risk averse. Well, here I've ended my post with generalizations. I'm a ****ing hypocrit for not taking the time to be specific. But I feel too lazy to do so. And, on this site, I am just never in the mood for politics.

Anyway, go Condi Rice, 2008!!! I hope we don't have to wait for the G5 until then (there, I finally said something relevant to the title of this thread).

Eirik

[cikutek]

How can MOTOROLA compete with INTEL, when APPLE sells fewer computers in a year than INTEL-based PCs in a month (or maybe a week)?!?

Over 20 years ago when APPLE started, 68000 was hands down the best, most powerfull, most advanced CPU on the market! Why APPLE didn't capture 20-30% of the PC market? Don't tell me it's because they didn't have a good CPU. They had the BEST, FASTEST CPU in the world!!!

Do you really think that INTEL could afford $7 bln a year of R&D cost with sales like APPLE???
APPLE's total revenue is less than INTEL's R&D budget!!!
With APPLE sales of $5.4 bln last year what do you think MOTOROLA gets for their CPUs? $500 mln, maybe? Of that $500 mln how much can they use for R&D? $100-$200 mln?
!!!!!Last year INTEL's sales were $26.5 bln!!!!!!

It's a miracle that with such marginal computer maker as APPLE, MOTOROLA is still in the CPU business!
Well, it's actually because of CISCO, GM, Nortel and others that use PowerPC-based chips. APPLE alone with their <10% market share is no match to all INTEL-based PC makers.
:mad:

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by cikutek
How can MOTOROLA compete with INTEL, when APPLE sells fewer computers in a year than INTEL-based PCs in a month (or maybe a week)?!?

Over 20 years ago when APPLE started, 68000 was hands down the best, most powerfull, most advanced CPU on the market! Why APPLE didn't capture 20-30% of the PC market? Don't tell me it's because they didn't have a good CPU. They had the BEST, FASTEST CPU in the world!!!

Do you really think that INTEL could afford $7 bln a year of R&D cost with sales like APPLE???
APPLE's total revenue is less than INTEL's R&D budget!!!
With APPLE sales of $5.4 bln last year what do you think MOTOROLA gets for their CPUs? $500 mln, maybe? Of that $500 mln how much can they use for R&D? $100-$200 mln?
!!!!!Last year INTEL's sales were $26.5 bln!!!!!!

It's a miracle that with such marginal computer maker as APPLE, MOTOROLA is still in the CPU business!
Well, it's actually because of CISCO, GM, Nortel and others that use PowerPC-based chips. APPLE alone with their <10% market share is no match to all INTEL-based PC makers.
:mad:

By that rationale Motorola should be a failing company and Apple should be going out of business.
And yet somehow they both survive.
Miraculous, maybe.
A tribute to Apple's and Motorola's design and innovation, definitely.

[Rower_CPU]

I saw this on the front page of the site...now if only it had been up a couple of days ago...timing is everything:

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I saw this on the front page of the site...now if only it had been up a couple of days ago...timing is everything:
Whoa... see, you shoot someone in the chest and their head pops right off! If that isn't a reason to ban all guns, I don't know what is. :)

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by alex_ant

Whoa... see, you shoot someone in the chest and their head pops right off! If that isn't a reason to ban all guns, I don't know what is. :)

Actually, that would be a cool effect :D... BANG... pop... LMAO!!! sorry, in a psychotic frame of mind tonight muwahahahahahaha

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by AlphaTech

Oh and groovebuster, where did you find a 1.8GHz and 2GHz Athlon??? They don't exist. The top speed for the Athlon XP processor is 1.73GHz (XP 2100+). I have also seen those (the 2100+) chips in a retail package listing for $257 (US$). See for yourself at http://www.googlegear.com/jsp/ProductList.jsp?ThirdCategoryCode=010413 if you don't believe me. They also list the real speed rating of the processors, not just the name number. Those retail packages include a heat sink, fan and 3 year warranty. The OEM ones only have a 30 day warranty, which is why the site also recommends getting the retail version.


Don't make it a crusade to find not existing flaws in my postings. The machine I was referring to was overclocked and it was 1,8GHz(!), working smoothly without any problems. 2GHz processors will be available very soon (rumors), that's why I said "now". They have to since Intel is clocking their Chips higher and higher... even they try already to confuse the people with those "model numbers"...

Anyway... on the price thing I got maybe a wrong source, since I didn't check the AMD pages for that.

But still... stop jumping on my back like a little boy every time I say something now! Just the way you answered to my posting tells more than a thousand words...

Get well!

groovebuster

[AlphaTech]

groovebuster, take a chill-pill... actually, take several.

AMD has only released (to date) the XP 2100+ processor which is at 1.73GHz. It looks like the 2200+ will be out soon, since there are bios updates that list it as being supported (Giga-Byte GA-7DXR's latest update lists it as being supported). If the system has been overclocked, then just say so. Don't make it sound like that was the standard speed of the chip.

Now, I am NOT surprised that the AMD chip was overclocked and stable. Personally, I don't do that, but that is my CHOICE. If you are comfortable doing it, then go for it.

I will be replacing the 1.4GHz t-bird inside the pc I built soon. I just hope that the 2200+ is released soon, so that I can get one. I also need to transplant all the guts from my current case into my new Cooler Master ATC110 case. I need to get a power supply for that, since the person buying my older case, needs the supply that is inside it. I am also leaving the fans in there, to be nice, and make it easier for him.

Now, If ONLY motorola could get off their thumbs and get out faster chips for the Mac.

[Mad Max]

Originally posted by AlphaTech


I will be replacing the 1.4GHz t-bird inside the pc I built soon. I just hope that the 2200+ is released soon, so that I can get one.



(long evil laugh followed by sinister chuckles while typing...:D )

You know just this one discussion alone is driving my stock value up... But, if you want good info on the latest, check out the articles on the AMD Opteron at:

www.anandtech.com
www.tomshardware.com

I'm gonna retire soon and move to ....;)

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
I will be replacing the 1.4GHz t-bird inside the pc I built soon. I just hope that the 2200+ is released soon, so that I can get one. I also need to transplant all the guts from my current case into my new Cooler Master ATC110 case. I need to get a power supply for that, since the person buying my older case, needs the supply that is inside it. I am also leaving the fans in there, to be nice, and make it easier for him.

Now, If ONLY motorola could get off their thumbs and get out faster chips for the Mac.

I've got the ATC200 for my 1.33 T-bird...the case is awesome (for a PC ;) )!

It looks great and is VERY easy to open up and work in...

Maybe an aluminum case from Apple soon?

[Scottgfx]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU

It's actually the Republicans that are taking money away from schools with their ridiculous tax cuts...


(Shaking head in disbelief) I rather liked my $300 check.

Well, at least we like the same computer. :)

[Scottgfx]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


I've got the ATC200 for my 1.33 T-bird...the case is awesome (for a PC ;) )!

It looks great and is VERY easy to open up and work in...

Maybe an aluminum case from Apple soon?

I've worked with a few Lian-Li cases. They are so far of the nicest build quality of PC cases that I've worked on. I bought for myself an aluminum Enermax case. Heavy thing! It's a pretty nice case, it just didn't work well with the Tyan MB. I ended up putting a different MB in it with an XP1800+.

I have my doubts about Apple using aluminum. It's my understanding that aluminum doesn't shield RF radiation well, and Apple is pretty picky about those things. I would bet that a G4 case is actually cheaper to make than your average aluminum case. Although you wouldn't know if from checking Ebay. :)

While I wished that the G4 case had more accessable bays, I do like the fact that the case is as much a part of the computer as any other part. I think twice about putting my hand into a PC, with all of the unbolting and awkardness. I usually end up with a few scratches on my hands. On the other hand, the G4 case is a dream. New video card? memory upgrade? No problem.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Scottgfx
I've worked with a few Lian-Li cases. They are so far of the nicest build quality of PC cases that I've worked on. I bought for myself an aluminum Enermax case. Heavy thing! It's a pretty nice case, it just didn't work well with the Tyan MB. I ended up putting a different MB in it with an XP1800+.

I have my doubts about Apple using aluminum. It's my understanding that aluminum doesn't shield RF radiation well, and Apple is pretty picky about those things. I would bet that a G4 case is actually cheaper to make than your average aluminum case. Although you wouldn't know if from checking Ebay. :)

While I wished that the G4 case had more accessable bays, I do like the fact that the case is as much a part of the computer as any other part. I think twice about putting my hand into a PC, with all of the unbolting and awkardness. I usually end up with a few scratches on my hands. On the other hand, the G4 case is a dream. New video card? memory upgrade? No problem.

Lian-Li makes good cases too.
The aluminum comment was more of an errant daydream than a sincere wish. I think it would make them less sturdy/solid. Can you imagine handles on such a case:
1) Pick up case by handle
2) Case falls back to floor as handles tears off from soft aluminum chassis
3) Pound case back together with hammer

I like their current design a lot, but faster chips/components need better cooling. And since most mac heads complain about the slightest whisper of a fan in their case, passive cooling via the case material is a good solution.

PS. As for the $300 check, we'll see how much you like it when you go to retire and find that Social Security no longer exists.

[Scottgfx]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Lian-Li makes good cases too.
The aluminum comment was more of an errant daydream than a sincere wish. I think it would make them less sturdy/solid. Can you imagine handles on such a case:
1) Pick up case by handle
2) Case falls back to floor as handles tears off from soft aluminum chassis
3) Pound case back together with hammer

I like their current design a lot, but faster chips/components need better cooling. And since most mac heads complain about the slightest whisper of a fan in their case, passive cooling via the case material is a good solution.

PS. As for the $300 check, we'll see how much you like it when you go to retire and find that Social Security no longer exists.

I wish that I knew where the benchmarks were. I've seen people site that the G4 memory bandwidth isn't that bad. At least better than other PC133 systems in the PC world. On the other hand, I believe the first DDR systems (Via KT266?) weren't much faster than the PC133's it replaced. I think this says something about Apple making sure that they have a fine-tuned system that lives up to the promise of the tech, rather than 10 or 15 companies that rush products to market. MSI comes to mind. (I still haven't found the voltage for the power LED on this K7T266Pro2. And don't get me started on the manuals, sometimes just plain wrong information! :O

As for SS. I've been told not to expect anything from it even before I started paying into it. Let me do with MY money what I think is best. (mmmm must invest more in AAPL.) :)

[wake up Jobs!!!]

what, I cant have a little fun??!! I was pointing things out how this forum about motorola was simply not about so i decided to put my two cents in.
Just cool down all you extreemly offended Democrats :D

[AlphaTech]

Hey Mad Max, how about sharing your good fortune with those that are making it possible??? :D

I didn't have too much time to read those articles, but I do like how it was pointed out how a AMD 2000+ (or was it the 2100+?) processor beat the fastest pentium. :D

Are we going to see the XP 2200+ chips, or will we have to wait for new ones?? I hope that they work with socket A motherboards.

Rower_CPU, I still have my 110 in the box. I will be doing the transplant this weekend (or maybe tomorrow night). I need to get a powersupply for the puppy first though. I was using a 320 watt, what do you think, go with a 300, 340 or 400 watt??? I have three hard drives a dvd rom drive and then the normal stuff (still have open PCI slots on my GA-7DXR mobo). I might add the two Seagate Cheetah's that have been relaxing (18GB each)... but I haven't decided just yet.

[Taft]

Originally posted by Scottgfx

As for SS. I've been told not to expect anything from it even before I started paying into it. Let me do with MY money what I think is best. (mmmm must invest more in AAPL.) :)

Given the fact that my opinion on the matter is pretty much excatly opposite of yours, you'd think I'd want to argue with you, flame you, etc.

On the contrary, I'm actually glad to see it. Its nice to see such diverse opinions expressed by Mac users. I think too often Mac users get pigeonholed as liberals, arsty types and democrats. I'd like to see more conservatives, business types and republicans using Macs and telling the world about it.

Of course, I'd also ike to see more people thinking more liberally, but thats a seperate issue. :)

Taft

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
Rower_CPU, I still have my 110 in the box. I will be doing the transplant this weekend (or maybe tomorrow night). I need to get a powersupply for the puppy first though. I was using a 320 watt, what do you think, go with a 300, 340 or 400 watt??? I have three hard drives a dvd rom drive and then the normal stuff (still have open PCI slots on my GA-7DXR mobo). I might add the two Seagate Cheetah's that have been relaxing (18GB each)... but I haven't decided just yet.

I went with a 400 watt for my rig:
1 30GB HD
DVD-ROM
CD-RW
Live Drive
Zip
Floppy
Sound card
Vid card
NIC

No problems that I can attribute to the PSU...just the usual Windows crap. :p

[sjs]

What ever happened to Perot? He still could have done a good job I think...no wait, I don't think...okay I think again

_______________________________________________

LOL! Great writing.
(Most of the people posting are too young to remember or just didn't get it.)

[Mad Max]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
Hey Mad Max, how about sharing your good fortune with those that are making it possible??? :D


Did I not mention the evil laugh? I guess I should have said ""evil GREEDY laugh:D

BWUHHuHuHuHuHu (low gutteral tone) mmmmuuuuuunnnnneeeee!:p

Don't get me wrong, I would love to share, but if I share with you, I have to share with everyone, then I wouldn't be retiring now then, would I?:(

Wow, this thread might actually be winding down, and just when I thought you would drag info about the AMD K9 pitbull out of me.

Guess I dodged the bullet there!
:D

[j763]

As this thread's now 7 pages long, i haven't had time to read all the posts... BUT

Apple is making record profits

AND THEN WE GET

"Is mot KILLING apple??"

duh... of course not...

Are they helping?

duh... of course not -- it's motorola...

[blakespot]

Originally posted by wake up Jobs!!!
DEMOCRATS SUCK!!!!!!!!!
look at all there failures, Bay of Pigs, Ellian Gonzalez(stupid kid), 18th ammendment (ban on alcohol)(i think). All democrats do is get layed in the oval office (kennedy, clinton), raise taxes, destroy our military , take money away from schools and enducation to give to poor fu*ckers who don't want to work and jack off.
This is why democrats suck!

All this from a 14 year old, and to think.. you guys are fighting over guns, why don't you go shoot your selves.(not to be taken seriously) [/B]
* blakespot stands in dazed amazement that such an insightful comment could issue forth from someone only 14 years of age!


blakespot

[sjs]

Here is a bit more in-depth anaysis of Apple's financial situation.

For comparative purposes, looking at the past 12 months:

Microsoft (software) Revenues $25.57 billion
Profit $ 6.37 billion = 24.9%

Dell (computers) Revenues $31.17 billion
Profit $ 1.25 billion = 4.0%

Apple (both) Revenues $ 5.80 billion
Profits $ 205 million = 3.53%

Remember, everytime Apple sells a computer (like Dell) they also sell an OS, a mini suite, iApps , plus they have Final Cut etc. (like MSFT).

Arguably their profits should be somewhere above those of just a computer assembler like Dell.

If all of Apple processors were between, lets say, 1ghz and 1.6 ghz, would they be selling more computers and earning more profit?

I think you can make a case that Motorola is hurting Apple.

[Mad Max]

Originally posted by sjs


If all of Apple processors were between, lets say, 1ghz and 1.6 ghz, would they be selling more computers and earning more profit?

I think you can make a case that Motorola is hurting Apple.

Just when you thought the thread was dead....

I still believe that if Motorola released a higher class CPU too soon, they would end up hurting Apple more by making the olser slower CPU's more unwanted and undesired.

Look at it this way, Apple and Motorola struck a very good balance between time to market and cost/performance. They were able to show a sustained growth in a market where they were almost extinct a few years earlier. The demand curve going up is just a "fringe benifit" if you will. But, they are smart not to bend to this demand curve. if they flood the market with new CPU's who is going to want the even newer CPU's. Take a look at the Revenues and profits over the last three years... is Apple and Motorola a good investment? I'd say for the long term yes.

I know that many will disagree with me, but from the executive side, this is a good decision.

As for the 14 year-old.... not profound enough, although I believe he/she is getting more out of his/her education than his/her peers. Come back with a few years experience and we'll discuss politics in a forum for politics...look for "Madder Max":D

[sjs]

Good comments...there is merit to not flooding the market with processors that are so fast that the public does not perceive a need for them. However, I think Apple/Motorola are far enough behind that they need to do some catching up, first.

Also about the 14 year-old. He is from Miami and there are some pretty hard feelings down there about the nazi-like capture of Elian Gonzales. I relate to his feelings about that issue.

[jefhatfield]

with net profit numbers like that, i think apple needs to worry about apple hurting apple more than motorola hurting apple

motorola is just one piece of the pie...of course, they can put out faster processors, but apple needs to worry about marketing, cost, etc..

apple might be a good investment in the long run but unless something happens soon, there won't be a whole lot to invest in

-it is easy for us to know mhz for mhz, we are faster than the wintel world but they are way ahead, and offer larger hard drives, and more ram (and ddr ram), and larger software bundles, etc

this cumulative effect is not good for apple increasing their share which they need to do to stay financially healthy...by trying to have a too high profit margin could be a quick fix on the tactical level, but not good for the long term strategic level

wall street analysts are not giving gloomy reports because they hate apple or are wintel users, they see a bad trend happening which makes them see things some of the apple users can't because of an emotional connection we have (or might have) to the company

[Mad Max]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


-it is easy for us to know mhz for mhz, we are faster than the wintel world but they are way ahead, and offer larger hard drives, and more ram (and ddr ram), and larger software bundles, etc



wall street analysts are not giving gloomy reports because they hate apple or are wintel users, they see a bad trend happening which makes them see things some of the apple users can't because of an emotional connection we have (or might have) to the company

Actually, the G4 is quite upgradeable. I changed my wife's HDD to a 120 GB Western Digital, Added 2 GB SDRAM and a GeForce4 Ti 4600 (that I bought for a PC but flashed with a MAC BIOS [ROM]) Right now, her 1 GHz Mac G4 is as fast (if not faster) than my Athlon XP 2200+ (you get CPU's sooner here in Taiwan) with 1.5 GB DDR and a GF4 Ti 4600. The fact that Apple doesn't offer these things as standard (but you can upgrade your order at the Apple store to get the same effect) is that they know that it really is overkill. As for DDR, it is a good choice to stick with SDR until the bugs are worked out with DDR. I do not know of one chipset manufacturer that didn't have a problem with DDR compatibility yet. In fact, DDR is still very problematic as far as stability is conserned. DDR II has most of these bugs worked out. I won't be surprised Apple moves straight to DDR II in order to keep their good name in stability.

As for the Wall Street analysts...if you have seen some of their recent reports, they are "almost" praising Apple for their good business sense and are predicting a more flowery future than before. especially since Apple has revolutionized the concept PC and set a standard for design that no-one can match.

This is all just food for thought. Jeeze! All this from a PC USER!:D

[jefhatfield]

i would have to see a trend of good reports since the bad reports of gloom and doom i have seen in the wall street journal and in the general press are just six weeks old if even that

look at the period between the release of the original imac in late 1998 and up to the time when their stock tanked in 2000...apple was on a high that put them over 100 a share with good forecasts

now with bad forecasts, there is no way apple can afford to have their stock take that type of beating again

personally, i am stunned that apple has put out such good products and wall street did not take notice

[3rdpath]

i think wall street has noticed that apple is a good company with good products.

but they have also noticed that the stock is overpriced.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by 3rdpath
i think wall street has noticed that apple is a good company with good products.

but they have also noticed that the stock is overpriced.

after apple's stock took a fifty percent nosedive quite some time ago, almost every new release of macs has met with a slight decrease or no change in apple's stock value

what is that about?

my theory is that wall street is scared of steve jobs' leadership of apple...he has lost their confidence as he shows the financial world that he is not ceo material

...but to be fair, there seem to be a lot of ceo's these days being met with low confidence (hp) or even possible jail time (that BIG BIG energy company)
:rolleyes:

[3rdpath]

i haven't heard or read any of the wall street pundits "dissing" job's performance or managerial style-i really just think its all about the numbers.

when apple's stock was sky high in 99/00-so was just about every other stock out there. they were all adjusted-to put it mildly with the crash.
so many people base their views about apple's " fair or typical" stock price on these prior highly inflated numbers--as if somehow apple will be back at $100/ share if they just stay in business. their stock can be overpriced regardless of their revenue, profit, or speed of the G5....too much is too much

i don't think apple gives a hoot about their stock price-and for that i applaude them. they're not in the "stock inflating" biz. if you base your decisions on stock price, you're apt to start doing questionable stuff just like enron and scads of others. if apple really wanted their share price to increase, they would've bought back shares when the price was $14.50-they've got the benjamins to do it. in billions. instead, they just do their thing and try to stay ahead of the curve.

if people pay too much for the stock and then complain that it's not appreciating-what can apple do?

[Foocha]

At the risk of sounding cynical, surely it's part of the role of a good CFO to minimise the company's exposure to taxation by all legal means.

"Profit" is always a thorny one to define, and there are legitimate and legal reasons why a company may present its figures in such as way as to appear less profitable.

Regarding Steve Jobs, I think this article puts things into perspective:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2002/tc20020424_7548.htm

The truth is, love him or loath him, you have to admit that Apple is dependant on him. This is his strength, and Apple's weakness. The sign of a truely skilled manager is that in time they will manage themselves out of a job. The true test of Jobs will be whether he is capable of inculcating his skills upon Apple's senior management, so that when he retires he leaves Apple a healthy self-sustaining entity.

[Rower_CPU]

I think another one of Steve's strengths that will have left a lasting impact on the company once he leaves is the people he has brought in to make Apple what it is these days.

People like Ive, Rubinstein, Cassanova know how to make amazing products. Jobs and Schiller know how to sell them.

[3rdpath]

i don't think you're being cynical, just realistic regarding both the "profit motive" and jobs.

i think jobs is doing an excellent job but i don't think he's the only person capable of successfully running apple. the big problem is the public's perception that jobs is the only guy who can do it. he's a figurehead, mascot and rock-star and shifting someone else into that position or eliminating that position in favor of an equally distributed ( real or perceived) leadership is going to be one long intricate dance. jobs doesn't seem like the type to just slowly fade into the background to retire quietly.

i can't imagine him going anywhere in the short term but the long(long...) implications are of a concern. the day steve leaves is the day i sell apple short--does that make me part of the problem? :confused:

[3rdpath]

i just received the april esquire ( UK edition-thats why its late...) and it has a nice article on jobs and ives.

one qoute of interest: "Steve Jobs is Apple computers and Apple computers is Steve Jobs". therein lies the rub.....

i hadn't read much on ives before and can i just say: he's one cool guy.

damn eng's-always the coolest:)

[Foocha]

I agree that Jobs has put a great team together. It's good to finally see some really smart people at the top at Apple again. (I think you all know the earlier period I'm alluding to here!)

[ntg]

Originally posted by AlphaTech


Does that mean that if never had any experience with a car, never took a driving class, that you would be qualified to talk about people driving?? I know you wouldn't be able to drive, at least not in the US... I don't know what they allow where you are, but you can get in deep sheep dip without a driving license.

Actually, a friend who has never passed his driving-test is a very good road-designer for the south-east of England (he actually designed a series of seven roundabouts arranged in a circle to improve traffic-flow, which was radical BUT WORKED!). Weird, Huh!

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Foocha
At the risk of sounding cynical, surely it's part of the role of a good CFO to minimise the company's exposure to taxation by all legal means.

Yeah, and the role of people like me is to put in jail or nail for boucoup bucks the CFO's and companies who decide to play a little fast or a little loose with the law.

:D

[mischief]

hey mcrain:

2 words.........

Off Shore....:D ;) :rolleyes:

[mcrain]

Originally posted by mischief
hey mcrain:

2 words.........

Off Shore....:D ;) :rolleyes:

Actually, believe it or not, that makes it easier. Most people and companies set up off shore accounts thinking they are safe, so they do stupid things and don't do a very good job concealing the nature of what they are doing, and then they get audited here, and unless they turn over books and records, the auditing department gets to make up whatever they want based on the "best available information." Until they turn over the records, that's almost impossible to defeat.

Oh, and the us of a has agreements with almost all tax havens now.

Oh, one final thing... there are special penalties for taxpayers who use defined "tax haven" countries.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by ntg


Actually, a friend who has never passed his driving-test is a very good road-designer for the south-east of England (he actually designed a series of seven roundabouts arranged in a circle to improve traffic-flow, which was radical BUT WORKED!). Weird, Huh!

Only in a country where it is normal to drive on the left would a series of 7 roundabouts be the best solution to any driving problem.

[Foocha]

I stress the word "legal" in my previous post - I'm neither implying nor advocating tax evasion here!

As a driver in the UK I can confirm that the road system here is nuts, and the road planners here are all obsessed with roundabouts and the uniquely British (I think) 'miniroundabout'.

Irrelevant side note - There's nothing odd about driving on the left-hand side. We Brits are not the only ones - take Japan for example, and many other south-east Asian countries to name a few.

[Mad Max]

Originally posted by Foocha

Irrelevant side note - There's nothing odd about driving on the left-hand side. We Brits are not the only ones - take Japan for example, and many other south-east Asian countries to name a few.

An interesting point...but, did you ever stop to think that the South-East Asian countries (except Japan) you are mentioning were occupied or controlled by Britain at the time that their transit systems were designed... i.e. Hong Kong - left, rest of China and Taiwan - right:o

Here's a little test: list the South-East Asian countries and which side of the road they drive on... let's ee if anyone can do it. And don't let Laos turn this into a trick question.:D

[Mad Max]

:D Did I mention that this is still a fun thread to read through...;)

I am really impressed by the caliber of teh replies and the intimate knowledge some people have on some subjects...

btw...I have seen the G5 working beautifully with it's larger-than-life passive heatsink...it really makes you want to cry.:cool:

And contrary to what you might hear in other threads - SCFRSOT- there is no 1000MHz bus. Just think of it logically...AGP 8X = 66MHz, 64-bit PCI = 66MHz, DDR now at 400MHz. 1000MHz would be total overkill and waste of money. It is only good in the research labs of Intel, AMD and Motorola...

I am curious if Apple is going to move to Serial ATA though? That would make for an interesting shift for Apple technologies toward the other PC's.

[Mad Max]

Hey, what about the 14-year-old's point of view on driving and the road systems?:D

[jefhatfield]

i am from a rural farm area and 14 year olds were allowed to drive tractors and with special permission from the dmv in california, they were allowed to drive cars

there was this one farmer's kid who used to drive to 8th grade in his car and he chewed tobacco

he died later that year from lip cancer, but he went down in history as the first kid in our class to get a set of wheels

[Mad Max]

Wyoming has similar laws... I actually got my license when I was 13. Believe it or not, I was able to drive to middle school where I grew up in Colorado with an out-of-state license from Wyoming:D

Unfortunately, I was not the first in my class to drive to middle school. There was this 17-year-old still in the eighth grade with me.:D somehow, he got all the glory...:rolleyes:

I forgot to mention that I think that I really wasn't mature enough to be driving at that time. I totalled two cars that year before I had my license taken away:(

[Foocha]

Below is a list of countries currently driving on the left. You'll notice plenty of them were not formerly part of the British Empire. Also, it's worth pointing out that there are plenty of territories that were once part of the British Empire who drive on the right - America, for example ;)

Anguilla, Antigua, Australia,
Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Botswana, British Virgin Islands, Brunei,
Cayman Islands, Channel Island, Cooke Islands, Cocos Island, Cyprus,
Dominica,
Fiji,
Granada, Guyana,
Hong Kong
India, Indonesia, Ireland, Isle of Man,
Jamaica, Japan,
Kenya, Kiribati,
Lesotho,
Macao, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Montserrat, Mozambique,
Namibia, Naunu, Nepal, New Zealand, Norfolk Islands,
Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Pitcairin Island,
St.Helena, St.Kitts and Nevis, St.Lucia, St.Vincent, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland,
Tanzania, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turke and Caicos Islands,
Uganda, United Kingdom,
Virgin Islands (U.S.),
Zambia, Zimbabwe


End or irrelevant side note!

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Foocha
Also, it's worth pointing out that there are plenty of territories that were once part of the British Empire who drive on the right - America, for example ;)

Too bad there weren't cars then...:D :p

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by Mad Max
Actually, the G4 is quite upgradeable. I changed my wife's HDD to a 120 GB Western Digital, Added 2 GB SDRAM and a GeForce4 Ti 4600 (that I bought for a PC but flashed with a MAC BIOS [ROM]) Right now, her 1 GHz Mac G4 is as fast (if not faster) than my Athlon XP 2200+ (you get CPU's sooner here in Taiwan) with 1.5 GB DDR and a GF4 Ti 4600.

how did you get 2GB RAM in a g4? or am i missing something....? (which is quite possible)

[Mad Max]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


how did you get 2GB RAM in a g4? or am i missing something....? (which is quite possible)

My wife's G4 has 4 DIMM slots... I put 4 x 512MB SDRAM in them (it wasn't cheap!)

However, you do have a point that some G4 only have three dimm slots.. there are 1 GB SDRAM DIMM modules available, but the cost is extreme. My friend settled for 1.5 GB for his G4 just for this reason.

I believe that the specs say that all G4 support up three GB RAM, but I'll have to check on that:o

As for the countries driving on the left... Look historically when their transit systems developed and who their major trade was with at the time... Hong Kong and South Africa...

And c'mon, Australia! :p

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Mad Max
I believe that the specs say that all G4 support up three GB RAM, but I'll have to check on that:o

Try half that, 1.5 GB...

So even though you may 2GB in there, only 1.5 is being used. Sorry.:(

[jefhatfield]

all the bad press about motorola

how about ibm...i just saw this book trying to tie in an ibm card reader records machine with the nazis and how ibm made money off of hitler

i almost bought the book and it reminds me of when i heard rumors about the usa selling aluminum to the japanese during world war II to make $

amazing how commerce still finds a way to make a buck...during the gulf war, i had a friend in california that worked for a company that sold components for the scud missle the iraqis used against us