Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Is Motorola KILLING Apple?

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Originally posted by jefhatfield
does motorola kill apple or do guns kill people
Click to expand...

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).
 
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
 
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
Click to expand...

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
 
And now: he ultimate tie in..............

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.
 
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???
 
Nope, sorry.

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.
 
My Assh$$$ opinion.

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
 
Re: @AlphaTech

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

groovebuster
Click to expand...

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

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
 
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
Click to expand...

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
 
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
Click to expand...

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
 
Originally posted by groovebuster
I don't get you folks!
Click to expand...

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...
 
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
Click to expand...

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 sh*t. 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
 
Damn...that PC User is back again

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.
 
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 sh*t. 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 sh*t. 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
 
Gun Control Schmun Control

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
 
Getting back on the topic

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back