Some fucktard said:
My biggest turn off, and issue with Apple, and the community…is in fact the community itself. I have never been a part of such an ostentatious and pretentious community in my life…one that harbors such an arrogance and contempt that it honestly makes it uncomfortable. One need only grace a few blogs such as “Macalope” to see the extent of the asininity that consumes most of the “news sources” that Mac zealots use as primary sources.
This is idiotic. Let’s try an analogy. You have two groups of friends that hang out at two different bar/restaurants. One group is sort of ho-hum on their hangout and the other is ecstatic about theirs. They love the food, they love the people, they have so much fun, they want other people to try it, too.
This might be an incomplete analogy, but the fact of the matter is, Mac zealots are Mac zealots because they love Macs. They love Macs not for some inane reason as implied above — they love them because they are fun to use, powerful, easy, etc.
Now I use Windows and Linux as well and there are very good things about both. My love for Macs is not at the expense of the other good things in the world.
But when you find something people LOVE, something they have incredible zeal about, something that they are compelled to share, LISTEN TO THEM. Don’t look down your snooty nose and assume they are retards. Yes, Windows is fine, but Macs are AWESOME. I do not find people who love Windows like Mac people love Macs. That should be telling you something.
Creationists and advocates of intelligent design (ID) often mention the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as a reason why evolution can’t be true. The previous link quotes the law as follows:
The entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.
Their logic is that if the entropy (i.e. chaos) in a system always increases it cannot become more complex. The facts show that organisms have gotten more complex over time. This, they claim, proves that this complexity could not have evolved naturally but requires the efforts of a supernatural entity.
This is completely and provably wrong. There is no debate whatsoever in this particular line of reasoning. The reason is the word “isolated” in the above quote. The Earth is not an isolated system. There is this gigantic source of energy shining down on the Earth 24 hours per day for the last 4 billion years. It’s called the sun. When there is energy put into a system, the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply.
Creationists are wrong for a whole host of reasons, but they have to cross this one off their list. It makes them sound stupid. The 2nd law of thermodynamics in no way, shape or form undermines the theory of evolution.
Hot off slashdot, apparently some Apple employee has started a blog anonymously. Seems like a smart fellow and asking the right questions in terms of relationships and support.
There are really two kinds of support requests (from a company’s perspective): people who have a problem that is your fault and people that don’t. I think many people are frustrated by the latter, when something doesn’t work and they talk to the wrong people about it. So to all of them, too bad, you gotta figure out how to talk to the right people.
The legit kind of support is when we, the company, fucked you, the customer. No one wants to contact support. The only result they want out of support is that the problem be gone. My guess is that 99% of the “legit” support cases fall in this category.
If you have AppleCare, Apple is pretty damn good at this, from my experience. Prove it’s broken (and that you didn’t drop it) and they will fix it. They get this only because of their retail presence at the Apple Store. Calling Apple is as bad as calling anyone.
I think Apple is really on to something with the Apple Store on the support side. It probably pays the bills on the sales side, but more likely it saves them a lot of money in support. It does this by quickly resolving 98% of the cases. Then they deal with 1% at the store in back and the other 1% gets shipped off to hardcore tech dorks.
Support matters. It matters hugely. It’s what bean counters call a Cost of Sale. You wouldn’t have (or won’t have) the sale if you don’t do the support. Apple (and all companies) should engineer their support processes as well as they engineer their computers. Those that do will run and those that don’t will limp.
You’ll be happy to know that roughly 0.2% of the people that arrive at my site via a search engine are searching for “i feel like vomiting”.
23 2.15% lolife
23 2.15% michael koppelman
21 1.96% systematic discrimination
18 1.68% astrophotos
17 1.59% binning data
17 1.59% faerie ring
17 1.59% labour of love
16 1.49% astronomy
16 1.49% republican criminals
15 1.40% faerie rings
15 1.40% rim job
12 1.12% tyranny
12 1.12% vim large files
10 0.93% should abortions be illegal
10 0.93% why abortions are bad
9 0.84% data binning
9 0.84% lo life
8 0.75% lo-life
8 0.75% vim sucks
1 0.09% feel vomiting
1 0.09% i feel like vomiting
This was written by my friend and lawyer Mark Sondreal. Mark also wrote a piece that I posted here a while back called Abortion and the Right to Privacy.
I was recently engaged in a discussion with a man when the topic turned to evolution. He stated that he was a Christian and therefore did not believe in evolution. I attempted to explain my belief that Christian beliefs and evolution are easily reconcilable. He indicated his belief that the story of creation as set forth in the bible was the literal truth and that anyone who didnâ€™t believe in the word of God could not be a Christian. As I didnâ€™t want to be dispatched with the jawbone of an ass, I left the conversation at that.
I believe that the man I was speaking with could be accurately described as a “Fundamentalist Christian”.
Hereâ€™s my message to all you religious fundamentalists (Christian or otherwise) out there regarding science and religion. Religions should not attempt to alter scientific theory to fit belief systems. My position is supported by the absolute folly of past attempts to stymie science by religious organizations. For example, back in the day, the church threatened Copernicus for theorizing that earth orbited the sun because such a theory was at odds with the position of the church. Copernicusâ€™s works were not published until after his death in 1543 because he was afraid of being tried for heresy. The church officially forbade publication of Copernicusâ€™s work until 1822. Can you say stupid?
Scientific methodology is designed to accurately describe our physical world. The fact that a particular scientific theory does not fit perfectly within a belief system does not make the theory wrong, it simply requires adherents to that belief system to exercise a bit of mental flexibility. For example, just because the bible says that the world was created in seven days does not disprove evolution. Maybe the creation story in the bible is not meant to be taken literally, or maybe the passage of seven days took a lot longer fifteen billion years ago.
Hereâ€™s the logic. If you believe in a “just God”, you must believe that God wants us to know the truth about our world because falsity is at odds with justice. The truth about our physical world is revealed through scientific study. It follows that a â€œjust Godâ€ would want us to engage in critical thought processes inherent in the scientific method. Therefore, it is the duty of Godâ€™s followers to pursue reason. Fundamentalism belies reason and is therefore counter to Godâ€™s will.
I would submit that people who canâ€™t reconcile scientific fact with their religious beliefs are either intellectually lazy or irrational. Unfortunately, I have yet to meet a fundamentalist who is capable of rational thought when their belief system is threatened.
p.s. I apologize for the self-righteous tone of this piece. Itâ€™s just that â€¦â€¦â€¦. Iâ€™m right.
First of all, I blame John Stewart for the fact that I use the word “retard” way too much now. Many people, when you use that word, think of people with mental disabilities. You shouldn’t. While the word “retard”, interpreted literally, is probably accurate in many ways when applied to some people with mental disabilities, the word is not and cannot be used in that way. It is a harmful word that I would never, ever use in regards to people who have mental or learning disabilities.
I’m justifying, here, that I am not comparing people to people with disabilities. I’d define the word, in this slang context, to mean people with ridiculously faulty logic.
To use it in a sentence, when I say that Tony Snow, for example, is a complete fucking retard, what I mean is, his high-suction ass-kissing ability, his blatant mischaracterization of facts, his evasive and misleading statements and his inane word choices reveal a man with his head so far up his ass that it is actually probably a compliment to simply refer to his rather lagging development!
Yes, this is all very snide and condescending. My point is, as I felt myself slipping into using the word retard (thanks, again, to John Stewart) I thought about it in terms of whether it was PC or not, and I came to the conclusion that I’m OK. But I still worry about it, ’cause my goal is to offend only those whom I intend to offend.