I've had my share of "I click it and accidentally rename it to nothing". And I also agree with the "You know wich ones are good, cus you played them on the PC five or six years ago". Good vids! Although I would really like a mac.
Its hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Unless you truely have absolutly no idea what you're doing with your computer, there should be no excuse for why your computer would go into a complete lock up, and/or crash on you. If any kinds of programs crash on you, blame the developer of the program. Both operating systems are very stable now, and the competition between the two made them that way. Now you just have to look at the software that's supported for them, in other words. Windows for the win.
@...but Mac gaming sucks - they're far superior for graphic design and web work though.
Well, yes and no. The graphic design completely depends on what programs you use and the machine itself. As for web work, if you mean iWeb, it's really just a bunch of crappy templates that automatically add the apple logo on the bottom.
Mac isn't really that bad, but when people say "OMG IT'S BETTAR AND MOR POWRFULLL" they're talking out of their asses. It's not even the operating system that makes a computer fast as much as the machine itself. Run OS X on the latest Dell machine ( you can, they just don't want you to know ), it's really fast. Run the same OS on and older one, it's slower.
To be fair, homogenous hardware means slightly better performance since compatibility isn't an issue and the architecture can be designed from the ground-up to take complete advantage of it. However, that too isn't as true anymore with macs for a number of reasons. And even if it were, the economy of scale is such that you can simply buy a more powerful IBM-compatible for the same cost.
this could actually be my favourite thread on a message board ever since i hate apple and macs. i always have to deal with people who tell me how great apple is and how EVIL BILL GATES IS. wtf
my OS is called Win XP not bill gates so i dont care about that but apple users are die hard fans that would suck job's cock- while jobs is an utter prick. i even think bill gates is a kind of cool guy and he made me lol on the daily show while jobs...i REALLY suggest to watch Pirates of Sillicon Valley- its an awesome movie about jobs and gates and shows what a prick jobs is. anyways the whole apple deal is like a religion and even a terrible stereotype. there IS the clichè apple user. its awful but once youve worked in a couple of ad agencies (who all use macs since they are gay for some reason) you sadly have to face that the clichè is true. they are guys who are into feng shui, wear flip flops, like yoga and trees and are most likely Buddhists just because its "hip".
Now the thing is: people tell me PCs (mac users are ignorant like fuck. For them PC means a computer with a windows operating system. They totally ignore the fact there are other OS out there) crash and stuff while my Pc doesn’t at least not if I’m not running a shitload of apps at the same time while pretty much all programs on the mac just CLOSE THEMSELVES. I’m just running any adobe app and they just close themselves – hey WAIT
That’s not really productive and I thought mac was like the computer for designers so what if ALL the adobe programs (and like every other program) just always closes itself. Its horrible and I thought I could blame the mac I’m using or the version of X. I’ve worked for many different people with different macs and different OS versions and they ALL did that shit. Its annoying
I could actually keep on with my rent for ages and list why I hate the Apple OS but who can be arsed to read all that crap anyways?
Bottom line is:
I’m sadly forced to use the OS if I want to do design and I just wish people will switch to Windows one fine day (since m$ has got 3 design programs now people might switch in 5 years if those programs are doing well and are NEEDED) or the Apple OS will be good which it sadly never will- I’m sure. The problem is: ITS NOT FAST! It’s lacking any common sense and logic. I love my task bar. I can access everything so damn quickly. I love it that I can access every folder with the explorer. I just type in the name and there we go while on the mac…it just takes ages and is horrible and DAMN I always have got like 5 folders in my taskbar and 5 apps and I can bring up what I want to so quickly and easily while I have got fucking everything in the annoying dock.
-
edit:
and the worst thing: mac users always want to FORCE their believes onto you. just watch apple movies and stuff on youtube. im aware of the fact im currently ranting but they are ranting like 24/7 about how much windows sucks and m$ is evil. its annoying. all they use their machines for is to tell people how great macs are and everybody has to switch. FACT: i hate apple and i hate the OS even more but thats my bloody opinion. if people WANT to use that OS its fine with me as long as i dont have to use it (which i sadly have to if i want to have a design job)
i dont start talking to mac users and go on and on why mac sucks so much while mac users come to me and are like
HAHAHA YOU USE WINDOWS! THAT SUCKS SO MUCH BLAH BLAH BLAH!
i mean wtf
everybody can use whatever they want but they just want to force their believes onto everybody. i dont like macs and i cant understand why people like it but then there are also people who really love scat jobs while i cant find any joy in getting crapped on- its the same with mac users- just a matter of taste
-----------------------------------------
this could actually be my favourite thread on a message board ever since i hate apple and macs. i always have to deal with people who tell me how great apple is and how EVIL BILL GATES IS. wtf
-----------------------------------------
Lets just declare some prejudices here too then: I hate people who can't apply correct usage of grammar and punctuation; I like Macs; and I use a Windows PC.
-----------------------------------------
my OS is called Win XP not bill gates so i dont care about that but apple users are die hard fans that would suck job's cock- while jobs is an utter prick. i even think bill gates is a kind of cool guy and he made me lol on the daily show while jobs...i REALLY suggest to watch Pirates of Sillicon Valley- its an awesome movie about jobs and gates and shows what a prick jobs is.
-----------------------------------------
Steve Jobs actually is a pretty solid guy with some good causes and beliefs. As for Bill Gates on The Daily Show he struggled and I mean even Jon Stewart ripped him. I haven't seen Pirates of Silicon Valley and hence cannot comment. "suck job's cock" - you just rekindled my hope this might be a decent argument (not - hope sarcasm isn't above you).
-----------------------------------------
anyways the whole apple deal is like a religion and even a terrible stereotype. there IS the clichè apple user. its awful but once youve worked in a couple of ad agencies (who all use macs since they are gay for some reason) you sadly have to face that the clichè is true. they are guys who are into feng shui, wear flip flops, like yoga and trees and are most likely Buddhists just because its "hip".
-----------------------------------------
Firstly have you ever used Mac OS X for an extended period of time. Have you even worked in one of these "ad agencies" or do you just feel like creating some of these mythical stereotypes - how old are you? Have you even worked? Homophobia is a serious problem, perhaps you should try and do something about that. For example, you could learn how to create a well structured argument before turning to it.
-----------------------------------------
Now the thing is: people tell me PCs (mac users are ignorant like fuck. For them PC means a computer with a windows operating system. They totally ignore the fact there are other OS out there) crash and stuff while my Pc doesn’t at least not if I’m not running a shitload of apps at the same time while pretty much all programs on the mac just CLOSE THEMSELVES. I’m just running any adobe app and they just close themselves – hey WAIT
-----------------------------------------
Mac Users are actually incredibly intellectual for the most part. I think you'll find a lot more Windows users referring to Macs as Macs and their Windows computer as PCs. Lets talk Protected Memory - one of the few good executions of this is in Mac OS X - this actually means I can isolate single programs before they go postal and decide to eat up system memory like crazy and cause everything to crash. "my PC" - wait a minute - I was sure you said referring to a Windows system as a "PC" was declaring yourself as "ignorant like fuck".
-----------------------------------------
That’s not really productive and I thought mac was like the computer for designers so what if ALL the adobe programs (and like every other program) just always closes itself. Its horrible and I thought I could blame the mac I’m using or the version of X. I’ve worked for many different people with different macs and different OS versions and they ALL did that shit.
-----------------------------------------
The Adobe suite runs perfectly. I've used plenty of different Macs and OS X - by far the best version of OS X is Tiger.
-----------------------------------------
Its annoying
I could actually keep on with my rent for ages and list why I hate the Apple OS but who can be arsed to read all that crap anyways?
-----------------------------------------
So you've ran out of reasons then?
Bottom line is:
I’m sadly forced to use the OS if I want to do design and I just wish people will switch to Windows one fine day (since m$ has got 3 design programs now people might switch in 5 years if those programs are doing well and are NEEDED) or the Apple OS will be good which it sadly never will- I’m sure. The problem is: ITS NOT FAST! It’s lacking any common sense and logic. I love my task bar. I can access everything so damn quickly. I love it that I can access every folder with the explorer. I just type in the name and there we go while on the mac…it just takes ages and is horrible and DAMN I always have got like 5 folders in my taskbar and 5 apps and I can bring up what I want to so quickly and easily while I have got fucking everything in the annoying dock.
-----------------------------------------
Ever tried Expose? Spotlight?
-----------------------------------------
edit:
and the worst thing: mac users always want to FORCE their believes onto you. just watch apple movies and stuff on youtube. im aware of the fact im currently ranting but they are ranting like 24/7 about how much windows sucks and m$ is evil. its annoying. all they use their machines for is to tell people how great macs are and everybody has to switch. FACT: i hate apple and i hate the OS even more but thats my bloody opinion. if people WANT to use that OS its fine with me as long as i dont have to use it (which i sadly have to if i want to have a design job)
i dont start talking to mac users and go on and on why mac sucks so much while mac users come to me and are like
HAHAHA YOU USE WINDOWS! THAT SUCKS SO MUCH BLAH BLAH BLAH!
i mean wtf
everybody can use whatever they want but they just want to force their believes onto everybody. i dont like macs and i cant understand why people like it but then there are also people who really love scat jobs while i cant find any joy in getting crapped on- its the same with mac users- just a matter of taste
-----------------------------------------
The only reason Windows users don't do it is because they have a 90-something percent market share. Hmm, yeah bringing immaturity back into it definitely improves your argument. Oh and its my opinion to like Mac so please shut up, learn how to construct an argument and come back when you can leave your immaturity out of it.
And thus, Glaucon, after the argument has gone a weary way, the true and the false philosophers have at length appeared in view.
I do not think, he said, that the way could have been shortened.
I suppose not, I said; and yet I believe that we might have had a better view of both of them if the discussion could have been confined to this one subject and if there were not many other questions awaiting us, which he who desires to see in what respect the life of the just differs from that of the unjust must consider.
And what is the next question? he asked.
Surely, I said, the one which follows next in order. Inasmuch as philosophers only are able to grasp the eternal and unchangeable, and those who wander in the region of the many and variable are not philosophers, I must ask you which of the two classes should be the rulers of our State?
And how can we rightly answer that question?
Whichever of the two are best able to guard the laws and institutions of our State --let them be our guardians.
Very good.
Neither, I said, can there be any question that the guardian who is to keep anything should have eyes rather than no eyes?
There can be no question of that.
And are not those who are verily and indeed wanting in the knowledge of the true being of each thing, and who have in their souls no clear pattern, and are unable as with a painter's eye to look at the absolute truth and to that original to repair, and having perfect vision of the other world to order the laws about beauty, goodness, justice in this, if not already ordered, and to guard and preserve the order of them --are not such persons, I ask, simply blind?
Truly, he replied, they are much in that condition.
And shall they be our guardians when there are others who, besides being their equals in experience and falling short of them in no particular of virtue, also know the very truth of each thing?
There can be no reason, he said, for rejecting those who have this greatest of all great qualities; they must always have the first place unless they fail in some other respect.
Suppose then, I said, that we determine how far they can unite this and the other excellences.
By all means.
In the first place, as we began by observing, the nature of the philosopher has to be ascertained. We must come to an understanding about him, and, when we have done so, then, if I am not mistaken, we shall also acknowledge that such an union of qualities is possible, and that those in whom they are united, and those only, should be rulers in the State.
What do you mean?
Let us suppose that philosophical minds always love knowledge of a sort which shows them the eternal nature not varying from generation and corruption.
Agreed.
And further, I said, let us agree that they are lovers of all true being; there is no part whether greater or less, or more or less honourable, which they are willing to renounce; as we said before of the lover and the man of ambition.
True.
And if they are to be what we were describing, is there not another quality which they should also possess?
What quality?
Truthfulness: they will never intentionally receive into their mind falsehood, which is their detestation, and they will love the truth.
Yes, that may be safely affirmed of them.
'May be,' my friend, I replied, is not the word; say rather 'must be affirmed:' for he whose nature is amorous of anything cannot help loving all that belongs or is akin to the object of his affections.
Right, he said.
And is there anything more akin to wisdom than truth?
How can there be?
Can the same nature be a lover of wisdom and a lover of falsehood?
Never.
The true lover of learning then must from his earliest youth, as far as in him lies, desire all truth?
Assuredly.
But then again, as we know by experience, he whose desires are strong in one direction will have them weaker in others; they will be like a stream which has been drawn off into another channel.
True.
He whose desires are drawn towards knowledge in every form will be absorbed in the pleasures of the soul, and will hardly feel bodily pleasure --I mean, if he be a true philosopher and not a sham one.
That is most certain.
Such an one is sure to be temperate and the reverse of covetous; for the motives which make another man desirous of having and spending, have no place in his character.
Very true.
Another criterion of the philosophical nature has also to be considered.
What is that?
There should be no secret corner of illiberality; nothing can more antagonistic than meanness to a soul which is ever longing after the whole of things both divine and human.
Most true, he replied.
Then how can he who has magnificence of mind and is the spectator of all time and all existence, think much of human life?
He cannot.
Or can such an one account death fearful?
No indeed.
Then the cowardly and mean nature has no part in true philosophy?
Certainly not.
Or again: can he who is harmoniously constituted, who is not covetous or mean, or a boaster, or a coward-can he, I say, ever be unjust or hard in his dealings?
Impossible.
Then you will soon observe whether a man is just and gentle, or rude and unsociable; these are the signs which distinguish even in youth the philosophical nature from the unphilosophical.
True.
There is another point which should be remarked.
What point?
Whether he has or has not a pleasure in learning; for no one will love that which gives him pain, and in which after much toil he makes little progress.
Certainly not.
And again, if he is forgetful and retains nothing of what he learns, will he not be an empty vessel?
That is certain.
Labouring in vain, he must end in hating himself and his fruitless occupation? Yes.
Then a soul which forgets cannot be ranked among genuine philosophic natures; we must insist that the philosopher should have a good memory?
Certainly.
And once more, the inharmonious and unseemly nature can only tend to disproportion?
Undoubtedly.
And do you consider truth to be akin to proportion or to disproportion?
To proportion.
Then, besides other qualities, we must try to find a naturally well-proportioned and gracious mind, which will move spontaneously towards the true being of everything.
Certainly.
Well, and do not all these qualities, which we have been enumerating, go together, and are they not, in a manner, necessary to a soul, which is to have a full and perfect participation of being?
They are absolutely necessary, he replied.
And must not that be a blameless study which he only can pursue who has the gift of a good memory, and is quick to learn, --noble, gracious, the friend of truth, justice, courage, temperance, who are his kindred?
The god of jealousy himself, he said, could find no fault with such a study.
And to men like him, I said, when perfected by years and education, and to these only you will entrust the State.
Socrates - ADEIMANTUS
Here Adeimantus interposed and said: To these statements, Socrates, no one can offer a reply; but when you talk in this way, a strange feeling passes over the minds of your hearers: They fancy that they are led astray a little at each step in the argument, owing to their own want of skill in asking and answering questions; these littles accumulate, and at the end of the discussion they are found to have sustained a mighty overthrow and all their former notions appear to be turned upside down. And as unskilful players of draughts are at last shut up by their more skilful adversaries and have no piece to move, so they too find themselves shut up at last; for they have nothing to say in this new game of which words are the counters; and yet all the time they are in the right. The observation is suggested to me by what is now occurring. For any one of us might say, that although in words he is not able to meet you at each step of the argument, he sees as a fact that the votaries of philosophy, when they carry on the study, not only in youth as a part of education, but as the pursuit of their maturer years, most of them become strange monsters, not to say utter rogues, and that those who may be considered the best of them are made useless to the world by the very study which you extol.
Well, and do you think that those who say so are wrong?
I cannot tell, he replied; but I should like to know what is your opinion.
Hear my answer; I am of opinion that they are quite right.
Then how can you be justified in saying that cities will not cease from evil until philosophers rule in them, when philosophers are acknowledged by us to be of no use to them?
You ask a question, I said, to which a reply can only be given in a parable.
Yes, Socrates; and that is a way of speaking to which you are not at all accustomed, I suppose.
I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering --every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer, though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard, and having first chained up the noble captain's senses with drink or some narcotic drug, they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain's hands into their own whether by force or persuasion, they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer's art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by the Author.
Good vids! Although I would really like a mac.
