Linked by Universal Mind on Fri 6th Aug 2010 16:16 UTC
Permalink for comment 435647
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-10-12
Its a double whammy, is it not? One, you have a product which is, at most stages of the lifecycle, very expensive for what it is. But also, you are mostly obliged to buy a kind of product you do not really need, so you pay even more.
I've always felt that the way that the Mac community keeps denying that going with Macs is way more expensive than other Intels was the most decisive evidence of the cult status of the company. Its so obvious that it is, as soon as you take account of the two factors above, and its very hard to understand why people even try to deny it. It seems to have become one of these talismanic things, like the Old Left for years kept on denying the purges, or the Katyn massacre, regardless of the irrefutable evidence. It seemed to be, concede that, and after it comes the deluge.
The hockey stick in climate science is similar maybe. Funny, how these obviously false propositions become articles of faith.
Edited 2010-08-06 17:46 UTC