The Marketing of the "Mac"

Let's get something straight. There is no Mac-PC debate.

Some might read this with confusion. After all, if they're like me, they remember these commercials from way back when:

Of course, these commercials are just that: commercials. They're designed to sell a product. Like most commercials, they are extraordinarily misleading.

The first thing you have to understand about the "Mac vs. PC" debate is that what most people call a "Mac" is a PC. PC simply stands for "personal computer." Desktops, laptops, and even all-in-ones can be considered PCs.

So what makes a "Mac" different? This is where the second important distinction comes in. Mac actually isn't a computer brand. Mac is an Operating System.

In case you're lost, let's take a step back. A prebuilt, commercial computer is created by something called the OEM, or Original Equipment Manufacturer. Dell, HP, Toshiba, Apple, and Acer are all examples of OEMs. This is simply the company which builds the physical computer from parts.

Mac is an Operating System, or OS. This is simply the software that goes on the computer. Windows is also an Operating System. Windows is perfectly capable of running on a computer manufactured by Apple, just as Mac is capable of running (albeit illegally) on a computer built by Dell or Toshiba. This is because computers all utilize the same basic parts. What software you load on it only changes how you interact with these parts.

So what makes an Apple computer (colloquially or incorrectly called a "Mac" by some) different than a Dell or Toshiba computer? Apple tightly controls distribution of its OS, so that it can only be run (legally) on Apple built computers. Microsoft, however, sells its OS (now generally Windows 8) to any OEM, or maker of computers. This is the primary reason why Windows is run on most personal computers.

So what do all these acronyms boil down to? Essentially this: an Apple computer has the same parts as you would find in a Toshiba or Dell. The only difference is the casing the computer comes in and the OS. That's it. When people refer to the "Mac-PC" debate, they actually mean the Mac-Windows debate. Apple builds PCs too, but by loading a different OS and pretending they somehow sell a different product, they create a clear, if false, distinction between their product and everyone else's. In reality, there is a massive difference between a $2,000 Toshiba and a $400 Dell. However, they both run Windows, and by tricking people into thinking that the two computers, which will perform at vastly different speeds, are the same by linking the computer to the OS, Apple can claim that all "PCs" are slow, based on the performance of lower-end computers, with which most people are familiar.

Of course, most people do have trouble with Windows, and there's two reasons for that. The first is what we in IT call PEBCAK. Windows is a very open OS which allows for a huge amount of tweaking. If you don't know what you're doing, you can and will fuck it up. The second reason is that Windows is prone to virus and malware attacks. While Apple likes to claim that this is due to the inherent superiority of their OS, the truth is that most crackers won't bother writing malware for Mac OS, because most people are running Windows. Yes, a UNIX based OS (like Mac OS) will be more resistant to viruses and other forms of harmful software, but if the market shares were reversed, Windows would be virtually virus-free.

So are there differences between "Macs" and "PCs" as the average user understands them? Yes. Are those differences as black and white as Apple would have them believe? Not even close.

I've used my fair share of OSes. I've used XP, Vista, Win7, Win8, Lion, Mountain Lion, Ubuntu, and Fedora. They're all good for different things. My personal PC runs Windows 7, Windows 8, and Ubuntu. It's faster than any Apple computer in existence and has never had a virus. That's because the parts are way way more powerful than anything Apple puts in their machines and I keep my copies of Windows extremely secure. (Oh, and did I mention that my rig will smoke a Macbook Pro in every benchmark and cost the exact same price to put together?)

The Mac-PC debate is a debate of marketing, not reality. Mac OS X is a phenomenal operating system. But so is Windows 8. Neither is inherently "faster" or "better." I use Windows 7 for gaming, but prefer Mountain Lion for everyday browsing (though since installing Win8, that's definitely changed, let me tell you). Those familiar with computers generally won't pick a "side" because there's no side to pick. You don't debate about whether a pickup or a Ferrari is better because they're completely different vehicles built for completely different purposes. Militant Windows or Mac fanboys are looked down upon in the power user community because they're arguing about distinctions that don't really exist. Computers running Mac OS can be just as slow as computers running Windows. Trust me, I've seen it. The difference between any two systems is largely in the hardware used. Yes, Mac or Linux is less intensive - all things being equal. But plug a better processor or more RAM into one box and it will run faster, regardless of the installed OS.

If you're still confused, buy a "Mac." It will make your life so much simpler. If you're following so far, get Windows OR Mac; your choice. If you knew all of this before you started this post, good for you. Go install both with a side of Linux.

The Supporters of Death

Even though most Americans have probably forgotten, the debate over firearms rages on in the legislature. Attempts to disarm innocent civilians continue in the wake of a streak of deadly shootings.

Interestingly, no such debate is being held over whether police or other government thugs officials should be allowed to carry guns, despite the deaths of two innocent women at the hands of the state.

A whole blog entry could be written about the media's tireless efforts to find shootings across the US - as long as they aren't good guys shooting bad guys or bad cops shooting good civilians - but that's not why I sat down at my keyboard today. No, today, I wanted to share with you, reader, this.

It's not the most tasteful thing in the world, is it? But it speaks to a very clear distinction between those who support the 2nd Amendment, and those who do not.

As a gun owner, and supporter of the right to bear arms, I detest gun violence, not only because violence sucks, but also because gun violence leads to circumstances which I do not like. If you're a gun owner, you don't want anyone shooting anyone else, because it leads to legislation such as currently is being debated in Congress. If you love guns, then gun violence is the worst thing that could happen for you in this country. If you're a supporter of gun control, however... well, like I said: gun violence does nothing to support my agenda.

Perhaps it's not fair to say that people like Adam Lanza should be considered heroes for those who support gun control, but I'm going to say it anyway; people like him have done far more for the anti-gun agenda than grassroots gun banners ever have.

It's time we took a good, hard look at what those who ban weapons actually support. A weapon, especially one like the AR-15 rifle, has a very specific purpose: to protect your life and the lives of your loved ones. Weapons are the ultimate symbol of brains and skill over brawn and brute force. Is it really a surprise that those who wish to take away the means to protect human life would also mock a soldier's death?

Despite their rhetoric, it is not those who produce what is only a grouping of metal and plastic parts who are bringers of death and violence to America; if anyone, it is those who wish to prohibit ordinary Americans from the means of defending themselves against those who do not respect human life or property, let alone bans on firearms. In this context, from this viewpoint, the above cartoon, or rather the circumstances in which is was created, make perfect sense.

Gun owners do not mock the dead. We do not exploit misery. We do not take a sick, perverted glee in those who die at the barrel of a gun. We, those of us who know what a gun is actually capable of (not shooting down planes, or blowing up railroads, thank you, Reverend Jackson), do not relish the prospect of gun violence. Those who know nothing about guns, and wish to ban them, waving their ignorance like a banner, do.

 

Argue if you will that you wish to ban guns to save lives. It's not true. If you believe it, however, I will admit that you are justified - in your own mind only; not in reality - but you are justified as far as you can be. However, know that there are many on your side who, even if they do not support death and suffering, take a sick pleasure in it at the worst, and at best will only foolishly deliver innocent Americans into it.

Human Professions: History as a Legitimate Field

Most people don't like to be lied to. That's too bad, because you get lied to all the time. Don't think so? Do you watch the news? Then you're being lied to. Read any sections of mainstream news in which you have a skill set (in my case "technology") and you start to notice that they're actually either wrong on have dumbed the information down to a point where the story or advice becomes misleading. One of the major places where mass lying occurs is in public (and probably a lot of private) high schools.

Think you have a good grasp of history with your high school education? Please. Even a general AP U.S. class is full of enough errors, omissions, and shallow analysis to get you into trouble should you attempt to write real history.

There's nothing wrong with this of course; we can't all be experts in everything. Fuck, I still use a calculator to figure out the tip in restaurants. If you ask me how mitosis works I might be able to provide you with an answer, but probably not a good or fully accurate one. That's why we specialize and focus in our respective fields. Everyone does this. Talk to your janitor next time you're in the office. That guy knows his shit when it comes to cleaning (and usually when it comes to wiring and plumbing too). That isn't sarcasm. I have no animosity towards those with menial jobs - as long as they're good at those jobs. That's all I ask for. I don't pretend I could do my janitor's job any more than the janitor could do mine.

Sadly, there is a job in this country whose members usually think they can do everyone's jobs. Those people are called politicians: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/tea-party-tennessee-textbooks-slavery_n_1224157.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false.

This egregious act by legislators is not only disgusting. It's also 100% wrong. Take this quote by a spokesman for the group trying to pass this bill: "[there's] an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another."

"Made-up?" Were the founding fathers the ones "making it up?" Because anyone who knows anything about Jefferson or Washington knows that these men were slaveholders. You know why? Because it's in their fucking records. You know, the ones they kept themselves.

Sadly, morons like this get to influence what your kids learn. The feel-good, apologist historiography mostly died out in professional history in the mid-sixties. No one in the field (or at least no one who expects to be taken seriously) thinks that such a simple view of complex men can exist in history, because the founding fathers were humans and humans are complex. Sadly, hero worship of the founders destroys their usefulness as historical figures, because it paints them as Greek-esque demi-gods with one-dimensional personalities, and their achievements as unreachable by mere mortals. Furthermore, it maligns their vast achievements, making it seem as though they did what they did because they were somehow different, instead of being what they were - human. What they accomplished wasn't easy, and pretending that the success of the Revolution was inevitable because the founders were basically superheroes takes away from their ridiculously difficult-to-achieve successes.

The problem here is that we're treating history like just another profession but without the respect a profession should rightly garner. Reading a few books on medicine and visiting Johns Hopkins doesn't make you a doctor. Yet every year tourists who have read McPherson or Foote rush to Gettysburg, PA (site of my Alma Mater not incidentally) and tell everyone who will listen about their take on "the war." Which is nice, except they aren't really qualified to do that. Some of them are right in what they say. Some aren't. Even the correct analyses tends to be simplistic and focus on facts only, rather than facts and concepts. Again, we stopped doing this in professional history 50 years ago.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not ruling out a "Good Will Hunting" scenario here, but that sort of thing is rare because history is, again, a profession, and most people don't find the right books or do the right kind of analysis just like that. It takes a lot of reading in a lot of different sources, some of which are extremely difficult or expensive to obtain outside of professional history. There's a reason for that. Libraries and archives have to maintain their sources and pay for their upkeep. It's one thing to let a professional historian in for free, especially when his access has been paid for by the institution supporting him, but it's quite another to let in someone who may not really have any idea what he's doing so that he can go write a book vindicating his great granddaddy by cherry-picking his sources.

Speaking of cherry-picking, we have a thing in history called "peer review." That means that if you write a book that used some questionable practices, the rest of the community is going to make sure you're called out on it. We won't be mean (unless you really suck), but yeah, people are gonna know what you did.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. The same thing happens in science. That's why you don't get scientific papers about creationism. It's also why, in my field, you don't get a lot of papers that espouse the Lost Cause mythology or the ultra-simplistic view of the founders as saints. That stuff stays where it belongs: in pop and amateur culture, just like books on creationism or how to survive the coming apocalypse.

I won't pretend that there's no political wrangling in my field, but no more or less than in other fields, such as medicine and law. Yet we still trust doctors and... uh... well, we trust doctors.

In all seriousness, however, you trust professionals, because they are just that: professionals. They went to school and learned their shit. They studied and discussed with other aspiring experts and they understand the technical and theoretical necessities of their jobs. If you don't think you can be the pitcher for the New York Yankees or perform open-heart surgery, what makes you think you can tell Ira Berlin that he's full of shit? (Spoiler: he's not.)

Sadly, lack of regard for history, and a variety of other humanities, as a real profession is what leads to Tennessee wanting to teach your kids that people who openly admitted to holding slaves didn't own slaves. Because they assume that they can legislate what did or did not occur in our history. We might not know for sure, but we have a better idea than you do, and let me tell you something: Jefferson was a massive hypocrite and even back then, people knew it. I know that because, unlike Tennessee, I read a variety of letters and other primary sources that indicate this pretty heavily and I do know what I'm talking about.

So you know what, Tennessee? Shove it up your ass. It's one thing to espouse a Wood-esque take on history. It's another to openly lie to children. If you can't do history right, at least do me a favor and leave it to the professionals.