Macs v. PCs

I'll try not to be subjective on this topic, but the debate of Mac versus PC has raged since Mac was created.

Macs:

Pros:

Amazing Operating System (the Snow Leopard OS X)

This OS is relatively new so there aren't too many viruses of malware for it compared to the Windows OS.

Amazing graphics

With top of the line graphics cards, the design of the Mac is beautiful.

Amazing speed and efficiency

When i look for a computer, my main concern is this. Is the computer efficient? The Mac combines average ram and hard drive space and produces amazing results. This is because of the low processing speed needed to run the Mac OS compared to the high performance needed to run the Windows OS. The problem with Windows is that there are a lot of add on features that the Mac OS does not have. Windows 7, for example, has Aero snap, which requires some CPU effort to function.

Good processor

Most Macs have AMD processors of Intel i3, i5, or i7 processors. The difference here is not so great as an i3 processor opens programs a second behind the i5, and two seconds behind the i7 processor. This aspect is not a big plus for Macs as PCs have the same processors too.

Internet connection is good

One can almost always get WiFi if the spot offers it and the WiFi very rarely does not work.

Wonderful battery life

Macs are always dependent on their battery life, which can last 10 hours initially upon purchase to about 2 hours after about 4 to 5 years with regular use.

Cons:

All Macs are the SAME

Whether it is the iPhone, the iTouch, the Macbook, the Macbook Pro, the Macbook Air or the Mac desktop, all of them have exactly the same OS and the same functions but different prices. What i hate about Apple is that they recycle their products over and over again to an unsuspecting consumerist public.

All Macs are overpriced

Unless you are going to buy the generation 1 of Mac items, all Mac items are overpriced. A Macbook should not have to cost 1000 dollars when it is comparable to a 500 dollar priced PC. Apple overprices these objects because they don't really have competition. Usually, product prices drop as time passes, but with Apple products, that drop seems to be dependent upon purchase; the fewer people that purchase an item, the less it costs.

Cannot be upgraded

If you want to upgrade your Mac in anyway after its purchase, you cannot do so yourself unless you bring it to the store to expensively place new RAM cards and Hard Drives in a computer (which can sometimes be more expensive than buying a new Mac itself), or by buying a new Mac.

PCs:

Pros:

Incredibly versatile

They can be used for so many different things. It is better in the work field as many programs are currently only compatible with PCs.

Able to be personalized

PCs will almost never have to be replaced unless of course their monitor stops working or the entire body of the PC breaks. One, with very little knowledge of computers, can easily put new RAM cards and Hard Drives into the computer as needed. Although the materials cost the same, installation is much easier and cheaper with PCs. In this way, one PC can last a lifetime.

Battery is average

Since PCs run mainly with Windows, it requires a lot of power. As a result, the battery life is not as great as that of a Mac. However, bought off the internet, the batteries are fairly priced at around 50-80 dollars. These batteries have about a 2-3 hour life, usually, and last well for about 2-3 years.

Incredibly Cheap

Although good PCs cost about the same as a Mac, the price range of PCs never ceases to amaze me. There are affordable PC laptops from 400 dollars and up to more than a couple thousand. Money does not always mean better though. I have had my fairly cheap $400 Compaq laptop for three years now and it works pretty well.

Good processor

PCs mainly run on Intel or AMD (the same as Mac) so there is no real difference.

Cons:

Viruses and Malware

Unless you pirate program to monitor your computer (this is illegal so do not do this), your computer will require some program like Norton Antivirus. This usually can cost about 60- 100 dollars and up depending on the package and most need to be upgraded yearly. So even if you buy a cheap 400 dollar laptop, over the years, virus protection can add up. To fix this, some download other OS like Ubuntu or Linux since these have fewer viruses than

Windows.

Overall it comes down to price since both computers fair well in any situation. If you want a Mac, you will have to pay quite a lot. You might even end up throwing it out after the next new MacBook comes out. With PCs there is no real NEW PC. It's all the same, with upgrades that you can do yourself. Since these are cheaper, you wont really have to buy another computer in your lifetime unless something happens to it.

The Law Paradigm

There is a consensus amongst most people that laws exist to provide for the well-being of people. I whole-heartedly agree; laws are in place to control us and to restrict us from acting in the animalistic ways that we would act without them. Laws set up a system of suffering, doling out horrible punishments for crimes. However, some crimes exist to combat differing views on an issue.

For example, women's suffrage required the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This amendment has and continues to give the right to vote to women everywhere. However, what would occur if this law were to be suddenly repealed. Would society revert back to an age where women could not vote or would society stay the way it is even without the law.

Take another amendment, the 13th, which gives African Americans freedom from the bondage of slavery. If this amendment were to disappear, would our society revert back to once again condemning Africans to a life of work without pay? Would we be so audacious as to revert back to the once normal societal theory that was held?

Sadly, humanity would break any law, if it could. (I know that I am grouping the actions of a group to such a broad term as "humanity" but the society in which we live is determined by the actions of these groups.) The normal tendency for many people is to care only about themselves. For example, if a person sees a fire, he does not usually turn back to see if the person running behind him is okay. We are a selfish race of creatures always worrying only about ourselves. As selfish animals, we would use any loophole (like reverting to slavery or not giving women voting rights) in the system to benefit ourselves financially, personally, or politically.

I want to see a world where there should not have to be laws for the world to be stable. Stability is achieved now because we as a people think that laws are needed to control us. As long as ambition, greed, or jealously exists, the world needs laws, and in fact cannot exist without them. Laws limit us, but only because we allow it to limit us; take control of yourself and decide for yourself how to act in such a away that not only benefits you, but also allows equal opportunities for everyone else.

Islam in America

It goes without saying that I have the right to practice my religion. I am an Syrian Orthodox Christian, a fairly ancient group. It goes without saying that my right to practice that religion is unimpeded in the United States, where I live. Then, why is it that some are against Islam in the US. There are those who do not want "them" in our country. There are those who would rather wish that "they" were dead. But who are these antagonists to protest the right of another to practice their religion?

The world is not meant for one certain group; the world belongs to those who inhabit it. How does one person or group have more right to a plot of land than another? They don't. Then how is it that one group can protest the establishment of mosques in cities like New York or prevent the establishment of Muslim centers in other cities. We are all the same in every way and form except when it comes to religion and culture. If we are all the same, how can there even be a discussion of whether one religion has the right to practice their religion in one area?

Perhaps this hate is caused by that uneventful day 10 years ago. 9/11 occurred on a bright sunny morning, carried out by extreme Islamist groups. Since then, the propaganda spewed by Americans have corrupted the minds of millions leading them to believe all Muslims are terrorists. Then again, most forget about the other extremists like the KKK, who are Christian organized by the way.

To even discuss matters involving religious freedom goes beyond the valid interpretation of our current Constitutional Amendment that gives right to religion. To even discuss this appalls me as I staunchly advocate religious freedom. We have to look past the Galabiyyas and the Burqas, move past the difference in religious beliefs, and get over our now innate hatred of Muslims. Sixty years ago, Jewish people were hated and killed for it. Two hundred years back, Africans were still slaves in this country. We live with hate because we want to hate. Without a scapegoat to transfer this hate to, most of society find it hard to exist. I must say that I will never understand hate for it is a concept that I do not know well. Do I occasionally find myself disliking" someone? Yes. But have I ever found myself "hating"? I don't believe so and I don't think I ever will. We have to, as a people, step back from our asinine oppressive beliefs and embrace the world as it is and as it should be; equal for all people of all kind.

New Threats to Freedom Contest

Nevin Varghese

Regarding: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEyZE42nDZU (Greg Lukianoff on Free Speech) *Video is also at the side of the page - the first one

Black ink is the blood, the life of America, and the body is the Constitution, laying out all the laws of the land. Initially the result of conflicts between Federalists and anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights was added onto the Constitution, a metaphorical brain to the body. As one of the greatest rights, the freedom of speech is the first natural right entailed in this bill. However, how far can the literal meaning of “free speech” be taken? There are activists who believe the Constitution should be a living and breathing document and then there are those self-restrained group, who profess that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the framers’ intent. Free speech has been and probably will forever be debated about.

The idea of free speech, according to Mr. Greg Lukianoff in the video “Lukianoff on Free Speech”, should be extended to exclude censorship on college campuses. Mr. Lukianoff proposes a solid idea; campuses take away the right to free speech by strictly censoring information; these campuses are increasingly tightening their grips on censorship and choking off the rights of students to express themselves. However romantic Mr. Lukianoff’s idea may be there is a point when one must draw himself back from the utopia that he finds himself in. Free and unrestrained speech is meant for a society whose inhabitants are perfect. Our society is far from this ideal state that we yearn towards. I cannot deny that the Constitution gives this right to free speech, but the Constitution is meant for a utopic land. It is not meant to cater word for word to the needs of the society in which we live in today. Perhaps the state delegates at the Constitutional Convention should have included a disclaimer at the end warning not to use the document unless society was perfect.

Free speech is like a vicious dog; when chained, the dog is harmless, but when it is unleashed, it will wreak havoc. As long as the world has people who would use free speech for malignant uses, it is better that free speech remains leashed. Perhaps the most recent example is the case of Tyler Clementi, a student at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Tyler’s roommate, Dharun Ravi, secretly videotaped the victim having sex with his partner. Fed up with the horrendous invasion of privacy, Clementi committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge. According to Mr. Lukianoff’s theory, Rutgers University had no right to censor Dharun, who would only have been (justifiably) expressing his freedom of speech by videotaping Tyler’s sexual encounter; however, this uncontrolled or “uncensored” material led to the death of a teenager. Free speech is a freedom that all people deserve, but cannot have due to the fact that it can be twisted into a weapon. There are laws against libel, threats, and offensive material in place to control humanity, not restrict it. Without this control, civilization as we know it might as well strike “civil” from the word.