Frankl is the canonical example. But also telling is the portion of Spiegelman's "Maus" which tells of his release from Auschwitz, entitled "And now my troubles began..."
Spiegelman's father, not him. Downvote all you want, but trying to find the positive side of of concentration camps, trying to find why you're world view is validated by anecdotes from those experiences, its really lame.
I know it is Spiegelman's father: it is a memoir of Spiegelman Sr's experiences, as told to Spiegelman, but that's neither here nor there.
The point is not that anyone is trying to find the positive side of concentration camps, as if such a thing existed. The point is that some people managed to keep their spirits intact, and, in the words of the poster above, find peace, meaning and value in their lives even in the worst condition imaginable.
Is it lame to remember that even when we can't control our external circumstances, we still have some ability to control our response to those circumstances?
Ad hominem aside, it's been well documented that wealth and success don't make people happy, but there's a lot of evidence (and more coming out every day) that mindfulness and self-awareness actually do.
You need to educate yourself on some of the happiness research that is ongoing. It appears that people are very, very bad about predicting what will make them happy. There is also apparently something like a happiness equilibrium -- lotto winners and recent amputees actually return near their previous happiness level, one year after their "event".
> Just seeing LaTeX (well, Knuth's 'Computer Modern' font) has the same effect on a paper that a suit does on a businessman - the author rises in my estimation without any real effort.
Yes, but he has a point. You can concentrate on the subject better when you're relaxed. Just like you can do linear algebra better sitting in a comfy chair at home than you can in Kabul.
Also, a good suit looks good on anyone. Not just a "businessman". Programmers too, try it!
> But if we are to follow precedence set by other Apple products, the Mac will become more closed than ever, with the Web as our only option to access the outside world. Much like the iPhone and the iPad. As a Mac owner, the writing is on the wall, a closed computer is my future.
Em, the "other Apple products" mentioned were never open to begin with. And they are not general purpose computers.
The Mac, on the other hand, always had XCode built-in. I don't see a "closed computer" in the near future...
I strongly disagree. The App Store does not impose any DRM or copy protection on the software. Apps are free to implement their own methods of copy protection and there is a cryptographically signed receipt in every App that paid apps are supposed to check. That way, an app can verify that it was legally bought with an Apple ID that is present on the computer. As recent events have shown, Apple does not even check the apps for doing so, though.
However, there is no built-in way to prevent copying of the apps (other than in iOS, there is no DRM!). In fact, free apps aren't even supposed to check for the receipt and you are explicitly free to install your bought apps on as many computers as you own.
Moreover, Apple has officially touted the App Store to be one of many distribution channels and Apple in no way prevents you from using different channels such as packet managers, regular online distribution, self compiled source downloads, shop-bought boxed software, or whatever you like.
So, the App Store in no way restricts your right to use or install software on your Mac. I don't see how this makes the Mac 'more closed'.
Em, the "other Apple products" mentioned were never open to begin with.
Right, which indicates that Steve's preference is for closed systems. Every argument Apple makes in favor of locking down iOS devices applies equally well to Macs.
And they are not general purpose computers.
Only because of artificial limitations.
I don't see a "closed computer" in the near future...
I believe with 60% probability that by the end of 2015, Apple won't sell any consumer-targeted products that allow root access or installation of arbitrary software.
There's one aspect of the iOS situation that doesn't apply on the Mac: Apple can't get away with it on the Mac, and they know it. It's much easier to open platforms that are closed than to close platforms that are open. If they locked down the Mac as much as iOS, you wouldn't even be able to install another operating system, which I think is fairly common among Mac users. Even if it's not common, they've used the ability to do it as a big part of their push for people switching.
Even if there are a lot of users that wouldn't object to the Mac being a closed platform, developers would. Developers want root access to their development machine. Apple doesn't want to lose developer support, because they know that it is the lifeblood of the platform.
I'd make the exact opposite prediction. I think it's more likely that iOS will allow sideloading than that Mac OS will forbid installation of software other than through the App Store. On the other hand, I can see both platforms moving toward a system where it is locked down by default, but it is trivial, and officially supported, for the user to allow installing software through unapproved sources.
In my experience, developers are the most passionate group of evangelists for Apple products. Cutting root access from the Mac would make it unusable for many types of developers, if not all. I don't think Apple can afford to lose that base of customers and evangelists.
No, because of a design tradeoff: ease of use and mind vs openess.
Apple would still get to sell their iOS devices and iTunes content even if they allowed shell access and arbitrary installation of programs on them.
>I believe with 60% probability that by the end of 2015, Apple won't sell any consumer-targeted products that allow root access or installation of arbitrary software.
2015? Not a chance. Although the industry WILL move towards more auto-managable OSs...
Actually, it ships on the Mac OS X install media. I have been pleasantly surprised that this is still true. It comes as cold comfort when you find that you have to download a new XCode anyway because the one on your DVD is way too old, but still, it is there.
Obviously they don't install it by default: For 99.5% of Mac customers all it would do is take up space and add risk of confusion.
No. The world doesn't end when overvalued companies go through corrections or failures. It may seem that way for some people and for some time, but whole economies do not just stop working. And really, we're talking about Twitter and Facebook here, not Enron and Bear Sterns.
> The world doesn't end when overvalued companies go through corrections or failures.
Nobody said anything about the "world ending".
And a few overvalued companies "getting through corrections or failures" has different effects than a whole lot of overvalued companies getting through corrections or failures. The second case is called a "bubble burst".
> If you aren't an investor or otherwise involved in one of the company's with a "bullshit fantasy" valuation, how does the "bullshit fantasy" valuation hurt you at all?
Gee, I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with the government giving away 700 billion dollars to financial companies burned by rampant bullshit fantasy valuations...
The banks have paid back all that money and the US treasury made a profit. The auto industry has also paid back their portion, but the government still holds some stock in the companies, so people can debate whether that portion of it is really "paid back".
> I should have phrased my question as limited to valuations of tech/software companies only, since that seems to be what we are discussing here.
OK, then. When the web 1.0 bubble burst in 1999, a whole lot of people lost their money. Bullshit valuations make the stock exchange a snake-oil market.
I don't know of any major (or medium) startup whose success had anything to do with appearing on Hacker News.