No, I'm pretty sure it is perfectly in-context. He said it several times, in fact:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard

My favorite version is
"Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion."

I don't know how that can be interpreted any other way

Edit: To be fair, the CoS claims the quote above was by Orwell, but several people from the writer's conference where it was said attribute it to LRH.

When you hear some of the wacky ideas that come from Scientology just remember that L Ron was a science fiction author and all it all makes sense.

I dislike the way they reportedly use private detectives and lawyers to intimidate people that oppose them which is not a good thing for an organisation to do in my eyes. Apple doesn’t have a good track record in that area either but they are minor league compared to the couch jumpers.

I don't think what you posted is incosistant with what I said. Hubbard has gone to great pains to make Scientology a tax-exempt organization.

If you are right, then L Ron Hubbard was a lot less wacky than I thought, because that is essentially how I see religions as well...... and to a lesser degree the Cult following of Apple seems to work on similar principles right down to the "church like" designs of their stores.

Has no one else seen that video.?


Andy

You used the word context which is all important here as also I suggest is intention.
The L Ron quotes can be interpreted as meaning that that he was seemingly cynically intent on creating a religion or pseudo religion (cult!) as a money making exercise. The fact that recognised religions have tax advantages is a bonus rather than the reason for him pursuing that goal. Although there are seemingly downsides to having the status of a religion or charity for that matter as I imagine you can’t just do what you like with the organisation’s funds in the way that a private organisation can.

However your wording seemed to suggest that L Ron had a more benevolent intent and so seeking religious status was simply a way to reduce the tax bill.
So I can see a very large inconsistency between those two viewpoints which come down basically to what was L Ron’s actual intention?

I would not go so far as to say "benevolent." Does a psychiatrist who goes to medical school and opens up a psychiatry practice do so out of benevolence? Not likely considering the outrageous amounts of money they charge patients per hour (at least in the US). A psychiatrist expects to make a lot of money and live a very comfortable life. They have even (in the US) restricted the use of the term "psychiatrist" to someone who has a medical degree from an approved medical school (even though very little of their medical training or residency dealt with psychiatry).

The comparison of Scientology to psychiatry is relevant, because if you know anything about Scientology (or have heard Tom Cruise rants) they stand in direct opposition to psychiatry in terms of helping people deal with life's problems. They call themselves a religion to avoid taxes, which is separate criticism of how organized religion is treated by the government, even though religions are sort of in the psychiatry business themselves.

But even though psychiatrists make huge amounts of money for giving simplistic advice, or sometimes just listening, would it too cynical to say they are only in it for the money and they don't really want to help people? Like Scientology, most of them probably want to do both (help people and make money). So do many authors, teachers, and many in the media.

Separately from the psychiatry comparison, Hubbard noted that organized religion is also sort of in the psychiatry business (at least in his opinion) and they have figured out how to help people and make a lot of money by forming a church, and having the government subsidize them by making them tax-exempt, and allowing donations from members (patients) to be tax deductible. His observation about creating a religion and making a lot of money is accurate IMO, even if most religious leaders genuinely want to help people. Katy Couric of CBS News makes $15 million per year, yet I am very sure that she feels that her reporting, editing, interviewing, etc, makes a big contribution to society (especially if she can persuade others toward her own ideology and political views).

So I think you are taking Hubbard's comments a little too simplistically (or what I termed as "out of context").

At least we know Steve Jobs' intent
$$$$

If you reread my posts you will see that for me it is all about intention and I have no idea what L. Ron Hoover’s (Frank Zappa joke) intention was so it’s not possible for me to know the full context.
As I don’t know Ron’s intention I can attempt to grasp the context by looking at the way his religion is reported in the media; a risky thing I know.
From observing that I deduce that Scientology has many repulsive attributes. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t also offer positive benefits to its followers as I presume it does.
When it comes to religions I can only compare Scientology with other religions and when I do that against Buddhism and say Sikhism it seems very lacking.
I ignore Christianity in this context as even though Christ is my main inspiration in life I tend to think of Christianity as being somewhat cult like as from my perspective the religion manifestly fails to uphold Christ’s teachings to such a large degree that is farcical.

I don’t blame Christ for Christianity’s failings as he wasn’t around to guide the ship.
I find it harder to feel that way about Hubbard’s relationship to Scientology as it was his baby so his responsibility.
So again it comes down intention. If his intention was relatively pure it seems to me that the execution was poor. Either way something seems very amiss to me.
I don’t mean to offend the Scientologists reading this as all paths are ultimately equal as far as I’m concerned so talk of blame and the like is ultimately meaningless. That’s my context anyway.

I probably should not get into this, but Jesus Christ was a Jew, not a Christian. Christianity was started later by his Jewish followers, first as a branch of Judaism until at least 70 AD, and then morphed into a separate religion only after it was agreed that Gentiles (non-Jews) could become believers in Christ as the fulfillment of Jewish Prophecy (but that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised before becoming Christians).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13453497

I can only hope that it spreads like wildfire and hits every Mac connected to the internet not out of pure maliciousness, but to prove the point that Mac's do get viruses and malicious software when someone can be bothered to write the software that affects ~5% of the market.

I have been hoping for some years now that a crafty bugger manages to make a virus that affects and is spread by all versions of Windows, all versions of MAC OS and all versions of linux - mostly because it would get me loads of work and therefore money

FYI Windows 98 is now less likely to be hit by a virus than W7 is, funny to think about isnt it that all software including viruses and malware are no longer Win98 compatable, a few years ago I saw a message on a Win98 PC that was actually a generic windows message saying that "kjghfcxc.exe" could not run, I looked it up and it was one of the earlier viruses that was simply not compatable


Andy

Doesn't seem to be viral actually.
Won't affect the faithful, only those who are afraid of malware (and lacking in clue).

[/quote]... someone can be bothered to write the software that affects ~5% of the market.[/quote]
People have been writing malware for far smaller segments for about as long as malware existed.

Sure, Apple is a cult for maybe 5% of buyers but for the rest, an Apple product (particularly the laptops) is an aspirational product and bought by people who would also aspire to wearing Gucci, Prada or any other designer label clothes/perfume/watch/sunglasses etc etc.
Most people who buy a laptop are not interested in the technical aspects, they see processor speed, hdd size and maybe RAM quantity and equate those features to price. Most aren't even gamers either but they do want to look cool in Starbucks or wherever so they want a Mac Book rather than an Acer or a Dell.
I suppose the reason they began to develop a cool image is a lot to do with Macs traditionally being associated more with "design/media" professions and PC's with engineering/business professions. Couple this with the clever marketing, the design and the premium price and you have another aspirational product that millions want. Mugs.

I didn’t notice anyone suggesting that Jesus was a Christian as that would be a strange label to attach to him.
At the end of the day it’s just a label like any other. If someone tells me they are a Christian that alone tells me very little about them. It’s the same with Scientologists and Apple users.
Even if we agreed that Scientology is a cult and Apple isn’t that doesn’t tell me much about an individual that follow those camps.
There does seem to be a percentage of Apple users that appear to exhibit some cult like symptoms in the way they relate to Apple.
Likewise there will likely be people that relate to Scientology in a more balanced and less cult like way than others.

I have the distinct impression that most "first time" Apple buyers now dont even look at the spec, maybe the screen size, definitley check that its white and has a large Apple logo on it and that it. The really funny ones are the ones that then ask everyone how to use it, and wonder where Internet Explorer is. I suspect that many of the current "first time" Apple buyers who are buying it because it is a trendy item wish they could buy a cheap otherwise identical knock-off, just like they do with their Gucci handbags - I doubt anyone will argue that point at all.



Agreed, at least for those people who you described. I have no problem with people like Neil who actually uses his in a professional capacity rather than just as a device to look at their holiday photos and browse the internet looking for the latest designs from Gucci so they get a high-quality £20 Gucci-alike handbag.



I know this topic is in the "Off Topic" section, but we are off of the actual topic that we are discussing.


Andy

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/apple-mac ... 35634.html

And this is why Apple is rotten to the core they gag their own employees to stop them telling people that Mac's do actually get viruses/malware.

Also I know someone who worked at one of the Mac Stores in London and he refused to do a bit of work on a Mac for me citing "if they found out, I would be sacked", its a good thing that he no longer works for them, what a scummy company.


Andy

That's funny.
That's no virus. The problem is that people think they need anti-virus software. And what does Apple tell them? "You need anti-virus software".

How many Spybot! Search & Destroy definitions are there for Windows? Over 750,000 -- and there are 1 or 2 malwares for Mac?

I have owned a Mac for a long time and I have never had any malware. I have also run Linux machines for many years, also with zero malware. Windows on the other hand has had many, many malware -- in fact I am cleaning a client's computer as I type, and I cleaned a friend's last weekend. That is 2 major ones within one week....

Any questions?

Not so much a question as an observation.
God clearly protects Apple users from the evils of the malware writers’ wrath.
Therefore Apple is not just a religion but a religion that God actually favours; they are the chosen people.
That’s it for me; I’m quitting Windows for OSX and will replace church visits with pilgrimages to the nearest Apple Store wherever that may be. I look forward to my first communion at the Genius bar.
I’ll say one for thing for Christianity though it has a lot more shops than Apple does at least in the UK.

Andy

Steve Jobs: Get Rid of the Crappy Stuff
http://blogs.forbes.com/carminegallo/20 ... ppy-stuff/

While this is not on topic, you might want to check this article at DailyTech, I laughed for several minutes:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=21873
He managed to trick several women into taking their Mac laptops into the bathroom for a 'steam treatment'.
Let's say this fellow is a 'heretic' who took advantage of the 'pure faith' (read: gullibility) of Mac devotees.

How much is gullibility involved with malware infections, I wonder?

Let's not cast dispersions on other people, please.

There's little to wonder about: infections by a virus or a worm usually happen without user intervention. Installing a trojan on the other hand often involves gullibility. And the Mac malware people have talked about on this thread is a trojan which levearges people's gullibility. Ironically, it wouldn't affect people who believe they shouldn't be concerned about Mac malware. But the facts never seem to get in the way of some people's arguments.

As to today's funny link, taking your laptop in the shower (!) when prompted to is a pretty solid sign of gullibility if you ask me. And a guy trying to get women to do that so that he might take pictures of them with their webcam, I'll call an unusually contemptible pervert lacking in both skill and taste. Feel free to moderate these "dispersions" of mine. But I guess most people would at least agree with some part of my assessment.
It should be noted that this has nothing to do with "Apple as a religion". The religion of the perp and most of the victims seems to have been evangelical Christianity actually. Do you think there's any relationship between that and gullibility or perversion, Neil?

I can't say I like Apple very much and there are a few reasons for that.

1: They patent everything (note Samsung Galaxy tablet legal challenge) they've even patented more advanced "gestures" I think they are anti competitive.
2: I don't like Steve Jobs much I respect his achievements, paying himself $1 a year to avoid taxes is mean beyond comprehension. I'm no Bill Gates fan but at least he unloads his wallet on good causes..more than Apple or Jobs ever would.
3: Apple grossly overcharge for hardware..any system builder can verify this..if you want to pay it fine..
4: There is a myth about "Apple hardware is better quality" but open up a variety of products and you'll find Foxconn has made them..and boy have I had a lot of dead Foxconn boards they are far from top tier not even close.
5: Apple have this absurd design philosopy that you can't have user access to a battery..that is pretty dumb in my books.

They value form over function look aa the new Mac Mini no DVD drive SD reader at the back of the unit..good design? I think not

OS X is nice..have to say I'll give them that if they can get away with making "so called sexy products" that sell at high prices good on them. I'm utterly unconvinced though

Photoshopping a court case?
Google translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwebwereld.nl%2Fnieuws%2F107599%2Fapple-levert-onjuist-bewijs-in-zaak-tegen-samsung.html
Original link(Dutch): http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/107599/apple-levert-onjuist-bewijs-in-zaak-tegen-samsung.html

More popular Apple's system become, more widely they are adapt, more they will attract attention of black hatters, cyber criminals and cracker-hackers.

When Firefox first became it was told safest browser's there is. When it became more and more popular more vulenrabilties were found. However Apple's Sandbox do help fight the malwares and virus' but more popular Apple products become, more likely they will get malwares and virus'. This is very true for iPhones, however Android's are not safe either even they are linux based.

Apple is safer as its more marginal and does employ few quircks which I hope to see in Windows' like Sandbox. However Apple's attitude for the virus' and maleware problems concerning their products is worrisome. Like the vulnerability of PDF files in iPhones not too long ago. Apple went: "its not that big risk" when risk was revealed "ok its small risk but not problematic" and released finally a patch to fix problem...

As much you may have to say about Micro$oft atleast they do take seriously and are concern of virus', malewares and such. One reason they employ security department more people than Apple has workers.

Apple does make wonderful products but it hasn't been a pioneer of any technology or product over a decade, what Apple once was known. Tablets, MP3 players, toouch screens... someone else did it before them, but Apple just hoaned bugs out of products and placed great deal in usability, making their products easy to use. I also have watched bit horror how apple defends its technology, patents... all the lawsuits it makes. It makes sometimes even M$ look like a boyscout...

But Jobs will die eventually, question then become, has Apple become enough steady corporation to actually withstand death of its central pilar and character and founder, Mr. Jobs? I think now if Jobs would die in cancer, Apple's market's would plumeth like airplane without tail section.

I hope so, after all, what is the difference between deliberately doctored photos as "evidence" and a written statement that is pure lies.? Well in my opinion, a picture is worth a thousand words, so far thats 2,000 words of lies that they have submitted to court.

GUILTY as charged.


Andy

I guess we will see soon, Fallen Apple: Steve Jobs resigns

Steve Jobs has 313 patents,

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/technology/apple-patents-show-steve-jobss-attention-to-design.html

all of them design patents.

He could be considered one of the great industrial designers, if you take all facets of that art into consideration.

What he seems to be is the sole person in the world who has the license to first present somber work instruments (such as a computer) in the same light as cars, which are marketed as much for their design as for their utility.

So the Mac made computers more cheerful and fun to use (although you pay dearly in ~ a: being totally dependent on one company and ~ b: having to spend much, much more than for other items of similar functionality.) But that's all been said before...

What I think is interesting is that if, say, Compaq had been the first company to market a brightly colored, sleek computer, only your girlfriend might have been 'silly' enough to buy one, but since it's a Mac you might have bought one too. I think that's really interesting.