Maybe my tax dollars might save some lives.
And maybe we'll see the words 'government' and 'intellectual' in the same sentence more often.
Here's hoping.
It's interesting that OP claims the government "owns" the "IP" related to the vaccine.
In the U.S. there are very few -- almost no -- circumstances in which the government can "own" rights to patents, inventions, copyrights, ect.
They can be classified, but not "owned" except under very rare circumstances. While the ideal has been distorted, especially since 2000, the Federal government is still an employee of The People in the States, and doesn't really "own" anything.
What Bootcamp + VMWare allows you to do, which to the best of my knowledge no other dual-boot scheme + VMWare allows you to do, is use the same Bootcamp dual-boot image as your VMWare image.
That's REALLY an advantage. A big one. The only reason I have Windows at all, is that I have a few programs that are Windows-only that I have to run occasionally. (BUT: one of them is a graphics-and-network-intensive game.)
For the hardcore game, I boot into Windows. Great. Nothing that others won't do.
For most other Windows programs, I can start up VMWare under OS X, and see the SAME Windows desktop. All the files are the same. And I can run the game that way, too, but it isn't quite as fast.
That's the difference: not that you can dual-boot, but that you can actually access the same dual-boot OS from within the other OS.
I don't know any other OS that quite supports this.
That's a function of the bootloader, not the OS. GRUB, the default bootloader for most Linux distros of any popularity, supports dual-boot, tri-boot, quad-boot, however-the-fuck-many-boot, right out of the box. In fact, the Windows bootloader supports this, as well, though it's a bit more work to set up.
You MISSED some of the more important points. I didn't say you couldn't do most of it with other OSes.
First, it's a commercial OS, not Linux. Second, it's not a separate bootloader, like GRUB or Chameleon, it's part of the OS. Third, even most Linux distros do not explicitly encourage the use of dual-booting, and have a whole system setup including walk-throughs telling you how to do it, built right into the OS.
But mainly, as I clearly stated above, what you are missing with other products is that you don't have the option of dual-booting AND, at the same time, running the SAME foreign OS install in VMWare or the like. If you want to do that you are stuck with 2 different foreign OS installs, and your files won't be in sync.
I'm sitting here typing this on a Mac, because the platform does have its advantages, but dual-boot isn't something unique to the Mac.
I didn't say dual-booting was unique to Mac. Read it again. What I wrote was that it's BETTER. Especially if you have VMWare. While that's a third-party product, it enables you to do what other OSes won't do, even with VMWare.
The problem with laptops is that "in your lap" is actually a terrible way to work, ergonomically.
The screen is way too low, causing you to hunch your back and neck; the monitor is too close, causing eye strain in many people. The keyboard in a laptop is put close to the screen so you can have palm space and a trackpad, but that's basically poor design, too, and again brings the screen too close. I could list many more problems.
Put your monitor more than an arm's length away. Use a separate keyboard & mouse or trackpad. THAT's what I mean by "we don't need a convertible". The arrangement I already described is BETTER in most circumstances. Using the screen attached to the keyboard should not be the default configuration, it should be a last resort, like if you have to use it in the backseat of a car.
Actually OS X IS certified UNIX. At least, Leopard was, and we can presume the successors are, too.
Actually, someone corrected me on this quite a bit earlier. It's only partly correct, and I knew it before but my memory failed me.
The Single Unix Specification means an OS can call itself "UNIX". But the Single Unix Specification is actually not UNIX, it's really more of a certification scheme saying "if you can do this at a minimum, you can say you're UNIX, but you're still not core UNIX." That's why it's called "Single Unix Specification", and not just UNIX.
POSIX certification works much the same way.
But the point of confusion arises because NeXT, and Mach which were based on it, were themselves based on BSD, which is neither POSIX or Single Unix Specification compliant.
Nevertheless, the makers of OS X decided to pay for the (expensive) certification and got it.
Actually, as many review comparisons have noted over the years, Apple's products are priced only a very little bit higher than what other PC manufacturers offer given the exact same hardware.
Further, that slight price difference is fully justified, given the engineering research Apple puts in to ensure that the hardware all works together in complete harmony; most PC manufacturers rely on Microsoft to do that job via drivers and software bridges.
The result is a machine that takes very good advantage of the hardware you do get, and the physical engineering is seldom matched by rivals at anything like the same price point.
So say what you will. Yes, Apples tend to be a bit spendy. But what you get for the price is very fine indeed.
AND -- before I forget -- Macintoshes make some of the best Windows PCs on the market! Without needing VMWare or any third-party VM, Apple (unlike Windows or Linux) fully supports dual-boot out-of-the-box. Just install your favorite version of Windows in Bootcamp, and you have the best of both worlds. Boot into OS X, or Windows. (I know you can do that with other OSes, but they all require 3rd-party VM software to do it. Apple builds it in.)
So when I want to run a game, FPS for example that isn't on Mac... I just restart, and I get the FULL Windows performance... not bogged down via some VM.
But wait! There's more!
I can ALSO install VMWare on the Mac, and if I don't need full performance, I can load THE SAME Bootcamp Windows install via VMWare without rebooting... and while I don't get the same performance as booting Windows, it's not a separate install, it's the same one. I can run all the less-resource-intensive Windows apps all I like, without rebooting.
So it's the best of three worlds. I've got OS X, which is a great OS in many ways, plus I can boot straight into Windows and get full Windows performance, plus I can run less-intensive Windows programs anytime I want via VMWare, without having to install 2 different copies of Windows. It's the same in VM as it is in native boot... down to the very last file.
Nobody else does that.
Long and short: my Mac can kick your PC's ass in most ways (same build date and price range), at being a PC, AND be a Mac as well, with all that comes with that.
If you don't think that justifies a SMALL increase in price for the very same hardware, you haven't tried doing it.
I think Apple has been a bit slow accepting that tablets are inevitably going to be our "computers". Not just some kind of accessory. In some rather unwanted ways, in past upgrades, they tried to dumb down the OS X desktop OS to be more like iOS, rather then the other way around.
I understand that they want to "bring them together", but they are going to have to do that by improving iOS, not dumbing down OS X.
Of course. I'm not denying that Mach is there. But in the minor versions since 10.7, they have stepped back somewhat from Mach and leaned a little more BSD. That's largely why they're Unix-compliant now but weren't before.
I run MaxDSP on my Surface Pro, and the touchscreen allows me to access the full power of that program.
What I was getting at before is that with keyboard and mouse, and a powerful-enough tablet, I can work away from the office almost as well as I can at the office, because if it's too much for the tablet I can always just remote-control my office desktop from the tablet. That doesn't work as well for things like sound and video production, of course.
So yeah: the more powerful they make them, the better. Apple still has very nice sound support in OS X. If it could make the tablets powerful enough to run the software, that would be very cool.
OK, here's the reason I'd like to see this convertible, as long as it runs OSX:
I understand, but we were talking about two different things.
I would like to see more-powerful tablets, too. Whether they're Windows, iOS, or Android (or something else).
But that doesn't mean it has to be "convertible". As I mentioned, there are already quite adequate Bluetooth keyboards and meese around. Just put your tablet on a stand, use those, and you effectively have the same thing as a "convertible". That's all I meant.
But yes, I do agree that better processors, more RAM, and more storage in these things are good goals.
Darwin is an open source Unix-like computer operating system released by Apple Inc. in 2000. It is composed of code developed by Apple, as well as code derived from NeXTSTEP, BSD, and other free software projects.
Darwin forms the core set of components upon which OS X and iOS are based. It is mostly POSIX compatible, but has never, by itself, been certified as being compatible with any version of POSIX. (OS X, since Leopard, has been certified as compatible with the Single UNIX Specification version 3 (SUSv3).[2][3][4])
So I stand corrected. BSD and OS X are not Posix-compliant. And actually I knew that, but I had forgotten. Still, I stand corrected.
The various BSD variants are notable in that they are in fact descendants of UNIX, developed by the University of California at Berkeley with UNIX source code from Bell Labs. However, the BSD code base has evolved since then, replacing all of the AT&T code. Since the BSD variants are not certified as compliant with the Single UNIX Specification (except for Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard and later), they are referred to as "UNIX-like".
So we were both partially correct. OS X, while being based on BSD, is compliant with the Single UNIX Specification, while BSD itself is not. There is still a lot of BSD in OS X, it is very far from all MACH. As I mentioned before, you can still even occasionaly see a BSD copyright comment in OS X code.
You obviously don't really know what you're talking about.
That's pretty funny.
Just look it up. You're wrong.
Most of these OSes, including most flavors of Linux, are Posix-compliant. Posix is what passes for a standard for "Unix-like" operating systems these days. But that doesn't make them UNIX, any more than Linux is UNIX. They have all deviated from true UNIX (legally and otherwise) for a long time now. And Linux is definitely not UNIX. But it's Posix-compliant too.
And not all "Unix-like" OSes are even certified posix-compliant, though more of them could be. Because certification is expensive.
If you tried to tell a BSD dev that BSD is UNIX, if I were you I'd be prepared to get punched in the nose. They don't like that at all.
I have never ever heard anyone say "Linux" for "POSIX-compliant". That's just really weird.
For a long time, lots of people referred to them as *nix. But that's hard to say.
I didn't say they were correct. Just that it's used. Many people today wouldn't know Red Hat from Qnix from BSD from Solaris from Debian. To them they're all "Linux", because they're not Windows.
Maybe you're not hanging around non-professionals much?
As I stated elsewhere on this page, no, iOS is based on BSD. OS X is also based on BSD, but that doesn't mean iOS is based on OS X.
There are many similarities, but for obvious reasons, they had to strip a lot out in iOS to make it practical for mobile hardware.
And no, BSD isn't UNIX, nor is OS X. They are posix-compliant operating systems, like Linux, AUX, and HP UX. None of them are actually UNIX anymore. All split from actual UNIX long ago. But they are all "unix-like" operating systems.
It's based on Mach, which is neither Linux nor BSD.
No, Apple's version of Darwin is very definitely based on BSD. Apple says so, Wikipedia says so, and you can see original BSD copyright notices in some command-line applications.
Apple didn't develop it. They bought NeXT, which had adapted it from Mach.
NeXT was a l--o--n--g time ago, man. Things have changed since.
iOS is POSIX compliant? Don't be silly. There are whole chunks of the API not implemented. Sure, there are add-ons to make MacOS POSIX compliant. Just like there are add-ons for Windows NT.
Where did you learn to read? I wrote that BSD, Linux, and UNIX are posix-compliant. I did NOT write that iOS, which is based on BSD, was posix-compliant. That is a different thing entirely.
The thing is that the tablet is evolving. It started out as just a "mobile device" but people are using them more and more for serious work. That means NOT just holding it in your hand or lap, but standing it up on a desk and using it as a desktop replacement in many cases.
That does require mouse (or trackpad, whatever). And Apple should pay attention.
iOS is in no way based on Linux. It's based on UNIX.
Since you want to nitpick, NO. You're wrong. It's based on BSD, which is neither Linux or UNIX.
But all of them (Linux, UNIX, BSD) are posix-compliant, which is what many people mean these days when they say Linux, even if it's technically incorrect.
The other responder had it correct. Both Android and iOS are variations on the Linux theme.
OS X and iOS are gradually being brought together. But as I stated a few years ago, with the advent of OS X 10.7 and especially 10.8, they need to stop making the desktop more like a mobile device, and instead make their mobile devices more like a desktop.
Today, I can actually work away from my office with a decent tablet, plus Bluetooth keyboard and mouse. For the heavier computation tasks, I can remote-control my home desktop. But in order for that to work well, it has to run desktop-like applications (word processing, spreadsheets, etc.).
Hell, I've even done that on an Android phone, with keyboard and mouse. But the screen is far too small to work on it that way for any great length of time.
Yes, for wrong definitions. Curvature is a global property, not local.
No. Curvature is a local property. It is what creates gravity, according to Einstein.
In "the vastness of space", as the saying goes (I mean far out, not in orbit), you feel only micro-gravity. Because you are far from significant masses. But here on Earth, for example, you experience the sensation of gravity. Because that gravity is local to Earth.
On other scales, say very small compared to a human, it can "look" flat again.
So it all depends on scale. For some definitions of "locally", you will see flat spacetime. For other (real) definitions of locally, you will see curved spacetime.
Really? Can you demonstrate to us how it is wrong?
GP's comment, to the effect that space is always locally flat "for some definition of locally" is a kind of a joke. His comment itself implies that if you increase the scale, it isn't flat.
And it isn't. The more you increase the scale, the more "non-flatness" you will observe, due to large masses. Even where it isn't tightly curved, it will be at least slightly curved by some mass in your universe.
Flatness only occurs on a relatively small scale, away from masses. If you were in a spaceship, far from the solar system, you still wouldn't observe "flat" space, because YOU and your spaceship are curving it.
It's all relative. But again, that's what GP is saying. It's nowhere near "flat" here on Earth, for example. The curvature is what is keeping you from floating away.
Slashdot Mirror
Ooh. Somebody with mod points missed the point too, even after I explained it in this thread 3 times.
Third Base
Maybe my tax dollars might save some lives. And maybe we'll see the words 'government' and 'intellectual' in the same sentence more often. Here's hoping.
It's interesting that OP claims the government "owns" the "IP" related to the vaccine.
In the U.S. there are very few -- almost no -- circumstances in which the government can "own" rights to patents, inventions, copyrights, ect.
They can be classified, but not "owned" except under very rare circumstances. While the ideal has been distorted, especially since 2000, the Federal government is still an employee of The People in the States, and doesn't really "own" anything.
You missed the point, too.
What Bootcamp + VMWare allows you to do, which to the best of my knowledge no other dual-boot scheme + VMWare allows you to do, is use the same Bootcamp dual-boot image as your VMWare image.
That's REALLY an advantage. A big one. The only reason I have Windows at all, is that I have a few programs that are Windows-only that I have to run occasionally. (BUT: one of them is a graphics-and-network-intensive game.)
For the hardcore game, I boot into Windows. Great. Nothing that others won't do.
For most other Windows programs, I can start up VMWare under OS X, and see the SAME Windows desktop. All the files are the same. And I can run the game that way, too, but it isn't quite as fast.
That's the difference: not that you can dual-boot, but that you can actually access the same dual-boot OS from within the other OS.
I don't know any other OS that quite supports this.
That's a function of the bootloader, not the OS. GRUB, the default bootloader for most Linux distros of any popularity, supports dual-boot, tri-boot, quad-boot, however-the-fuck-many-boot, right out of the box. In fact, the Windows bootloader supports this, as well, though it's a bit more work to set up.
You MISSED some of the more important points. I didn't say you couldn't do most of it with other OSes.
First, it's a commercial OS, not Linux. Second, it's not a separate bootloader, like GRUB or Chameleon, it's part of the OS. Third, even most Linux distros do not explicitly encourage the use of dual-booting, and have a whole system setup including walk-throughs telling you how to do it, built right into the OS.
But mainly, as I clearly stated above, what you are missing with other products is that you don't have the option of dual-booting AND, at the same time, running the SAME foreign OS install in VMWare or the like. If you want to do that you are stuck with 2 different foreign OS installs, and your files won't be in sync.
I'm sitting here typing this on a Mac, because the platform does have its advantages, but dual-boot isn't something unique to the Mac.
I didn't say dual-booting was unique to Mac. Read it again. What I wrote was that it's BETTER. Especially if you have VMWare. While that's a third-party product, it enables you to do what other OSes won't do, even with VMWare.
The problem with laptops is that "in your lap" is actually a terrible way to work, ergonomically.
The screen is way too low, causing you to hunch your back and neck; the monitor is too close, causing eye strain in many people. The keyboard in a laptop is put close to the screen so you can have palm space and a trackpad, but that's basically poor design, too, and again brings the screen too close. I could list many more problems.
Put your monitor more than an arm's length away. Use a separate keyboard & mouse or trackpad. THAT's what I mean by "we don't need a convertible". The arrangement I already described is BETTER in most circumstances. Using the screen attached to the keyboard should not be the default configuration, it should be a last resort, like if you have to use it in the backseat of a car.
Actually OS X IS certified UNIX. At least, Leopard was, and we can presume the successors are, too.
Actually, someone corrected me on this quite a bit earlier. It's only partly correct, and I knew it before but my memory failed me.
The Single Unix Specification means an OS can call itself "UNIX". But the Single Unix Specification is actually not UNIX, it's really more of a certification scheme saying "if you can do this at a minimum, you can say you're UNIX, but you're still not core UNIX." That's why it's called "Single Unix Specification", and not just UNIX.
POSIX certification works much the same way.
But the point of confusion arises because NeXT, and Mach which were based on it, were themselves based on BSD, which is neither POSIX or Single Unix Specification compliant.
Nevertheless, the makers of OS X decided to pay for the (expensive) certification and got it.
And so is Apple.
Actually, as many review comparisons have noted over the years, Apple's products are priced only a very little bit higher than what other PC manufacturers offer given the exact same hardware.
Further, that slight price difference is fully justified, given the engineering research Apple puts in to ensure that the hardware all works together in complete harmony; most PC manufacturers rely on Microsoft to do that job via drivers and software bridges.
The result is a machine that takes very good advantage of the hardware you do get, and the physical engineering is seldom matched by rivals at anything like the same price point.
So say what you will. Yes, Apples tend to be a bit spendy. But what you get for the price is very fine indeed.
AND -- before I forget -- Macintoshes make some of the best Windows PCs on the market! Without needing VMWare or any third-party VM, Apple (unlike Windows or Linux) fully supports dual-boot out-of-the-box. Just install your favorite version of Windows in Bootcamp, and you have the best of both worlds. Boot into OS X, or Windows. (I know you can do that with other OSes, but they all require 3rd-party VM software to do it. Apple builds it in.)
So when I want to run a game, FPS for example that isn't on Mac... I just restart, and I get the FULL Windows performance... not bogged down via some VM.
But wait! There's more!
I can ALSO install VMWare on the Mac, and if I don't need full performance, I can load THE SAME Bootcamp Windows install via VMWare without rebooting... and while I don't get the same performance as booting Windows, it's not a separate install, it's the same one. I can run all the less-resource-intensive Windows apps all I like, without rebooting.
So it's the best of three worlds. I've got OS X, which is a great OS in many ways, plus I can boot straight into Windows and get full Windows performance, plus I can run less-intensive Windows programs anytime I want via VMWare, without having to install 2 different copies of Windows. It's the same in VM as it is in native boot... down to the very last file.
Nobody else does that.
Long and short: my Mac can kick your PC's ass in most ways (same build date and price range), at being a PC, AND be a Mac as well, with all that comes with that.
If you don't think that justifies a SMALL increase in price for the very same hardware, you haven't tried doing it.
A worthy commenter.
Sometimes I think they should go above 5. You just saved a lot of people A LOT of work.
s/then/than You know what I meant.
I think Apple has been a bit slow accepting that tablets are inevitably going to be our "computers". Not just some kind of accessory. In some rather unwanted ways, in past upgrades, they tried to dumb down the OS X desktop OS to be more like iOS, rather then the other way around.
I understand that they want to "bring them together", but they are going to have to do that by improving iOS, not dumbing down OS X.
Of course. I'm not denying that Mach is there. But in the minor versions since 10.7, they have stepped back somewhat from Mach and leaned a little more BSD. That's largely why they're Unix-compliant now but weren't before.
I run MaxDSP on my Surface Pro, and the touchscreen allows me to access the full power of that program.
What I was getting at before is that with keyboard and mouse, and a powerful-enough tablet, I can work away from the office almost as well as I can at the office, because if it's too much for the tablet I can always just remote-control my office desktop from the tablet. That doesn't work as well for things like sound and video production, of course.
So yeah: the more powerful they make them, the better. Apple still has very nice sound support in OS X. If it could make the tablets powerful enough to run the software, that would be very cool.
OK, here's the reason I'd like to see this convertible, as long as it runs OSX:
I understand, but we were talking about two different things.
I would like to see more-powerful tablets, too. Whether they're Windows, iOS, or Android (or something else).
But that doesn't mean it has to be "convertible". As I mentioned, there are already quite adequate Bluetooth keyboards and meese around. Just put your tablet on a stand, use those, and you effectively have the same thing as a "convertible". That's all I meant.
But yes, I do agree that better processors, more RAM, and more storage in these things are good goals.
Here's what Wikipedia says about OS X, BSD and Mach: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X...
Why don't you look it up directly, rather than making straw-man arguments involving XNU?
The very first paragraph links to the page on Darwin. And that page says this at the top:
Darwin is an open source Unix-like computer operating system released by Apple Inc. in 2000. It is composed of code developed by Apple, as well as code derived from NeXTSTEP, BSD, and other free software projects.
Darwin forms the core set of components upon which OS X and iOS are based. It is mostly POSIX compatible, but has never, by itself, been certified as being compatible with any version of POSIX. (OS X, since Leopard, has been certified as compatible with the Single UNIX Specification version 3 (SUSv3).[2][3][4])
So I stand corrected. BSD and OS X are not Posix-compliant. And actually I knew that, but I had forgotten. Still, I stand corrected.
Nevertheless, they still belong to the family of "Unix-like" operating systems, as I stated earlier. Quote:
The various BSD variants are notable in that they are in fact descendants of UNIX, developed by the University of California at Berkeley with UNIX source code from Bell Labs. However, the BSD code base has evolved since then, replacing all of the AT&T code. Since the BSD variants are not certified as compliant with the Single UNIX Specification (except for Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard and later), they are referred to as "UNIX-like".
So we were both partially correct. OS X, while being based on BSD, is compliant with the Single UNIX Specification, while BSD itself is not. There is still a lot of BSD in OS X, it is very far from all MACH. As I mentioned before, you can still even occasionaly see a BSD copyright comment in OS X code.
You obviously don't really know what you're talking about.
That's pretty funny.
Just look it up. You're wrong.
Most of these OSes, including most flavors of Linux, are Posix-compliant. Posix is what passes for a standard for "Unix-like" operating systems these days. But that doesn't make them UNIX, any more than Linux is UNIX. They have all deviated from true UNIX (legally and otherwise) for a long time now. And Linux is definitely not UNIX. But it's Posix-compliant too.
And not all "Unix-like" OSes are even certified posix-compliant, though more of them could be. Because certification is expensive.
If you tried to tell a BSD dev that BSD is UNIX, if I were you I'd be prepared to get punched in the nose. They don't like that at all.
I have never ever heard anyone say "Linux" for "POSIX-compliant". That's just really weird.
For a long time, lots of people referred to them as *nix. But that's hard to say.
I didn't say they were correct. Just that it's used. Many people today wouldn't know Red Hat from Qnix from BSD from Solaris from Debian. To them they're all "Linux", because they're not Windows.
Maybe you're not hanging around non-professionals much?
iOS is based on OS X, which is a proper UNIX.
As I stated elsewhere on this page, no, iOS is based on BSD. OS X is also based on BSD, but that doesn't mean iOS is based on OS X.
There are many similarities, but for obvious reasons, they had to strip a lot out in iOS to make it practical for mobile hardware.
And no, BSD isn't UNIX, nor is OS X. They are posix-compliant operating systems, like Linux, AUX, and HP UX. None of them are actually UNIX anymore. All split from actual UNIX long ago. But they are all "unix-like" operating systems.
It's based on Mach, which is neither Linux nor BSD.
No, Apple's version of Darwin is very definitely based on BSD. Apple says so, Wikipedia says so, and you can see original BSD copyright notices in some command-line applications.
Apple didn't develop it. They bought NeXT, which had adapted it from Mach.
NeXT was a l--o--n--g time ago, man. Things have changed since.
iOS is POSIX compliant? Don't be silly. There are whole chunks of the API not implemented. Sure, there are add-ons to make MacOS POSIX compliant. Just like there are add-ons for Windows NT.
Where did you learn to read? I wrote that BSD, Linux, and UNIX are posix-compliant. I did NOT write that iOS, which is based on BSD, was posix-compliant. That is a different thing entirely.
The problem was with the Bluetooth stack.
From at least 7.1 onward, you can enable functionality of mouse/touchpad. But it may not work quite the way you'd like. I do agree that they could improve how the mouse works in iOS. They are a bit behind the game on that.
The thing is that the tablet is evolving. It started out as just a "mobile device" but people are using them more and more for serious work. That means NOT just holding it in your hand or lap, but standing it up on a desk and using it as a desktop replacement in many cases.
That does require mouse (or trackpad, whatever). And Apple should pay attention.
iOS is in no way based on Linux. It's based on UNIX.
Since you want to nitpick, NO. You're wrong. It's based on BSD, which is neither Linux or UNIX.
But all of them (Linux, UNIX, BSD) are posix-compliant, which is what many people mean these days when they say Linux, even if it's technically incorrect.
This sounds a lot like my national ID card as well as my permanent resident visa card.
The EU is not the United States.
The other responder had it correct. Both Android and iOS are variations on the Linux theme.
OS X and iOS are gradually being brought together. But as I stated a few years ago, with the advent of OS X 10.7 and especially 10.8, they need to stop making the desktop more like a mobile device, and instead make their mobile devices more like a desktop.
Today, I can actually work away from my office with a decent tablet, plus Bluetooth keyboard and mouse. For the heavier computation tasks, I can remote-control my home desktop. But in order for that to work well, it has to run desktop-like applications (word processing, spreadsheets, etc.).
Hell, I've even done that on an Android phone, with keyboard and mouse. But the screen is far too small to work on it that way for any great length of time.
Yes, for wrong definitions. Curvature is a global property, not local.
No. Curvature is a local property. It is what creates gravity, according to Einstein.
In "the vastness of space", as the saying goes (I mean far out, not in orbit), you feel only micro-gravity. Because you are far from significant masses. But here on Earth, for example, you experience the sensation of gravity. Because that gravity is local to Earth.
On other scales, say very small compared to a human, it can "look" flat again.
So it all depends on scale. For some definitions of "locally", you will see flat spacetime. For other (real) definitions of locally, you will see curved spacetime.
It's just plain wrong.
Really? Can you demonstrate to us how it is wrong?
GP's comment, to the effect that space is always locally flat "for some definition of locally" is a kind of a joke. His comment itself implies that if you increase the scale, it isn't flat.
And it isn't. The more you increase the scale, the more "non-flatness" you will observe, due to large masses. Even where it isn't tightly curved, it will be at least slightly curved by some mass in your universe.
Flatness only occurs on a relatively small scale, away from masses. If you were in a spaceship, far from the solar system, you still wouldn't observe "flat" space, because YOU and your spaceship are curving it.
It's all relative. But again, that's what GP is saying. It's nowhere near "flat" here on Earth, for example. The curvature is what is keeping you from floating away.