Congratulations and Thank You to the Astronomers/Researchers involved with this discovery. Thank You for discovering something and then waiting for a full peer review and analysis before presenting your data to the public. WAAAAY too much today that process does not occur, because of bad scientists, and gives a bad name to good science and scientists.
Fuck you to the hackers who feel that something like this needed to be public without review. If it was 'revealed' and then found to be false, nobody would have remembered some script kiddie illegally, immorally, and unethically published the data before it was reviewed. Everyone would have jumped on the Astronomers/Researchers and science in general like a bunch of ignorant cattle (like they always do) and the true facts would have been buried in the mess.
PS - The best and most enjoyable/rewarding programming and debugging I have ever done in my life are when I use a GUI IDE and GUI Compiler. There are a million reasons to use a GUI IDE and GUI Compiler and never touch the command-line again. If you actually believe that command-line programming and command-line compiling are the best, then you have very obviously never programmed above the level of Hello World, regardless of what you say in your reply to this post.
I hate command-line compilers. Typing out 1000 different switches and options by hand and running through text screens of compile-time output is not productive nor intuitive.
I do not remember reading any of your posts before, but I do respect what you have to say. It is very nice to read posts from someone with a brain on Slashdot. Excellent.
What I would like to ask you for is a clarification of your third point. What exactly are you referring to? Simple human biological processes?
I was being a little bit figurative and generous with the 5-10 years, but I haven't had any problems with my Apple computers and OS X 10.4. I agree, more speed is always better, but defining something as slow is definitely a subjective measurement. Also, I have never had a problem with my Apple laptop or desktop hardware. Every Apple product I have seen with a problem had some kind of actual physical flaw (that was covered under Apple Care warranty) or had been abused or mistreated. And I definitely agree that buying RAM from Apple is expensive. I bought all of my RAM from Crucial.com for a fraction of the cost (and has the benefit of being direct from the manufacturer).
I hope my tips helped you out to reduce your system requirements, although in stock configuration OS X does not consume a lot of resources or CPU.
Plus, since your Apple laptop is only 1 1/2 years old, it should be Quartz 2D Extreme compatible. AFAIK, the only requirements are an AGP video card/chipset and 32MB VRAM. Any Apple laptop with a Radeon and 32MB VRAM should work.
The parent post is not entirely true. Either that or he/she is running Mac OS X 10.4 on a G3 300Mhz beige desktop system with a multiple year old video card. Even on moderate hardware (G3/G4 1Ghz+) with a moderate video card (Radeon/GeForce) OS X 10.4 has been nothing but exceptional for me. It is ridiculous how many non-OS X using Mods moderate posts.
If you are really having trouble with OS X 10.4, you can do a couple of things:
1) Upgrade from 5-10+ year-old Apple hardware (most complaints about OS X are from extremely underpowered hardware...Even new Linux distributions choke on underpowered hardware)
2) Start from a clean 10.4 installation. Most upgrades from 10.3.x tend to have a problem or two associated with the upgrade. And upgrading to a clean install is incredibly easy with OS X. Just use the option to do so from the Installer.
3) Turn off all Dashboard Widgets (with no Widgets active, Dashboard takes essentially 0 RAM or CPU)
4) You can even turn off Dashboard (you can find the utilities on VersionTracker)
5) Although I have never yet had a problem with it, and I absolutely love its search capabilties, you can turn off SpotLight (Change SPOTLIGHT=-YES- to SPOTLIGHT=-NO- in/etc/hostconfig) As an added note, you can control almost all of your services from the hostconfig file.
6) Look in/Library/StartupItems/ and/System/Library/StartupItems/ for other startup services
7) Wait for future updates to 10.4 as Quartz 2D Extreme and other video enhancements/improvements are disabled right now for more testing and will be re-enabled in the future.
Simply bad-mouthing OS X 10.4 is wrong. It works perfectly on my iBook and PowerMac and works for millions of other people as well. On a brand-new, default installation of 10.4.2 on my iBook I am averaging 42.91MB of RAM usage. Not exactly RAM intensive. The CPU is never peaked out except under extremely heavy usage (you can use the Activity Monitor application to permanently place a CPU meter on your desktop or in your Dock). While there are reports on the internet that some people are saying they had better video performance under 10.3.9, it would be a better comparison between the two when 10.4.9 comes out, because 10.3.9 is highly optimized at this point. Also, try searching Google for some optimization tips, there are a ton of Mac-centric website full of little performance tips for OS X.
The Japanese have been doing this since the early 1990's. They developed motorized sun-tracking mirrored devices to collect natural sunlight on the rooftops of buildings and use fiber optics to transmit the light inside. They studied the effects of lighting on productivity and found that natural sunlight was the best.
This technology is not new. The US finally caught up to Japan on one single technology from 15 years ago. Yay. Nothing to see here, move on.
China and ESA also have the capability. The US and Russia are not the only countries in the world to have the industrial and scientific knowledge to reach space.
No, there is nothing specific to Linux that Microsoft is trying to copy. All of Microsoft's new 'features' are already present in Apple OS X. Once Apple and OS X move to Intel permanently, you will see a lot more copying occuring from Microsoft.
Have to settle for an Apptel Powerbook? You have never used a Powerbook or OS X, have you? I mean, actually used it? By your statement, the answer to that question is No.
What you want has been available in an Apple Powerbook for quite a while. And will soon be powered by an Intel CPU.
Is it the price of the current Powerbook that bothers you? If so then you should state that you are looking in a particular price range.
I will preface this post by saying that I have +20 years of computing experience as both a developer and administrator. I have developed or administered almost every kind of UNIX out there (including NeXtStep and OpenStep) and every edition of Windows. While the Macintosh was not the greatest in the 1990's, Mac OS X changed everything. I have used Linux as both a desktop and a server since Redhat's Mother's Day release in the early 1990's.
Linux is perfect for background servers and special cost sensitive, in-house specially developed projects where licensing fees are important. Mac OS X is the perfect UNIX for the desktop and is beginning to make in-roads into enterprise rack servers.
The Linux community brings it on themselves. Linux will always be a niche in the desktop computing world. And while it is sometimes fun and interesting to try Linux on the desktop, Mac OS X is what Linux will always wish it could be.
Mac OS X is all the UNIX you could want with a simply brilliantly designed, fully featured, and consistent user interface, exceptional ease of use and administration with an excellent unified package management system. Everything you always wish you could have had on UNIX is now here on Mac OS X. Absolutely brilliant.
If you bash on Mac OS X it is because you have never used it before or you are too afraid to admit it kicks Linux's ass on the desktop. Linux zeolots are afraid to admit that Linux on the desktop sucks. All of the Linux zeolots I have listened to over the years all live in their own little world. And if they never realize it and never change their views, and if they don't get their act together and all work towards a common unified platform for desktop computing, Linux on the desktop will always suck. And they will continue to live in their own little world. End of the story.
If you are an MCSE you know fully well that Windows Server 2003 comes with OS X integration and security tools for Domain Users. As an MCSE you should also know that OS X integrates fully into Windows Server 2000/2003 Domain environments (SFM). As an MCSE you should also know that Microsoft Office 2004 on OS X is fully compatible with Microsoft Office XP/2003 on Windows. As a MCSE you should also know that VBA is also compatible between the Office suites. As an IT person you should know that OS X is not virus prone, therefore no corporate-wide anti-virus product support contracts. As an IT person you should know that OS X training/retraining costs are equal to or lower than Windows. As an MCSE and IT person, if you can use Microsoft Office on the Mac, fully integrate into a Windows Domain, print to all networked Windows printers, does not require full-time anti-virus software protection, and has little to zero retraining downtime; how can you not see how a Mac would fit into a corporate environment?
I do not think you are either an IT person a MCSE.
It's not perception. I have been using Linux since my first Mother's Day RedHat release back in the early 1990's. I even used to program on NeXt machines back at that time too (NeXtStep, OpenStep).
The one thing that I have learned is that the Linux community has a syndrome of lying to themselves to make themselves feel better, especially in the face of better competition.
For example, I have used Linux as a server and I have used Linux as a personal system. It has been a continual disappointment. The problem is that too many people accept the problems Linux as a whole has as non-existant. "Only smart people use Linux, so we don't want Linux catering to everyone". That attitude is extremely short sighted, ignorant and immature. A lot of very intelligent people love and appreciate Unix and its siblings, but want to get actual work done without it being a major pain in the ass. Linux as a whole is a major pain in the ass. And it is the drop dead last thing from user-friendly (along with Solaris/HP-UX/AIX/SCO/etc.). So that leaves them with OS X or Windows.
Why would corporations want to pick OS X over Linux? Simple. As a senior engineer at my company (+11,000 employees), I can tell you that most of the time people have asked the IT department if they could use OS X. They like OS X because it is very, very easy to use and understand (aka nobody gives a shit about the command line). And OS X just works. The interface is extremely intuitive and user-friendly and extremely consistent across almost all programs. OS X is essentially everything you wanted in a Unix and a Windows computer combined, except with a 21st century interface and no real virus or security concerns. And OS X is extremely compatible with both our Windows Domain environments and Microsoft Office. Linux does not even come close to that on any distribution.
The real costs, for people who are in industry, are things like time and money lost due to unfamiliarity/dislike/non-productivity/computer down time/training/retraining/etc. When we move someone from Windows to OS X, even the people with some of the least amount of computer skills are productive in a very short amount of time. Retraining costs with OS X are close to zero. And long term support is very important too. Who knows where Linux is going to be tomorrow. But, Apple will be around for support for a very long time. Companies look for long term investments, and Linux does not have serious long term investment power. Also, in-house support is just as important. If everyone has a Windows computer or Mac at home and nobody has Linux, who is going to support Linux in-house? Nobody, because it is not worth the financial investment to hire and train new people on Linux every time someone with Linux experience leaves the company. And you always hear about how Linux is saving company's huge money because the OS is free and runs well on older hardware. Bullshit. Nobody in a company wants a slow ass Pentium II or III for a server or a desktop computer. And supporting old hardware is extremely costly and time consuming.
And Linux has a terrible user interface and an even worse than terrible user experience. Throw someone in front a Linux computer and an OS X computer. Which one is going to the most productive over both the short term and the long term. That person is always the one who is using OS X. Look, Linux is NOT easier to use for anyone. The small percentage of the population who use Linux ignore or deny how much of a pain in the ass it is because they are afraid to admit something else is better. In the end, it is important to understand that Linux will always be a niche OS for embedded systems (where costs are everything) and servers (with huge support contracts). This is because when there are people who have something they need to get done, they pick the best tool for the job which will require the least amount of 'pain in the ass' or trouble. That is why people are choosing OS X more and more.
Linux may catch up some day. Like it is always doing, playing catch up. The problem for Linux is this: How do you make Linux better than Mac OS X for the home and corporate desktop? You can't.
%99.999 of the people want to get something done with their computers in an easy to use, intuitive and reliable way. With Linux it is %99.999 too much of a pain in the ass. If an OS is as easy or easier than Windows with none of Windows drawbacks, then you have a winner. And that winner is Mac OS X.
Also, I wanted to point out that Mac OS X networking over SAMBA does not require static IP addresses. You can use the standard NETBIOS or DOMAIN names of the clients. If you are using static IP's you have your configuration setup wrong.
Your last statement is completely false and ignorantly biased. When Mac OS 9 was around, the Macintosh did not have a strong business relationship. And with that, you were correct. But, those days are long gone. Today Mac OS X not only has full Microsoft Office 2004, but full Windows Server Domain integration and printing support. There is no reason in the world today that you would not run a Macintosh at home and at work.
And like I told you when I posted on that article...RTFA and all the various related FA's. It was NOT saying 1/3 of ALL studies are nonsense. It said 1/3 of most MEDICAL studies funded by ONE company without any real peer review were nonsense.
Yeah, too bad you had to learn how the universe works:-( Chemistry is a specific applied field of Physics. Unless you are planning to study some highly nonintellectual degree, you will have plenty of Chemistry and Physics to take at your university before you earn your degree.
One of the most important problems for using alcohol is storage. It is not a convenient way to store energy for vehicles. This is one of the main reasons why alcohol diluted gasoline is so terrible for automobile engines. While alcohol will increase the octane rating (which is a predetonation rating) of the gasoline/alcohol mixture, the alcohol is MUCH less dense and has MUCH less energy output per unit volume than the gasoline. What happens is that the engine will automatically advance the engine timing to compensate for the poor burning of the gasoline/alcohol mixture due to its high octane rating. But, due to the fuel not actually being 100% gasoline, this will cause the fuel to burn with extreme inefficiency and combined with the extremely low energy output of alcohol will cause the power output of the engine to actual DECREASE. At the same time, the emissions are not significantly less than gasoline without alcohol. In modern engines, the gasoline should contain NO alcohol at all. To bring this back to storage problems, the low energy per unit volume of alcohol means that you will need to store a lot more alcohol in order to make up the difference between the alcohol and gasoline energy outputs. This is the exact same problem with moving vehicles to hydrogen. Therefore storage IS a problem.
Current pollution concerns and pollution scrubbing technology aside, as both of these will improve in the future, the highest energy per unit volume for automotive fuel is diesel. Diesel hydrocarbons are extremely dense with hydrogen. I always shake my head when I see alcohol being pushed into our vehicles by politicians with mis-information campaigns when this country should be moving to a bio-deisel economy (with the bio-diesel being produced microbially).
It's funny when an intellectual post gets posted on Slashdot, like your post above, and it gets a score of 1. But, when someone mentions something stupid about Star Wars they get a score of 4 or 5.
Then all of the non-intellectual/non-educated/non-critical thinking/non-analytical/etc. people start jumping on this poorly worded article about how all science is just guessing and doubt, blah blah blah, we don't know anything about our universe, blah blah blah, religion/fantasy/make-believe/folklore/etc. is another answer, blah blah blah. It's utterly pathetic.
If this is indeed a planet that shows scientists that current astrophysical hypothesis/theory may be incomplete, that is all that it is doing, showing scientists that a current hypothesis/theory is incomplete. This will lead to further thinking, understanding, and refinement and a furthering of our understanding of the universe's laws as a whole. That is the entire point of science and the scientific process.
I, for one, am excited to see how this discovery will lead to new understandings and new scientific discovery.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only are you completely wrong, but you are a fucking idiot too.
Science needs rigorous review, no matter what. You don't have a right to a fucking thing until it is properly reviewed.
People exactly like you are what leads to the bad public image of science by ignorant non-scientists.
Congratulations and Thank You to the Astronomers/Researchers involved with this discovery. Thank You for discovering something and then waiting for a full peer review and analysis before presenting your data to the public. WAAAAY too much today that process does not occur, because of bad scientists, and gives a bad name to good science and scientists.
Fuck you to the hackers who feel that something like this needed to be public without review. If it was 'revealed' and then found to be false, nobody would have remembered some script kiddie illegally, immorally, and unethically published the data before it was reviewed. Everyone would have jumped on the Astronomers/Researchers and science in general like a bunch of ignorant cattle (like they always do) and the true facts would have been buried in the mess.
PS - The best and most enjoyable/rewarding programming and debugging I have ever done in my life are when I use a GUI IDE and GUI Compiler. There are a million reasons to use a GUI IDE and GUI Compiler and never touch the command-line again. If you actually believe that command-line programming and command-line compiling are the best, then you have very obviously never programmed above the level of Hello World, regardless of what you say in your reply to this post.
I hate command-line compilers. Typing out 1000 different switches and options by hand and running through text screens of compile-time output is not productive nor intuitive.
BerntB,
I do not remember reading any of your posts before, but I do respect what you have to say. It is very nice to read posts from someone with a brain on Slashdot. Excellent.
What I would like to ask you for is a clarification of your third point. What exactly are you referring to? Simple human biological processes?
Thanks.
I was being a little bit figurative and generous with the 5-10 years, but I haven't had any problems with my Apple computers and OS X 10.4. I agree, more speed is always better, but defining something as slow is definitely a subjective measurement. Also, I have never had a problem with my Apple laptop or desktop hardware. Every Apple product I have seen with a problem had some kind of actual physical flaw (that was covered under Apple Care warranty) or had been abused or mistreated. And I definitely agree that buying RAM from Apple is expensive. I bought all of my RAM from Crucial.com for a fraction of the cost (and has the benefit of being direct from the manufacturer).
I hope my tips helped you out to reduce your system requirements, although in stock configuration OS X does not consume a lot of resources or CPU.
Plus, since your Apple laptop is only 1 1/2 years old, it should be Quartz 2D Extreme compatible. AFAIK, the only requirements are an AGP video card/chipset and 32MB VRAM. Any Apple laptop with a Radeon and 32MB VRAM should work.
The parent post is not entirely true. Either that or he/she is running Mac OS X 10.4 on a G3 300Mhz beige desktop system with a multiple year old video card. Even on moderate hardware (G3/G4 1Ghz+) with a moderate video card (Radeon/GeForce) OS X 10.4 has been nothing but exceptional for me. It is ridiculous how many non-OS X using Mods moderate posts.
/etc/hostconfig) As an added note, you can control almost all of your services from the hostconfig file.
/Library/StartupItems/ and /System/Library/StartupItems/ for other startup services
If you are really having trouble with OS X 10.4, you can do a couple of things:
1) Upgrade from 5-10+ year-old Apple hardware (most complaints about OS X are from extremely underpowered hardware...Even new Linux distributions choke on underpowered hardware)
2) Start from a clean 10.4 installation. Most upgrades from 10.3.x tend to have a problem or two associated with the upgrade. And upgrading to a clean install is incredibly easy with OS X. Just use the option to do so from the Installer.
3) Turn off all Dashboard Widgets (with no Widgets active, Dashboard takes essentially 0 RAM or CPU)
4) You can even turn off Dashboard (you can find the utilities on VersionTracker)
5) Although I have never yet had a problem with it, and I absolutely love its search capabilties, you can turn off SpotLight (Change SPOTLIGHT=-YES- to SPOTLIGHT=-NO- in
6) Look in
7) Wait for future updates to 10.4 as Quartz 2D Extreme and other video enhancements/improvements are disabled right now for more testing and will be re-enabled in the future.
Simply bad-mouthing OS X 10.4 is wrong. It works perfectly on my iBook and PowerMac and works for millions of other people as well. On a brand-new, default installation of 10.4.2 on my iBook I am averaging 42.91MB of RAM usage. Not exactly RAM intensive. The CPU is never peaked out except under extremely heavy usage (you can use the Activity Monitor application to permanently place a CPU meter on your desktop or in your Dock). While there are reports on the internet that some people are saying they had better video performance under 10.3.9, it would be a better comparison between the two when 10.4.9 comes out, because 10.3.9 is highly optimized at this point. Also, try searching Google for some optimization tips, there are a ton of Mac-centric website full of little performance tips for OS X.
The Japanese have been doing this since the early 1990's. They developed motorized sun-tracking mirrored devices to collect natural sunlight on the rooftops of buildings and use fiber optics to transmit the light inside. They studied the effects of lighting on productivity and found that natural sunlight was the best.
This technology is not new. The US finally caught up to Japan on one single technology from 15 years ago. Yay. Nothing to see here, move on.
China and ESA also have the capability. The US and Russia are not the only countries in the world to have the industrial and scientific knowledge to reach space.
No, there is nothing specific to Linux that Microsoft is trying to copy. All of Microsoft's new 'features' are already present in Apple OS X. Once Apple and OS X move to Intel permanently, you will see a lot more copying occuring from Microsoft.
What is truly sad is that this isn't even the most misleading and incorrect story title I have seen this year on Slashdot.
Have to settle for an Apptel Powerbook? You have never used a Powerbook or OS X, have you? I mean, actually used it? By your statement, the answer to that question is No.
What you want has been available in an Apple Powerbook for quite a while. And will soon be powered by an Intel CPU.
Is it the price of the current Powerbook that bothers you? If so then you should state that you are looking in a particular price range.
And for most people, Linux is only a hobby OS and nothing more. Something to play with when you have spare time to tinker around with it.
I will preface this post by saying that I have +20 years of computing experience as both a developer and administrator. I have developed or administered almost every kind of UNIX out there (including NeXtStep and OpenStep) and every edition of Windows. While the Macintosh was not the greatest in the 1990's, Mac OS X changed everything. I have used Linux as both a desktop and a server since Redhat's Mother's Day release in the early 1990's.
Linux is perfect for background servers and special cost sensitive, in-house specially developed projects where licensing fees are important. Mac OS X is the perfect UNIX for the desktop and is beginning to make in-roads into enterprise rack servers.
The Linux community brings it on themselves. Linux will always be a niche in the desktop computing world. And while it is sometimes fun and interesting to try Linux on the desktop, Mac OS X is what Linux will always wish it could be.
Mac OS X is all the UNIX you could want with a simply brilliantly designed, fully featured, and consistent user interface, exceptional ease of use and administration with an excellent unified package management system. Everything you always wish you could have had on UNIX is now here on Mac OS X. Absolutely brilliant.
If you bash on Mac OS X it is because you have never used it before or you are too afraid to admit it kicks Linux's ass on the desktop. Linux zeolots are afraid to admit that Linux on the desktop sucks. All of the Linux zeolots I have listened to over the years all live in their own little world. And if they never realize it and never change their views, and if they don't get their act together and all work towards a common unified platform for desktop computing, Linux on the desktop will always suck. And they will continue to live in their own little world. End of the story.
Your post doesn't make any sense.
If you are an MCSE you know fully well that Windows Server 2003 comes with OS X integration and security tools for Domain Users. As an MCSE you should also know that OS X integrates fully into Windows Server 2000/2003 Domain environments (SFM). As an MCSE you should also know that Microsoft Office 2004 on OS X is fully compatible with Microsoft Office XP/2003 on Windows. As a MCSE you should also know that VBA is also compatible between the Office suites. As an IT person you should know that OS X is not virus prone, therefore no corporate-wide anti-virus product support contracts. As an IT person you should know that OS X training/retraining costs are equal to or lower than Windows. As an MCSE and IT person, if you can use Microsoft Office on the Mac, fully integrate into a Windows Domain, print to all networked Windows printers, does not require full-time anti-virus software protection, and has little to zero retraining downtime; how can you not see how a Mac would fit into a corporate environment?
I do not think you are either an IT person a MCSE.
It's not perception. I have been using Linux since my first Mother's Day RedHat release back in the early 1990's. I even used to program on NeXt machines back at that time too (NeXtStep, OpenStep).
The one thing that I have learned is that the Linux community has a syndrome of lying to themselves to make themselves feel better, especially in the face of better competition.
For example, I have used Linux as a server and I have used Linux as a personal system. It has been a continual disappointment. The problem is that too many people accept the problems Linux as a whole has as non-existant. "Only smart people use Linux, so we don't want Linux catering to everyone". That attitude is extremely short sighted, ignorant and immature. A lot of very intelligent people love and appreciate Unix and its siblings, but want to get actual work done without it being a major pain in the ass. Linux as a whole is a major pain in the ass. And it is the drop dead last thing from user-friendly (along with Solaris/HP-UX/AIX/SCO/etc.). So that leaves them with OS X or Windows.
Why would corporations want to pick OS X over Linux? Simple. As a senior engineer at my company (+11,000 employees), I can tell you that most of the time people have asked the IT department if they could use OS X. They like OS X because it is very, very easy to use and understand (aka nobody gives a shit about the command line). And OS X just works. The interface is extremely intuitive and user-friendly and extremely consistent across almost all programs. OS X is essentially everything you wanted in a Unix and a Windows computer combined, except with a 21st century interface and no real virus or security concerns. And OS X is extremely compatible with both our Windows Domain environments and Microsoft Office. Linux does not even come close to that on any distribution.
The real costs, for people who are in industry, are things like time and money lost due to unfamiliarity/dislike/non-productivity/computer down time/training/retraining/etc. When we move someone from Windows to OS X, even the people with some of the least amount of computer skills are productive in a very short amount of time. Retraining costs with OS X are close to zero. And long term support is very important too. Who knows where Linux is going to be tomorrow. But, Apple will be around for support for a very long time. Companies look for long term investments, and Linux does not have serious long term investment power. Also, in-house support is just as important. If everyone has a Windows computer or Mac at home and nobody has Linux, who is going to support Linux in-house? Nobody, because it is not worth the financial investment to hire and train new people on Linux every time someone with Linux experience leaves the company. And you always hear about how Linux is saving company's huge money because the OS is free and runs well on older hardware. Bullshit. Nobody in a company wants a slow ass Pentium II or III for a server or a desktop computer. And supporting old hardware is extremely costly and time consuming.
And Linux has a terrible user interface and an even worse than terrible user experience. Throw someone in front a Linux computer and an OS X computer. Which one is going to the most productive over both the short term and the long term. That person is always the one who is using OS X. Look, Linux is NOT easier to use for anyone. The small percentage of the population who use Linux ignore or deny how much of a pain in the ass it is because they are afraid to admit something else is better. In the end, it is important to understand that Linux will always be a niche OS for embedded systems (where costs are everything) and servers (with huge support contracts). This is because when there are people who have something they need to get done, they pick the best tool for the job which will require the least amount of 'pain in the ass' or trouble. That is why people are choosing OS X more and more.
Linux may catch up some day. Like it is always doing, playing catch up. The problem for Linux is this: How do you make Linux better than Mac OS X for the home and corporate desktop? You can't.
You are exactly correct about Mac OS X.
%99.999 of the people want to get something done with their computers in an easy to use, intuitive and reliable way. With Linux it is %99.999 too much of a pain in the ass. If an OS is as easy or easier than Windows with none of Windows drawbacks, then you have a winner. And that winner is Mac OS X.
Also, I wanted to point out that Mac OS X networking over SAMBA does not require static IP addresses. You can use the standard NETBIOS or DOMAIN names of the clients. If you are using static IP's you have your configuration setup wrong.
Your last statement is completely false and ignorantly biased. When Mac OS 9 was around, the Macintosh did not have a strong business relationship. And with that, you were correct. But, those days are long gone. Today Mac OS X not only has full Microsoft Office 2004, but full Windows Server Domain integration and printing support. There is no reason in the world today that you would not run a Macintosh at home and at work.
I have switched from being a +11 year advocate of Linux to Mac OS X. I haven't looked back.
Yes, luser-friendliness. Because you are such an uber-intelligent computer user. LOL.
What a fucking joke. Time to go to bed kid.
Why, because you are a Linux zeolot afraid to admit Apple is kicking your ass in the OS market?
That sounds more likely.
And like I told you when I posted on that article...RTFA and all the various related FA's. It was NOT saying 1/3 of ALL studies are nonsense. It said 1/3 of most MEDICAL studies funded by ONE company without any real peer review were nonsense.
Don't spread FUD like a moron.
Yeah, too bad you had to learn how the universe works :-( Chemistry is a specific applied field of Physics. Unless you are planning to study some highly nonintellectual degree, you will have plenty of Chemistry and Physics to take at your university before you earn your degree.
One of the most important problems for using alcohol is storage. It is not a convenient way to store energy for vehicles. This is one of the main reasons why alcohol diluted gasoline is so terrible for automobile engines. While alcohol will increase the octane rating (which is a predetonation rating) of the gasoline/alcohol mixture, the alcohol is MUCH less dense and has MUCH less energy output per unit volume than the gasoline. What happens is that the engine will automatically advance the engine timing to compensate for the poor burning of the gasoline/alcohol mixture due to its high octane rating. But, due to the fuel not actually being 100% gasoline, this will cause the fuel to burn with extreme inefficiency and combined with the extremely low energy output of alcohol will cause the power output of the engine to actual DECREASE. At the same time, the emissions are not significantly less than gasoline without alcohol. In modern engines, the gasoline should contain NO alcohol at all. To bring this back to storage problems, the low energy per unit volume of alcohol means that you will need to store a lot more alcohol in order to make up the difference between the alcohol and gasoline energy outputs. This is the exact same problem with moving vehicles to hydrogen. Therefore storage IS a problem.
Current pollution concerns and pollution scrubbing technology aside, as both of these will improve in the future, the highest energy per unit volume for automotive fuel is diesel. Diesel hydrocarbons are extremely dense with hydrogen. I always shake my head when I see alcohol being pushed into our vehicles by politicians with mis-information campaigns when this country should be moving to a bio-deisel economy (with the bio-diesel being produced microbially).
It's funny when an intellectual post gets posted on Slashdot, like your post above, and it gets a score of 1. But, when someone mentions something stupid about Star Wars they get a score of 4 or 5.
Then all of the non-intellectual/non-educated/non-critical thinking/non-analytical/etc. people start jumping on this poorly worded article about how all science is just guessing and doubt, blah blah blah, we don't know anything about our universe, blah blah blah, religion/fantasy/make-believe/folklore/etc. is another answer, blah blah blah. It's utterly pathetic.
If this is indeed a planet that shows scientists that current astrophysical hypothesis/theory may be incomplete, that is all that it is doing, showing scientists that a current hypothesis/theory is incomplete. This will lead to further thinking, understanding, and refinement and a furthering of our understanding of the universe's laws as a whole. That is the entire point of science and the scientific process.
I, for one, am excited to see how this discovery will lead to new understandings and new scientific discovery.