So if it's because of Microsoft's dominant market share, why does Apple do so well in the markets that it is in (at least in terms of return rates)?
Because they market their computers as distinct (and better) from Windows PCs. OEMs that sell Linux PCs usually market them as Windows PCs but cheaper, which they aren't and won't be. It's all about the marketing.
Then send Asus a refund request for the Windows Home license that you didn't use.
I don't know how it works in the US, but in Poland you'll have to go to court in order to do this. This is a lot of pain in the ass and makes you look like a weirdo. The reality is that the market does not provide the product that is desired: you either give your money to Satan, or lose a much larger amount of money (=time) trying not to.
The real edge of KDE over Gnome has always been the tech, though. kioslaves vs. gnomevfs is one example
GnomeVFS is deprecated since about half a year. It was a big pile of crap, so it's good it's dead. The current technology is GIO, which is much more pleasant to use and quite powerful.
KParts another
I think Gnome uses DBus for the things KDE uses KParts for. Bonobo is occasionally used but it's being actively removed.
Since energy can be converted to mass, they would have to be going at a large percentage of c to actually "weigh" more.
That's a non sequitur. Fast moving bodies do not have a higher "effective mass" because some of the energy is converted into mass. It's just an interpretation of the fact that as you approach c it takes more and more energy to accelerate. Another interpretation is that the mass is constant and the momentum does not depend linearly on velocity, but approaches infinity as the velocity approaches c.
I think Microsoft is trolling. In this specific troll posting they are exploiting the fact that people don't realize that an open standard process does not necessarily result in an open standard. The reality is probably that the manifesto group is not willing to get subverted by them ('subvertible' is MS's definition of 'open').
Their mode of action seems to be: first try to subvert a standards process to introduce proprietary technology into it, thus giving itself an advantage; if that fails, call the process "not open enough". Proceed to form a new "more open" standards process stacked with Microsoft partners that competes with the existing one.
If it's disruptive to too many customers, it'll cost them money (at the benefit of their competitors).
You know, that's the problem. There is no competition in broadband in the US due to lack of regulation. This is why people are complaining. Being denied access from one provider usually means an Internet death penalty. I have at least 5 real broadband options where I live (Warsaw). Most people in the US have 1 or, if they're lucky, 2.
I propose a degree in Religious Engrineering. Here are example test questions:
Religious Engineering midterm exam. 5 questions, 60 minutes. You can use the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah, and the Book of Mormon. In all questions, assume that Jesus is perfectly spherical and has an uniform density of G. Parying during the exam is forbidden.
1. (20 pts) Adam and Bob are at rest. God loves them equally (L-0). Subsequently, Adam accelerates to 0.9c. From the point of view of Bob, how much more does God love Adam?
2. Stephan, a Catholic, is in a state of sanctifying grace. After some time he has an intercourse with a sheep S. a) (8 pts) What is Stephan's retribution coefficient if the sheep S consented? b) What is Stephan's retribution coefficient if the sheep S didn't consent, but it couldn't be said it had something against it?
3. (20 pts) The Holy Spirit's eternal, all-encompasing love is in the XY plane. The soul of Sue is at (0,0,5) at t = 0s, and its velocity vector is (0,0,5) m/s. The model was constructed according to rational positivism typical of the Enlightenement period. At what time tS will Sue's soul achieve salvation? (Hint: assume that souls are point-like).
4. (20 pts) Assume that the Ascension happens at the time t. Cameron, a saved human being in the state of sanctifying grace, at the time t has her head crushed in the jaws of an alligator. Calculate the mass of meat left for the alligator at the time t + 10s.
5. Isaac is a frictionless Jew of uniform density at rest. For his faith level, his sin factor is 11 Moseses. He subsequently eats 300 grams of pork, and he enjoys it. For this question, assume that Jews are always right. a) (10 pts) What is Isaac's sin factor after eating the pork? b) (10 pts) What is Isaac's heritage adjusted sin factor if he's from the tribe of Judah?
Bonus question. 25 g of wafer and 20 ml of cheap wine undergo transsubstatiation to become the flesh and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Calculate the amount of heat that is liberated during this process, in joules.
(note: originally this was a Polish text by an anonymous author)
Carbon sequestration is a fantasy. It fails the law of conservation of energy.
It isn't, because you are storing something else than you extracted, and you have obtained a large amount of energy from that transformation. You fail at elementary chemistry.
Unless you're just speaking from authority without any research to support your statements that sequestering 1 mole of CO2 takes more energy than burning 1 mole of carbon in the form of hydrocarbons, but then it's just a troll.
As I said before, this could be solved in a different way. First you have to realize that the control function is actually separate from the sound reproduction function.
Make the remote a separate device, and put a headphone jack on it. You'll then be able to use remote control with any headphones. In fact, count with me until such device from a third party or Apple itself appears for this iPod: 3... 2... 1...
We should not regulate or ban things just because they have potential destructive uses.
You see, weapons are special, because they do not have non-destructive uses. You either kill people with them, which is never a legal activity, or you hunt and kill animals, which only an extremely tiny fraction of the population has to do (as in not for recreation).
The bacteria have to produce a lot of CO2 in the process of converting coal to methane, because the C:H ratio for coal is 1:1 at best, whereas for methane it is 1:4. The extra hydrogen has to come from somewhere, or the extra carbon has to be discarded. In the case of bacteria they most probably do the equivalent of coal gasification, converting coal and water to CO2 and extra hydrogen to produce methane. This doesn't change the fact that a lot of CO2 must be produced in this process, which negates any environmental value it had. Using bacteria instead of normal industrial processes is just an inefficient way to make it trendy.
The legal issues you mention don't exist, and the whole idea of gas companies having some kind of monopoly on gas products regardless of where it's derived from is utter nonsense. You exhibit the bogus American way of thinking that a successful company is somehow entitled to the profits of imitators.
Ignoring nuclear power because of controversy (...)
Ignoring the only proven alternative to coal, as in one that is supplying a significant percent of electricity in several nations (over 50% in some cases), only because some dimwits don't understand physics or engineering, is extremely stupid.
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is currently uneconomical, and producing hydrocarbons through this process and then burning them in engines generates much more CO2 than burning oil, because some of the coal has to be used to generate the extra hydrogen present in gasoline: C + 2 H2O = CO2 + 2 H2
Converting coal to methane is very similar in principle. However, you need an abundant source of hydrogen. The cheapest source of hydrogen right now is natural gas, mainly composed of methane, so the circle is closed. The only feasible carbon-neutral source of hydrogen is the electrolysis of water, which is currently much more expensive than getting it from natural gas. This could change with cheaper energy e.g. from nuclear power plants, but that would make clean coal pointless.
They are trying to market something that is well known and currently uneconomical but recently got trendy among the chemically illiterate. "Hey, what if we could make natural gas from coal? Natural gas is better for the environment, right?" - yes, but you have to get that extra cheap hydrogen from *somewhere*. Industrial chemistry is not about possibilities, it is about profits.
I think one of the reasons people are more afraid of nuclear waste than CO2 is that after you're irradiated, you know you'll die, but are still alive for some time and aware of the fact you will die. (Regardless of the actual chance of that happening, which is extremely low.) People really fear being confronted with their mortality. That's why they are afraid of cancer and flying, but not so much of road accidents where you die instantly.
Now you're just being silly. The Add/Remove Programs dialog in Ubuntu has a search function, so when you type in "web browser" or "media player" or "vector graphics editor" or whatever, the relevant applications come up. They're even labeled according to their function in the menu, e.g, "Firefox Web Browser", so there's completely no way an user can be confused about the app's function.
There are also many commercial apps that have weird names: what Adobe Distiller do? What about Maya? Reason?
Personally I'm waiting for OpenCL, which would be to GPGPU what OpenGL was for 3D graphics when it was released - essentially a vendor and platform neutral general processing interface to the GPU.
Of course, the Taiwanese government bureaucracy is at fault for doing a piss poor job of marketing their own country in every way.
Doesn't this have SOMETHING to do with the fact that China is very unhappy about Taiwan's existence as an autonomous entity, and doing everything they can to subjugate them?
Slashdot Mirror
So if it's because of Microsoft's dominant market share, why does Apple do so well in the markets that it is in (at least in terms of return rates)?
Because they market their computers as distinct (and better) from Windows PCs. OEMs that sell Linux PCs usually market them as Windows PCs but cheaper, which they aren't and won't be. It's all about the marketing.
Then send Asus a refund request for the Windows Home license that you didn't use.
I don't know how it works in the US, but in Poland you'll have to go to court in order to do this. This is a lot of pain in the ass and makes you look like a weirdo. The reality is that the market does not provide the product that is desired: you either give your money to Satan, or lose a much larger amount of money (=time) trying not to.
The real edge of KDE over Gnome has always been the tech, though. kioslaves vs. gnomevfs is one example
GnomeVFS is deprecated since about half a year. It was a big pile of crap, so it's good it's dead. The current technology is GIO, which is much more pleasant to use and quite powerful.
KParts another
I think Gnome uses DBus for the things KDE uses KParts for. Bonobo is occasionally used but it's being actively removed.
Since energy can be converted to mass, they would have to be going at a large percentage of c to actually "weigh" more.
That's a non sequitur. Fast moving bodies do not have a higher "effective mass" because some of the energy is converted into mass. It's just an interpretation of the fact that as you approach c it takes more and more energy to accelerate. Another interpretation is that the mass is constant and the momentum does not depend linearly on velocity, but approaches infinity as the velocity approaches c.
I think Microsoft is trolling. In this specific troll posting they are exploiting the fact that people don't realize that an open standard process does not necessarily result in an open standard. The reality is probably that the manifesto group is not willing to get subverted by them ('subvertible' is MS's definition of 'open').
Their mode of action seems to be: first try to subvert a standards process to introduce proprietary technology into it, thus giving itself an advantage; if that fails, call the process "not open enough". Proceed to form a new "more open" standards process stacked with Microsoft partners that competes with the existing one.
Ca2CO3
CaOH
It's not the first time I read things like those here. Slashdot's general ignorance of chemistry is disturbing. Why is that?
If it's disruptive to too many customers, it'll cost them money (at the benefit of their competitors).
You know, that's the problem. There is no competition in broadband in the US due to lack of regulation. This is why people are complaining. Being denied access from one provider usually means an Internet death penalty. I have at least 5 real broadband options where I live (Warsaw). Most people in the US have 1 or, if they're lucky, 2.
Yeah, exactly.
Didn't know about this, because I'm generally not interested in iPod accessories.
I propose a degree in Religious Engrineering. Here are example test questions:
Religious Engineering midterm exam. 5 questions, 60 minutes. You can use the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah, and the Book of Mormon. In all questions, assume that Jesus is perfectly spherical and has an uniform density of G. Parying during the exam is forbidden.
1. (20 pts)
Adam and Bob are at rest. God loves them equally (L-0). Subsequently, Adam accelerates to 0.9c. From the point of view of Bob, how much more does God love Adam?
2. Stephan, a Catholic, is in a state of sanctifying grace. After some time he has an intercourse with a sheep S.
a) (8 pts) What is Stephan's retribution coefficient if the sheep S consented?
b) What is Stephan's retribution coefficient if the sheep S didn't consent, but it couldn't be said it had something against it?
3. (20 pts) The Holy Spirit's eternal, all-encompasing love is in the XY plane. The soul of Sue is at (0,0,5) at t = 0s, and its velocity vector is (0,0,5) m/s. The model was constructed according to rational positivism typical of the Enlightenement period. At what time tS will Sue's soul achieve salvation? (Hint: assume that souls are point-like).
4. (20 pts) Assume that the Ascension happens at the time t. Cameron, a saved human being in the state of sanctifying grace, at the time t has her head crushed in the jaws of an alligator. Calculate the mass of meat left for the alligator at the time t + 10s.
5. Isaac is a frictionless Jew of uniform density at rest. For his faith level, his sin factor is 11 Moseses. He subsequently eats 300 grams of pork, and he enjoys it. For this question, assume that Jews are always right.
a) (10 pts) What is Isaac's sin factor after eating the pork?
b) (10 pts) What is Isaac's heritage adjusted sin factor if he's from the tribe of Judah?
Bonus question.
25 g of wafer and 20 ml of cheap wine undergo transsubstatiation to become the flesh and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Calculate the amount of heat that is liberated during this process, in joules.
(note: originally this was a Polish text by an anonymous author)
Carbon sequestration is a fantasy. It fails the law of conservation of energy.
It isn't, because you are storing something else than you extracted, and you have obtained a large amount of energy from that transformation. You fail at elementary chemistry.
Unless you're just speaking from authority without any research to support your statements that sequestering 1 mole of CO2 takes more energy than burning 1 mole of carbon in the form of hydrocarbons, but then it's just a troll.
The first person to create a remote control with a standard headphone jack on it for the iPod Shuffle 3G will make big money.
e.g. iPod => remote cable => remote => headphone cable => headphones of your choice
Unless Apple prevents that. We'll see whether they're really evil.
I've already seen this solution on an old Philips discman. I don't know why they didn't think about this.
As I said before, this could be solved in a different way. First you have to realize that the control function is actually separate from the sound reproduction function.
Make the remote a separate device, and put a headphone jack on it. You'll then be able to use remote control with any headphones. In fact, count with me until such device from a third party or Apple itself appears for this iPod: 3... 2... 1...
(unless they will be assholes and shoot it down)
There's no standard way to control a device from a standard headphone jack
There is. Put a headphone jack on the remote.
We should not regulate or ban things just because they have potential destructive uses.
You see, weapons are special, because they do not have non-destructive uses. You either kill people with them, which is never a legal activity, or you hunt and kill animals, which only an extremely tiny fraction of the population has to do (as in not for recreation).
No. The idea of using human activity to satisfy our energy needs is 100% pure idiocy. Otherwise the steam engine would have never been invented.
The bacteria have to produce a lot of CO2 in the process of converting coal to methane, because the C:H ratio for coal is 1:1 at best, whereas for methane it is 1:4. The extra hydrogen has to come from somewhere, or the extra carbon has to be discarded. In the case of bacteria they most probably do the equivalent of coal gasification, converting coal and water to CO2 and extra hydrogen to produce methane. This doesn't change the fact that a lot of CO2 must be produced in this process, which negates any environmental value it had. Using bacteria instead of normal industrial processes is just an inefficient way to make it trendy.
The legal issues you mention don't exist, and the whole idea of gas companies having some kind of monopoly on gas products regardless of where it's derived from is utter nonsense. You exhibit the bogus American way of thinking that a successful company is somehow entitled to the profits of imitators.
Ignoring nuclear power because of controversy (...)
Ignoring the only proven alternative to coal, as in one that is supplying a significant percent of electricity in several nations (over 50% in some cases), only because some dimwits don't understand physics or engineering, is extremely stupid.
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is currently uneconomical, and producing hydrocarbons through this process and then burning them in engines generates much more CO2 than burning oil, because some of the coal has to be used to generate the extra hydrogen present in gasoline:
C + 2 H2O = CO2 + 2 H2
Germans used a coal to oil process to satisfy 70% of their liquid fuel needs during the World War II. The process was initially invented at the beginning of the 20th century. See this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergius_process
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process
Converting coal to methane is very similar in principle. However, you need an abundant source of hydrogen. The cheapest source of hydrogen right now is natural gas, mainly composed of methane, so the circle is closed. The only feasible carbon-neutral source of hydrogen is the electrolysis of water, which is currently much more expensive than getting it from natural gas. This could change with cheaper energy e.g. from nuclear power plants, but that would make clean coal pointless.
They are trying to market something that is well known and currently uneconomical but recently got trendy among the chemically illiterate. "Hey, what if we could make natural gas from coal? Natural gas is better for the environment, right?" - yes, but you have to get that extra cheap hydrogen from *somewhere*. Industrial chemistry is not about possibilities, it is about profits.
I think one of the reasons people are more afraid of nuclear waste than CO2 is that after you're irradiated, you know you'll die, but are still alive for some time and aware of the fact you will die. (Regardless of the actual chance of that happening, which is extremely low.) People really fear being confronted with their mortality. That's why they are afraid of cancer and flying, but not so much of road accidents where you die instantly.
Now you're just being silly. The Add/Remove Programs dialog in Ubuntu has a search function, so when you type in "web browser" or "media player" or "vector graphics editor" or whatever, the relevant applications come up. They're even labeled according to their function in the menu, e.g, "Firefox Web Browser", so there's completely no way an user can be confused about the app's function.
There are also many commercial apps that have weird names: what Adobe Distiller do? What about Maya? Reason?
they're saying "this is mine, get your own"
Unless it's a patent, in which case they're saying "this is mine, and don't even dare to get your own"
CUDA = an Nvidia-specific way to do GPGPU...
Personally I'm waiting for OpenCL, which would be to GPGPU what OpenGL was for 3D graphics when it was released - essentially a vendor and platform neutral general processing interface to the GPU.
And only IE6 users without Google toolbar would see it, because others use search plugins and never go to the front page...
Of course, the Taiwanese government bureaucracy is at fault for doing a piss poor job of marketing their own country in every way.
Doesn't this have SOMETHING to do with the fact that China is very unhappy about Taiwan's existence as an autonomous entity, and doing everything they can to subjugate them?