With Flip 3D you have to cycle through all the windows to find that window you're looking for. That's one more action (or 1 action x the number of windows) than exposé with which you can see all your windows at once in a glimpse.
considering the cost of a new mac $ + windows xp license $ + mac software $ + windows software $ + the hassle of dual-booting + learning a new system... who wants to deal with all that? The average user? uhh no!
Uh, there's something you must be ignoring here : the incentive to switch brought by Boot Camp supposes that we're talking about PC users who are being lured to the Mac. By PC users, I mean people who do already own Windows and Windows software. So no aditional cost, here.
Many people have been interested in the Mac but haven't made the leap of faith because they need to be able to continue to use some specific software. Now they can, so nothing can hold them back from switching.
well, all those assumptions seem to take for granted that:
- suddenly the whole Mac market has gone Intel and that no one owns a PPC Mac anymore - all those who do own an Intel Mac will install Boot Camp and Windows
both those assumptions are just plain wrong. The PPC market will keep people developing games for Mac, and the increasing Intel-based Macs market will hopefully grow Apple's market share and as such will grow the incentive to develop/port apps for Mac.
What if I want to walk stark naked in my house? What if I want to have sex with the wife on the kitchen table? What if I want to do legal things that would embarrass me if others knew? Those things are all legal, yet I don't want do put on a show for stranger eyes.
Why on earth would a 3D interface be an improvement over 2D interfaces? The file hierarchy IS 2D! So, okay, 3D can be used for eye candy (it is already anyway), but it just can't add anything to the current way to browse your files.
Let's say for instance that we have a 3D office metaphor, and that you have to walk through it to access your files: 1) it's still a 2 dimensionnal interaction represented in 3D 2) it takes more time to actually get to your content
Before moving to Mac OS X, Apple has done internal tests, 3D interfaces included, and came to the conclusion that the current 2D interface is the best thing we can do. I wouldn't expect a big change in that field, untill we actually revolutionize the way files are stored and accessed.
Really? I thought the invasion rested on Saddam continuation to break UN resolutions time and time again. Should we just not invade and thus not inforce these resolutions?
hm, last time time I heard, UN themselves voted AGAINST the use of force. I don't think anyone expects the USA to act in the name of the UN against their will...
Second, Saddam (his party to be exact whome he was a part of) was implicitly allied with al Qaeda as he aided and supported them
Third, we did not invade Iraq per say. We invaded Saddam and his supporters
Oh, so the US troops are somewhere in the Saddam vortex that is somehow nowhere inside of Iraq? And now that Saddam is gone, why are they still here then?
I think that saying such a thing is only a way to dismiss the seriousness of the situation. If you look at things in a specific way, and only at things that can confirm that point of view, yes, science can be seen as a religion. The thing is, science isn't just about theories. There are theorems, axioms, postulates, experiments, demonstrations, hypothesis, proofs, analysis, etc... Science isn't about faith. Theories themselves aren't about faith. They're probabilities, and are there to be challenged by the scientific community to be confirmed or invalidated. And theories never come out of the blue : according to what we currently know, they are more or less probable, and compatible with what we hold for scientific facts. Things are always at least double-checked. The evolution theory has been challenged just as well, and still stands today. It is backed by facts and evidences, and evolution in itself has been used practically to improve technology : robots move optimally thanks to generations of computer programs born randomly, breeded, and selected, just like in nature and according to Darwin's theory. The same applies for artificial life, see this for instance : http://www.spiderland.org/breve/
I know that in science sometimes what we held for true yesterday can be wrong tomorrow. For instance the earth was believed to be flat before... But by then science had nothing in common with today's science, and furthermore, that theory was based on faith, just like the intelligent design "theory" is nowadays... which is precisely why such theory is unworthy of our era. And I think that moving the subject onto science is just a spin.
So basically the intelligent design "theory" tells us that the earth is 6000 years old, and that all living things were created at once (well maybe not at once, I guess it should rather be in 6 days?...) What's next? Will they put the Earth back in the center of the universe, with all other celestial objects rotating around it?...
You know I'm perfectly OK with creationism as a religious belief. I just can't stand to see that some try to disguise that as a scientific theory. What facts led to the creation of such theory? What scientific mind wrote a thesis about it? Is there even one? And if there is, will those who support such a view ask the Nobel prize for him? Isn't it troubling to see that this theory has been written nearly word for word in the Bible even before the birth of science as we know it? Is there a scientific collegiate that supports this theory and is working on it? Why is it that those who support this so-called theory do it on a religious basis and not on actual scientific facts? Isn't it worrysome that secularism has to undego such heavy fire, when lobbies put the pressure on schools to make sure that something which has nothing to do there is being taught? Where's the respect for other beliefs? Where's the respect for those who do not believe in God?
Well you're just giving more weight to my point : Pakistan is an Islamic Republic! Islam is the state religion, there's no secularism there, so of course it is illegal to teach evolution over there. (see http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35519.htm) Turkey is supposed to support secularism, as church and state have been set appart since Ataturk, but lately there has been a religious pressure over there, and Turkey is well-known for its problems with human rights. I wouldn't say that you have chosen the best countries to compare with the United States of America...
At any rate, would you have found more recommandable countries in the same situation, it wouldn't change anything : as you said the whole thing is just silly. It's really worrysome that such a thing could happen, as we expect much better from the USA we know and love (I know this would never, ever happen here in France. This couldn't even be considered a single second. Evolution is even taught in religious private schools here, while the creation is only taught where it belongs : in religious education. And even there, it's only being depicted as a metaphor!)
you're getting OT there, I'm perfectly OK with creationism on its own, as a religious belief. It's just that some people in the US are trying to push a religious belief as a scientific alternative theory, in total discord with secularism, and to my knowledge that's the only place in the whole world where this is happening.
Okay, I found the numbers : according to a survey from Harris in June 2005, 55% of the americans think that their kids should learn both "theories". Scary, indeed.
er to explain what the "IVG" acronym stands for for non-french speaking people, it's "interruption volontaire de grossesse" (voluntary interruption of pregnancy) = abortion.
You know to us wastelanders it's pretty scary to see the intelligent design "theory" gaining momentum in the US, up to the point of being teached in school as an alternative scientific theory, up to the point as being kind of supported by your President. It sure doesn't make it sound as an epiphenomenon that only a small fraction of the population supports.
I don't have numbers but those two facts sure don't make it look as irrelevant (socially speaking, that is;)
Nah -- we'll just build one fewer bridge to nowhere in Alaska, and that'll free up the money to fix the levees.
Too bad it's too late... But congrats, you're great at finding solutions once they're not needed anymore.
Of course, leave it to the French to settle in a swamp below sea level, anyway.
you're right, leave it to the french, they have shown spectacular skills at making a swamp livable, like they did in the Poitou in the XIIth century. As for the sea level, see the other answer to your post.
So it's all your fault, no matter what.
Way to deal with your own responsibilities. I don't think you can blame the french for the decreased budget of the maintenance of the dikes. But if that's how you want to see things, you can always feel free to cover your eyes from the truth...
I would have thought that the "no WMD in Iraq" debacle would have clearly shown why preemptive attacks are a Very Bad Idea(TM). (and to those who argue that it's a good thing that the world got rid of Saddam Hussein, I totally agree, except that in this case that wasn't the reason why Bush started the war)
Now preemptive nuclear attacks... How could that ever be proportionate to anything?!
It's much more complicated than that. The standard work week is definitely not 35 hours in France : most of the people who could get that are functionnaries (but then again, not all of them). The next government disabled the 35 hours work week, letting each company argument about it with the syndicates, resulting in the cancellation of the whole thing in most companies. (as the employers ARE "motivating" their employees to work more)
And that's just for employees anyway, as there is of course no time limit for executives or artisans. And while the legal time limit in France is 39 hours of work per week, there are countless employees that still work much more than that.
So it's kind of messy, but at any rate, the standard work week in France definitely isn't 35 hours.
well, how about running Photoshop, MS Office, etc, on a Unix machine? How about the security? How about the ease of use? (yes, Mac OS X is a very elegant OS, full of many well-thought details, that helps getting the job done instead of getting in the way, you should try it seriously some day)
The great thing about Macs has always been and always will be their OS. That's what makes Macs.
Why would they, when it makes no business sense? It's not like companies were about giving users choices, especially if such choices would make them lose money...
Slashdot Mirror
With Flip 3D you have to cycle through all the windows to find that window you're looking for. That's one more action (or 1 action x the number of windows) than exposé with which you can see all your windows at once in a glimpse.
I say windows loses again.
Uh, there's something you must be ignoring here : the incentive to switch brought by Boot Camp supposes that we're talking about PC users who are being lured to the Mac. By PC users, I mean people who do already own Windows and Windows software. So no aditional cost, here.
Many people have been interested in the Mac but haven't made the leap of faith because they need to be able to continue to use some specific software. Now they can, so nothing can hold them back from switching.
well, all those assumptions seem to take for granted that:
- suddenly the whole Mac market has gone Intel and that no one owns a PPC Mac anymore
- all those who do own an Intel Mac will install Boot Camp and Windows
both those assumptions are just plain wrong. The PPC market will keep people developing games for Mac, and the increasing Intel-based Macs market will hopefully grow Apple's market share and as such will grow the incentive to develop/port apps for Mac.
So, who knows?...
Captain Obvious strikes again!
What if I want to walk stark naked in my house? What if I want to have sex with the wife on the kitchen table? What if I want to do legal things that would embarrass me if others knew? Those things are all legal, yet I don't want do put on a show for stranger eyes.
Why on earth would a 3D interface be an improvement over 2D interfaces? The file hierarchy IS 2D! So, okay, 3D can be used for eye candy (it is already anyway), but it just can't add anything to the current way to browse your files.
Let's say for instance that we have a 3D office metaphor, and that you have to walk through it to access your files:
1) it's still a 2 dimensionnal interaction represented in 3D
2) it takes more time to actually get to your content
Before moving to Mac OS X, Apple has done internal tests, 3D interfaces included, and came to the conclusion that the current 2D interface is the best thing we can do. I wouldn't expect a big change in that field, untill we actually revolutionize the way files are stored and accessed.
Really? I thought the invasion rested on Saddam continuation to break UN resolutions time and time again. Should we just not invade and thus not inforce these resolutions?
hm, last time time I heard, UN themselves voted AGAINST the use of force. I don't think anyone expects the USA to act in the name of the UN against their will...
Second, Saddam (his party to be exact whome he was a part of) was implicitly allied with al Qaeda as he aided and supported them
how about this then? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
Third, we did not invade Iraq per say. We invaded Saddam and his supporters
Oh, so the US troops are somewhere in the Saddam vortex that is somehow nowhere inside of Iraq? And now that Saddam is gone, why are they still here then?
one could hardly call that truth, too.
I think that saying such a thing is only a way to dismiss the seriousness of the situation. If you look at things in a specific way, and only at things that can confirm that point of view, yes, science can be seen as a religion. The thing is, science isn't just about theories. There are theorems, axioms, postulates, experiments, demonstrations, hypothesis, proofs, analysis, etc... Science isn't about faith. Theories themselves aren't about faith. They're probabilities, and are there to be challenged by the scientific community to be confirmed or invalidated. And theories never come out of the blue : according to what we currently know, they are more or less probable, and compatible with what we hold for scientific facts. Things are always at least double-checked. The evolution theory has been challenged just as well, and still stands today. It is backed by facts and evidences, and evolution in itself has been used practically to improve technology : robots move optimally thanks to generations of computer programs born randomly, breeded, and selected, just like in nature and according to Darwin's theory. The same applies for artificial life, see this for instance : http://www.spiderland.org/breve/
I know that in science sometimes what we held for true yesterday can be wrong tomorrow. For instance the earth was believed to be flat before... But by then science had nothing in common with today's science, and furthermore, that theory was based on faith, just like the intelligent design "theory" is nowadays... which is precisely why such theory is unworthy of our era. And I think that moving the subject onto science is just a spin.
So basically the intelligent design "theory" tells us that the earth is 6000 years old, and that all living things were created at once (well maybe not at once, I guess it should rather be in 6 days?...) What's next? Will they put the Earth back in the center of the universe, with all other celestial objects rotating around it?...
You know I'm perfectly OK with creationism as a religious belief. I just can't stand to see that some try to disguise that as a scientific theory. What facts led to the creation of such theory? What scientific mind wrote a thesis about it? Is there even one? And if there is, will those who support such a view ask the Nobel prize for him? Isn't it troubling to see that this theory has been written nearly word for word in the Bible even before the birth of science as we know it? Is there a scientific collegiate that supports this theory and is working on it? Why is it that those who support this so-called theory do it on a religious basis and not on actual scientific facts? Isn't it worrysome that secularism has to undego such heavy fire, when lobbies put the pressure on schools to make sure that something which has nothing to do there is being taught? Where's the respect for other beliefs? Where's the respect for those who do not believe in God?
Well you're just giving more weight to my point : Pakistan is an Islamic Republic! Islam is the state religion, there's no secularism there, so of course it is illegal to teach evolution over there. (see http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35519.htm) Turkey is supposed to support secularism, as church and state have been set appart since Ataturk, but lately there has been a religious pressure over there, and Turkey is well-known for its problems with human rights. I wouldn't say that you have chosen the best countries to compare with the United States of America...
At any rate, would you have found more recommandable countries in the same situation, it wouldn't change anything : as you said the whole thing is just silly. It's really worrysome that such a thing could happen, as we expect much better from the USA we know and love (I know this would never, ever happen here in France. This couldn't even be considered a single second. Evolution is even taught in religious private schools here, while the creation is only taught where it belongs : in religious education. And even there, it's only being depicted as a metaphor!)
you're getting OT there, I'm perfectly OK with creationism on its own, as a religious belief. It's just that some people in the US are trying to push a religious belief as a scientific alternative theory, in total discord with secularism, and to my knowledge that's the only place in the whole world where this is happening.
Okay, I found the numbers : according to a survey from Harris in June 2005, 55% of the americans think that their kids should learn both "theories". Scary, indeed.
er to explain what the "IVG" acronym stands for for non-french speaking people, it's "interruption volontaire de grossesse" (voluntary interruption of pregnancy) = abortion.
You know to us wastelanders it's pretty scary to see the intelligent design "theory" gaining momentum in the US, up to the point of being teached in school as an alternative scientific theory, up to the point as being kind of supported by your President. It sure doesn't make it sound as an epiphenomenon that only a small fraction of the population supports.
;)
I don't have numbers but those two facts sure don't make it look as irrelevant (socially speaking, that is
Too bad it's too late... But congrats, you're great at finding solutions once they're not needed anymore.
you're right, leave it to the french, they have shown spectacular skills at making a swamp livable, like they did in the Poitou in the XIIth century. As for the sea level, see the other answer to your post.
Way to deal with your own responsibilities. I don't think you can blame the french for the decreased budget of the maintenance of the dikes. But if that's how you want to see things, you can always feel free to cover your eyes from the truth...
I would have thought that the "no WMD in Iraq" debacle would have clearly shown why preemptive attacks are a Very Bad Idea(TM). (and to those who argue that it's a good thing that the world got rid of Saddam Hussein, I totally agree, except that in this case that wasn't the reason why Bush started the war)
Now preemptive nuclear attacks... How could that ever be proportionate to anything?!
It's much more complicated than that. The standard work week is definitely not 35 hours in France : most of the people who could get that are functionnaries (but then again, not all of them). The next government disabled the 35 hours work week, letting each company argument about it with the syndicates, resulting in the cancellation of the whole thing in most companies. (as the employers ARE "motivating" their employees to work more)
And that's just for employees anyway, as there is of course no time limit for executives or artisans. And while the legal time limit in France is 39 hours of work per week, there are countless employees that still work much more than that.
So it's kind of messy, but at any rate, the standard work week in France definitely isn't 35 hours.
I'm french and my personal record is 43 hours straight at work, as an employee. Can you top the lazy guy I am?...
troll for troll : maybe one day you'll pay enough taxes to afford maintaining your dikes...
Well you seem to ignore one important point : the city of Grenoble has given subsidies to HP, so that should give them a right to say something.
1 - buy a Mac ...
2 - plug it in
3 -
4 - profit!
Well Microsoft, appart from doing evil stuff, might just want to protect itself from patent farms, as MS would be a great target for those...
I think it's Dvorjak...
well, how about running Photoshop, MS Office, etc, on a Unix machine? How about the security? How about the ease of use? (yes, Mac OS X is a very elegant OS, full of many well-thought details, that helps getting the job done instead of getting in the way, you should try it seriously some day)
The great thing about Macs has always been and always will be their OS. That's what makes Macs.
Why would they, when it makes no business sense? It's not like companies were about giving users choices, especially if such choices would make them lose money...