Looks to me like you plucked your numbers out of thin air.
I did. Perhaps I didn't phrase my post clearly enough (I was in a hurry). I wasn't using the numbers from the article, I was trying to explain why percentages don't matter when it comes to how much money you save. I was using a different hypothetical scenario. All I was trying to do was show that two different scenarios can save a different percentage of the initial usage (for that car), the actual saving in gallons/dollars/environmental impact is the same.
The parent to my post seemed to think that it was about percentage difference (which it could be if you take the overall use by both cars, but not on a per-car basis) not absolute volume of petrol (gas) saved. Notice that I never mentioned the figures from the article, only hypothetical figures which were chosen purely because they would both give a saving of 2 gallons per 100 miles. In MPG of those examples would obviously translate to 20mpg -> ~33.34mpg and ~14.29mpg -> 20mpg.
Looking at the parent again now, I think I may have misread it the first time, so my post was kinda pointless anyway (as I said I was in a hurry, so I obviously read it too quickly or something).
The question still has nothing to do with percentages or proportions of the initial value. Going from 5gallons/100miles to 3gallons/100miles saves 2 gallons, and saves 40% of the fuel used initially. Going from 7gallons/100miles to 5gallons/100miles saves 2 gallons, and saves ~28.6% of the fuel used initially. The first cuts the percentage by much more, but the actual petrol (gas) saved is the same, so the price difference and the pollution difference are the same. Percentages like that are only useful when comparing two things with the same initial value (since both are essentially calibrated to the same scale).
I don't really care if you like it. Unless you can convince me that my gripes are invalid or that they are outweighed by the positives (they would have to be significantly outweighed) the point is moot. I don't care if you can add a clickwheel for the iPhone, since it isn't supposed to be used that way (it's a smartphone, not a dedicated music player) and the fact that you can add your own controls doesn't make the UI better.
You can easily get a cheap IrDA dongle for under $30. In fact my TV tuner came with an IrDA receiver and a remote and it only cost £50 (about $75), so the remote and receiver probably cost me about £5-7 (~$8-10).
I don't exactly know what you mean by "a Tag program" but windows indexes files so they can be searched in much the same way as in OS X, allowing for the examples you gave (file type, file name, contents for certain file types etc). For the language thing you can use any character you want in windows filenames (other than those used by the filesytem such as slashes). If you want to search using Chinese characters you can. The only way in which languages aren't supported in that way is in the UI, and you can download language packs to do that (although I think it may be restricted to business/enterprise and ultimate editions).
Regardless, giving examples of things which do work does not negate the things that don't, so saying that "It just works" is still false. I don't deny that there are good things in Apple software or bad things in Microsoft software (in fact other than their OS most MS stuff is awful IMHO), just that the "It just works" claim is false (and other things such as their UI being simpler or better etc). Oh, and WE don't live in America. Maybe you do, but I live in the UK; don't make assumptions. Long live competition. Quick end to fanboys, zealots and evangelists.
Perhaps a UI or visual settings tab. There are other things which could go in there as well, such as the "keep mini player on top of all other windows" and "keep film window on top of all other windows". Wouldn't hurth them to add a few more options to the video player either (like UI timeout)
Given that almost every non-software-engineer using Windows I've met doesn't seem to understand what the systray icons are
Well I'm no software engineer, but I get your point. not really the kind of thing that needs to be hidden away though.
I don't think that the amount of stuff it does is a problem. The problem is that the UI wasn't designed for it so they have just tacked on the additional features and options to the original UI. Things that made sense before don't due to awkward groupings and ambiguous labelling. That, and the UI was designed with far fewer options in mind.
That isn't the part of the UI I dislike. When it comes to that specific function it is laid out pretty much in the same way as Apples file browser (Finder I think its called), which works fine. It's when you have to do more complicated things that problems arise. For example the import settings are accessed from a button next to the "When you insert a CD:" dropdown. This makes some sense certainly and I can see the logic behind it (grouping similar functions together) but the import settings aren't a subset of "When you insert a CD:" as you can import at other times and the settings effect file conversions as well. If anything it would be better the other way around (with the import settings in a tab and "When you insert a CD:" as a dropdown within the tab), although it would probably be best if they were separated (dropdown where it is now, import options as a tab). The Advanced tab is another one. Why are simple UI options such as full screen visualisers and system tray icons in there? Those are not advanced options (they aren't basic either, but that is certainly not where I think they should be). As for the "Get info" screen, it's just a mess. It used to be OK but as they have added more options it just got less and less intuitive. The fact that there are multiple tabs filled with options, with one labelled "options" is a prime example. There is a video tab that has fields only applicable to TV shows (rather than music videos or films).
There are other examples I could give but I really don't want to list every single gripe I have with a piece of software. Most of this stuff I am used to so can work around, but it certainly doesn't "just work" from a UI perspective. You shouldn't have to work around confusing UI elements...not that it's the only culprit of course. I'm looking at you Photoshop.
I tried aTunes a while back, but had similar problems that I had in iTunes. It seems to have the same kind of song/file browser but the menus weren't any better than Apple's (different, but no better) so I didn't see the point in migrating my entire library. As for rockbox, I really don't want a drag-and-drop interface, unless you can drag-and-drop your whole library and/or individual playlists.
Agreed. I dislike most Apples interfaces. They certainly look clean which makes people think they're simple, but once you get into it they aren't any more intuitive than most Windows programs (and a lot less than some). The iPod I like (click wheel version I mean, not iPod Touch) but I dislike their OSs UI and the iPhone/iPod Touch UI. I use iTunes on Windows because I have an iPod, but wouldn't out of choice (there may be iTunes alternatives that work with iPods but I am yet to find a good one...next music player I get won't be an iPod anyway) and the UI works well enough, but is far from intuitive. The only other Apple software I use is Safari, which I use for testing websites and nothing more. That said, I am fairly familiar with a lot of Mac stuff since my dad (who I work with) uses one and I am essentially the administrator (I fulfill the role of "tech guy", among other things). Some of their stuff does "just work" but much of it doesn't, and is not really any better than Windows programs (some are good, some aren't). Even as a Mac guy, my dad doesn't use a lot of Apple software beyond small widgets (calculator, stickies etc) and the email app.
Is the only possible reason for this that the iPad OS (i.e. iPhone OS) is good and Windows is bad?
Yes, it is. Because it can be done, Windows has not done it through multiple iterations, that is exactly what it means.
That is patently false. I have given examples of many other reasons why it might be the case. If one of those reasons contributes even a little then it clearly isn't the only possible reason and the fact that other possibilities can be presented proves that it is not the only possible reason. I'm not saying it's not the only factor contributing. I'm not saying it's not likely that the main reason is people don't want Windows tablets. All I'm saying is that iPads selling more than Windows tablets doesn't demonstrate anything other than how well they sell. It may suggest or imply that the OS is better for tabets but it doesn't demonstrate it.
even HP is fleeing Windows on tablets
To be fair they just bought Palm, so they'd be pretty stupid not no capitalise on WebOS.
Also, you (along with so many others in this thread) seem to be under the impression that I'm saying Windows works well on tablets. I AM NOT. What I'm talking about exclusively is the arguments used by the GP to my original post and those used by you and others in reply to me. I am pointing out and explaining flawed logic, reasoning etc, nothing more.
There is nothing wrong with saying that. That is not what was said though. It was more along the lines of "X has done well, therefore Y is bad". The fact that Windows tablets have done poorly is certainly reason to think windows doesn't work well on tablets (although to be fair, I don't think there have been any/many Win7 tablets, so it's not completely fair).
To quote the original parent:
...the ipad has already demonstrated that Windows 7 won't work.
Or, in more general terms: "X has demonstrated that Y won't work.". Now for a quote from a reply to my post:
So you have a tablet with a different OS selling well, how does that not demonstrate that Windows does not in fact work well on tablets?
Which translates to: "Y is selling well. That means Z does not work well"
Another analogy, this time with fruit: "people like apples, therefore oranges are bad", or to take the comparison a little further "people are buying apples, therefore orange skin is bad". The skin in this case represents the OS, so clearly demonstrating that iPad!=iPhoneOS (so you can't say iPad sales purely means that the OS is good) and that sales of one thing does not make another bad.
What many of you don't seem to be realising is that I am not arguing that Windows is good on tablets, that iPads are bad, that Windows>iPhoneOS or whatever, I am simply pointing out that the original parent has fatally flawed reasoning/justification.
All that shows is that the iPad sells well, and that previous windows based tablets did not. Is the only possible reason for this that the iPad OS (i.e. iPhone OS) is good and Windows is bad? No. Maybe Apple is good at marketing (they are). Maybe their device is prettier than the previous brick-like Windows tablets that (it is). Perhaps they are targeting a different demographic with the iPad (they seem to be). There is more I could list.
So you have a tablet with a different OS selling well, how does that not demonstrate that Windows does not in fact work well on tablets?
A tablet running one OS that sells well does not mean that a different OS is bad. Lets use a good old car analogy...in America automatic transmissions seem to be more popular therefore manual transmissions don't work well on cars. That is patently false (I live in the UK and manual is much more popular here than automatic), but is equivalent to what you are saying. Saying one thing is good does not mean an alternative is bad. On top if that, sales do not equal performance, so you fail on two levels.
The only way your argument would hold up is if Apple released (at the same time and for a comparable price) an iPad with Win7 on it rather than iPhone OS, but it sold poorly. Even then it would only be an indication, not proof (the full OS version would likely be more expensive - I did say comparable price - and wouldn't be as pretty, so no "I want it!" impulse buyers).
I am not saying that Win7 has a better tablet interface than the iPhone OS on the iPad. What I am saying is that your argument is fundamentally flawed on several levels. There are many factors here that would effect sales, such as brand loyalty, aesthetics of both hardware and software, price, marketing, novelty factor, target demographic, size (windows tablets I have seen in the past have been quite a bit larger than the iPad) and so on, therefore you cannot draw the conclusion Windows doesn't work on tablets from multi-vendor sales comparisons. As a side note, do you know how many Windows tablets have been sold? It wouldn't surprise me at all if all the Windows tablets on the market well outstripped the iPad in sales...you just wouldn't notice it as it would be spread across multiple vendors and models. Incidentally, I think Apple is leading computer manufacturer, or at least up there but they still have a minuscule amount of the OS share since so many companies (and individuals) make Windows machines.
Agreed; there seems to be a false assumption here, i.e. the is iPad is marketable/sells/works therefore Windows 7 cannot be good on a tablet. This does not follow at all. Unless the iPad has Win7 on it, it CANNOT demonstrate that Win7 is bad for tablets, only that it's OS does work on tablets (or that Apple products sell regardless of functionality).
I wasn't ignoring it, I just wasn't considering it sexual reproduction. Sure it has the same end result but as far as I am aware it is two independent processes (horizontal transfer and asexual reproduction). If together they are considered sexual reproduction then fine.
I did Biology up to "Higher" level. I have no idea what your local equivalent would be (I don't even know where you are) but it ends 1 year before high school does in Scotland (you do it in 5th year, leave in 6th year...although you CAN leave from 4th year onwards). The English equivalent is an AS-level...sort of (it sits between AS and A2 in terms of content). I learned about both bacteria and viruses transferring genetic material from one cell to another (not in detail but I did). Not once was it referred to as sexual reproduction but the the outcome was certainly made obvious.
As I said, I have not done Biology beyond high school level, but was certainly aware of those processes. If that is accepted among the undergrads and beyond as sexual reproduction then thats fine, but I don't really see how it is a useful label (maybe semi-sexual reproduction or something completely different would be better to distinguish it from the reproduction of plants and animals, since the two are very different).
Just out of interest, are the two processes (whichever form of horizontal transfer is involved and mitosis) linked in any way? If not then how can it be sexual reproduction? Surely it would simply be that the "new" cell (after the horizontal gene transfer) is reproducing (i.e. creating offspring) asexually?
So, no sexual reproduction then. In fact a quote form the article:
Despite its name, the sex pilus is not used for sexual reproduction, and cannot be equated with a penis, although such comparisons are often used to ease understanding.
Transfer of genetic material does not constitute sex. There is no reproduction involved in that process. Any following asexual reproduction is simply preceded by that process which changes the parent cell - the reproduction is in now way effected by the transferal (other than the fact that it increases the cell size, so may speed up the separation). There is no male or female cell, rather a donor and recipient.
No, I'm fairly certain it was meant to be exterminate, seeing as extereminate isn't a word. If there was a joke in there somewhere then I missed it I'm afraid.
I didn't say it was a good solvent, only that it might work. Besides, saying that anyone who has made salad dressing knows that is simply false - the reason it separates is because the fat does not mix with water and most of what is in salad dressing is water-based. Also, the fact that fats do not mix well with water-based things has no bearing on the properties of hydrocarbons in general. The cracker example is a poor one - it is made specifically to eat so is pretty much designed to dissolve in water - the fact that it doesn't dissolve in a random unspecified hydrocarbon (presumably oil again) is irrelevant. There are many types of hydrocarbon, and the properties are highly dependent on their structure. Perhaps methane was a poor choice (I'm sure I've heard it speculated that life could use methane as a solvent though) but not simply because it is a hydrocarbon. Turpentine for example is clearly good solvent of some things, and it is made up of hydrocarbons. Who is to say that things which DO dissolve in liquid methane cannot be used as the basis for life as energy storage or whatever?
Why is "a protective sheath" necessary (except for your lack of imagination) ?
There are a few reasons. First you need to understand why it is there - to control what can an cannot get in or out of the cell (for lack of a better word - without the membrane it wouldn't be a cell). If there is no membrane, all you have is chemicals which happen to be close together - there is nothing to hold them together so there is no reliable way to control reactions, so there is no life. Life is essentially just a set of self-controlling reactions which can self replicate.
The better for spreading the life to a large volume of an ecosystem, so that sparseness of "nutrition" / consumable energy, is not a problem.
That only works if the life can form in the first place.
It's also possible extra-terrestrial intelligence could be in the form of beings made from pure energy and living in the center of stars, but it doesn't seem like the place we should start to look for them...
So? Why is this relevant?
Because we are talking about where we should be looking for life. While it may well be possible for "life" to exist in any place imaginable, where we look is determined by what we define as life. The only life that we know exists is carbon based and relies on water. From that we can say firmly that life can possibly exist based on a different carbon-like molecule (silicon) and/or using a different solvent. That is as far as our knowledge of chemistry allows us to extrapolate.
Also, if you think that non-solid life is possible, please provide an explanation on how it would work and why it should be considered life. That's not to say it cannot exist but until your hypothesis has some basis in fact all it is is imagination. If that is all it is, what is the point in seeking it out.
Comparing silicon to water is wrong - silicon based life could exist, but we are not water based life, we are carbon based. Water is a solvent which we use, so where we'd need to look is where there are other liquid solvents and enough energy to allow the required reactions to happen. As already said, liquid methane might do the trick as a water substitute, but silicon wouldn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks to me like you plucked your numbers out of thin air.
I did. Perhaps I didn't phrase my post clearly enough (I was in a hurry). I wasn't using the numbers from the article, I was trying to explain why percentages don't matter when it comes to how much money you save. I was using a different hypothetical scenario. All I was trying to do was show that two different scenarios can save a different percentage of the initial usage (for that car), the actual saving in gallons/dollars/environmental impact is the same.
The parent to my post seemed to think that it was about percentage difference (which it could be if you take the overall use by both cars, but not on a per-car basis) not absolute volume of petrol (gas) saved. Notice that I never mentioned the figures from the article, only hypothetical figures which were chosen purely because they would both give a saving of 2 gallons per 100 miles. In MPG of those examples would obviously translate to 20mpg -> ~33.34mpg and ~14.29mpg -> 20mpg.
Looking at the parent again now, I think I may have misread it the first time, so my post was kinda pointless anyway (as I said I was in a hurry, so I obviously read it too quickly or something).
The question still has nothing to do with percentages or proportions of the initial value. Going from 5gallons/100miles to 3gallons/100miles saves 2 gallons, and saves 40% of the fuel used initially. Going from 7gallons/100miles to 5gallons/100miles saves 2 gallons, and saves ~28.6% of the fuel used initially. The first cuts the percentage by much more, but the actual petrol (gas) saved is the same, so the price difference and the pollution difference are the same. Percentages like that are only useful when comparing two things with the same initial value (since both are essentially calibrated to the same scale).
Probably by asking "But will it run Crysis?"
I don't really care if you like it. Unless you can convince me that my gripes are invalid or that they are outweighed by the positives (they would have to be significantly outweighed) the point is moot. I don't care if you can add a clickwheel for the iPhone, since it isn't supposed to be used that way (it's a smartphone, not a dedicated music player) and the fact that you can add your own controls doesn't make the UI better.
You can easily get a cheap IrDA dongle for under $30. In fact my TV tuner came with an IrDA receiver and a remote and it only cost £50 (about $75), so the remote and receiver probably cost me about £5-7 (~$8-10).
I don't exactly know what you mean by "a Tag program" but windows indexes files so they can be searched in much the same way as in OS X, allowing for the examples you gave (file type, file name, contents for certain file types etc). For the language thing you can use any character you want in windows filenames (other than those used by the filesytem such as slashes). If you want to search using Chinese characters you can. The only way in which languages aren't supported in that way is in the UI, and you can download language packs to do that (although I think it may be restricted to business/enterprise and ultimate editions).
Regardless, giving examples of things which do work does not negate the things that don't, so saying that "It just works" is still false. I don't deny that there are good things in Apple software or bad things in Microsoft software (in fact other than their OS most MS stuff is awful IMHO), just that the "It just works" claim is false (and other things such as their UI being simpler or better etc). Oh, and WE don't live in America. Maybe you do, but I live in the UK; don't make assumptions. Long live competition. Quick end to fanboys, zealots and evangelists.
Where would you suggest they go?
Perhaps a UI or visual settings tab. There are other things which could go in there as well, such as the "keep mini player on top of all other windows" and "keep film window on top of all other windows". Wouldn't hurth them to add a few more options to the video player either (like UI timeout)
Given that almost every non-software-engineer using Windows I've met doesn't seem to understand what the systray icons are
Well I'm no software engineer, but I get your point. not really the kind of thing that needs to be hidden away though.
I don't think that the amount of stuff it does is a problem. The problem is that the UI wasn't designed for it so they have just tacked on the additional features and options to the original UI. Things that made sense before don't due to awkward groupings and ambiguous labelling. That, and the UI was designed with far fewer options in mind.
That isn't the part of the UI I dislike. When it comes to that specific function it is laid out pretty much in the same way as Apples file browser (Finder I think its called), which works fine. It's when you have to do more complicated things that problems arise. For example the import settings are accessed from a button next to the "When you insert a CD:" dropdown. This makes some sense certainly and I can see the logic behind it (grouping similar functions together) but the import settings aren't a subset of "When you insert a CD:" as you can import at other times and the settings effect file conversions as well. If anything it would be better the other way around (with the import settings in a tab and "When you insert a CD:" as a dropdown within the tab), although it would probably be best if they were separated (dropdown where it is now, import options as a tab). The Advanced tab is another one. Why are simple UI options such as full screen visualisers and system tray icons in there? Those are not advanced options (they aren't basic either, but that is certainly not where I think they should be). As for the "Get info" screen, it's just a mess. It used to be OK but as they have added more options it just got less and less intuitive. The fact that there are multiple tabs filled with options, with one labelled "options" is a prime example. There is a video tab that has fields only applicable to TV shows (rather than music videos or films).
There are other examples I could give but I really don't want to list every single gripe I have with a piece of software. Most of this stuff I am used to so can work around, but it certainly doesn't "just work" from a UI perspective. You shouldn't have to work around confusing UI elements...not that it's the only culprit of course. I'm looking at you Photoshop.
Apples interfaces... aren't any more intuitive than most Windows programs
This^. To be fair a lot of my post was spent pointing out that I'm not speaking from ignorance, so I may have gone on a bit.
I tried aTunes a while back, but had similar problems that I had in iTunes. It seems to have the same kind of song/file browser but the menus weren't any better than Apple's (different, but no better) so I didn't see the point in migrating my entire library. As for rockbox, I really don't want a drag-and-drop interface, unless you can drag-and-drop your whole library and/or individual playlists.
Agreed. I dislike most Apples interfaces. They certainly look clean which makes people think they're simple, but once you get into it they aren't any more intuitive than most Windows programs (and a lot less than some). The iPod I like (click wheel version I mean, not iPod Touch) but I dislike their OSs UI and the iPhone/iPod Touch UI. I use iTunes on Windows because I have an iPod, but wouldn't out of choice (there may be iTunes alternatives that work with iPods but I am yet to find a good one...next music player I get won't be an iPod anyway) and the UI works well enough, but is far from intuitive. The only other Apple software I use is Safari, which I use for testing websites and nothing more. That said, I am fairly familiar with a lot of Mac stuff since my dad (who I work with) uses one and I am essentially the administrator (I fulfill the role of "tech guy", among other things). Some of their stuff does "just work" but much of it doesn't, and is not really any better than Windows programs (some are good, some aren't). Even as a Mac guy, my dad doesn't use a lot of Apple software beyond small widgets (calculator, stickies etc) and the email app.
Is the only possible reason for this that the iPad OS (i.e. iPhone OS) is good and Windows is bad?
Yes, it is. Because it can be done, Windows has not done it through multiple iterations, that is exactly what it means.
That is patently false. I have given examples of many other reasons why it might be the case. If one of those reasons contributes even a little then it clearly isn't the only possible reason and the fact that other possibilities can be presented proves that it is not the only possible reason. I'm not saying it's not the only factor contributing. I'm not saying it's not likely that the main reason is people don't want Windows tablets. All I'm saying is that iPads selling more than Windows tablets doesn't demonstrate anything other than how well they sell. It may suggest or imply that the OS is better for tabets but it doesn't demonstrate it.
even HP is fleeing Windows on tablets
To be fair they just bought Palm, so they'd be pretty stupid not no capitalise on WebOS.
Also, you (along with so many others in this thread) seem to be under the impression that I'm saying Windows works well on tablets. I AM NOT. What I'm talking about exclusively is the arguments used by the GP to my original post and those used by you and others in reply to me. I am pointing out and explaining flawed logic, reasoning etc, nothing more.
There is nothing wrong with saying that. That is not what was said though. It was more along the lines of "X has done well, therefore Y is bad". The fact that Windows tablets have done poorly is certainly reason to think windows doesn't work well on tablets (although to be fair, I don't think there have been any/many Win7 tablets, so it's not completely fair).
To quote the original parent:
...the ipad has already demonstrated that Windows 7 won't work.
Or, in more general terms: "X has demonstrated that Y won't work.". Now for a quote from a reply to my post:
So you have a tablet with a different OS selling well, how does that not demonstrate that Windows does not in fact work well on tablets?
Which translates to: "Y is selling well. That means Z does not work well" Another analogy, this time with fruit: "people like apples, therefore oranges are bad", or to take the comparison a little further "people are buying apples, therefore orange skin is bad". The skin in this case represents the OS, so clearly demonstrating that iPad!=iPhoneOS (so you can't say iPad sales purely means that the OS is good) and that sales of one thing does not make another bad.
What many of you don't seem to be realising is that I am not arguing that Windows is good on tablets, that iPads are bad, that Windows>iPhoneOS or whatever, I am simply pointing out that the original parent has fatally flawed reasoning/justification.
I wasn't saying that Win7 is good on tablets, just that the argument put forward by tayhimself is full of shit.
So you have a tablet with a different OS selling well, how does that not demonstrate that Windows does not in fact work well on tablets?
A tablet running one OS that sells well does not mean that a different OS is bad. Lets use a good old car analogy...in America automatic transmissions seem to be more popular therefore manual transmissions don't work well on cars. That is patently false (I live in the UK and manual is much more popular here than automatic), but is equivalent to what you are saying. Saying one thing is good does not mean an alternative is bad. On top if that, sales do not equal performance, so you fail on two levels.
The only way your argument would hold up is if Apple released (at the same time and for a comparable price) an iPad with Win7 on it rather than iPhone OS, but it sold poorly. Even then it would only be an indication, not proof (the full OS version would likely be more expensive - I did say comparable price - and wouldn't be as pretty, so no "I want it!" impulse buyers).
I am not saying that Win7 has a better tablet interface than the iPhone OS on the iPad. What I am saying is that your argument is fundamentally flawed on several levels. There are many factors here that would effect sales, such as brand loyalty, aesthetics of both hardware and software, price, marketing, novelty factor, target demographic, size (windows tablets I have seen in the past have been quite a bit larger than the iPad) and so on, therefore you cannot draw the conclusion Windows doesn't work on tablets from multi-vendor sales comparisons. As a side note, do you know how many Windows tablets have been sold? It wouldn't surprise me at all if all the Windows tablets on the market well outstripped the iPad in sales...you just wouldn't notice it as it would be spread across multiple vendors and models. Incidentally, I think Apple is leading computer manufacturer, or at least up there but they still have a minuscule amount of the OS share since so many companies (and individuals) make Windows machines.
and it looks like the the other 12 too ;-)
I fixed that for you. That was just the wrong time to use a number incorrectly ;).
Agreed; there seems to be a false assumption here, i.e. the is iPad is marketable/sells/works therefore Windows 7 cannot be good on a tablet. This does not follow at all. Unless the iPad has Win7 on it, it CANNOT demonstrate that Win7 is bad for tablets, only that it's OS does work on tablets (or that Apple products sell regardless of functionality).
Perhaps they have a different version numbering system. Just a thought.
I wasn't ignoring it, I just wasn't considering it sexual reproduction. Sure it has the same end result but as far as I am aware it is two independent processes (horizontal transfer and asexual reproduction). If together they are considered sexual reproduction then fine.
I did Biology up to "Higher" level. I have no idea what your local equivalent would be (I don't even know where you are) but it ends 1 year before high school does in Scotland (you do it in 5th year, leave in 6th year...although you CAN leave from 4th year onwards). The English equivalent is an AS-level...sort of (it sits between AS and A2 in terms of content). I learned about both bacteria and viruses transferring genetic material from one cell to another (not in detail but I did). Not once was it referred to as sexual reproduction but the the outcome was certainly made obvious.
As I said, I have not done Biology beyond high school level, but was certainly aware of those processes. If that is accepted among the undergrads and beyond as sexual reproduction then thats fine, but I don't really see how it is a useful label (maybe semi-sexual reproduction or something completely different would be better to distinguish it from the reproduction of plants and animals, since the two are very different).
Just out of interest, are the two processes (whichever form of horizontal transfer is involved and mitosis) linked in any way? If not then how can it be sexual reproduction? Surely it would simply be that the "new" cell (after the horizontal gene transfer) is reproducing (i.e. creating offspring) asexually?
Despite its name, the sex pilus is not used for sexual reproduction, and cannot be equated with a penis, although such comparisons are often used to ease understanding.
Transfer of genetic material does not constitute sex. There is no reproduction involved in that process. Any following asexual reproduction is simply preceded by that process which changes the parent cell - the reproduction is in now way effected by the transferal (other than the fact that it increases the cell size, so may speed up the separation). There is no male or female cell, rather a donor and recipient.
I think you'll find that bacteria reproduce asexually.
No, I'm fairly certain it was meant to be exterminate, seeing as extereminate isn't a word. If there was a joke in there somewhere then I missed it I'm afraid.
The BFG 9000 is from Doom, the BFG 10K is from Quake 2 & 3
I didn't say it was a good solvent, only that it might work. Besides, saying that anyone who has made salad dressing knows that is simply false - the reason it separates is because the fat does not mix with water and most of what is in salad dressing is water-based. Also, the fact that fats do not mix well with water-based things has no bearing on the properties of hydrocarbons in general. The cracker example is a poor one - it is made specifically to eat so is pretty much designed to dissolve in water - the fact that it doesn't dissolve in a random unspecified hydrocarbon (presumably oil again) is irrelevant. There are many types of hydrocarbon, and the properties are highly dependent on their structure. Perhaps methane was a poor choice (I'm sure I've heard it speculated that life could use methane as a solvent though) but not simply because it is a hydrocarbon. Turpentine for example is clearly good solvent of some things, and it is made up of hydrocarbons. Who is to say that things which DO dissolve in liquid methane cannot be used as the basis for life as energy storage or whatever?
Why is "a protective sheath" necessary (except for your lack of imagination) ?
There are a few reasons. First you need to understand why it is there - to control what can an cannot get in or out of the cell (for lack of a better word - without the membrane it wouldn't be a cell). If there is no membrane, all you have is chemicals which happen to be close together - there is nothing to hold them together so there is no reliable way to control reactions, so there is no life. Life is essentially just a set of self-controlling reactions which can self replicate.
The better for spreading the life to a large volume of an ecosystem, so that sparseness of "nutrition" / consumable energy, is not a problem.
That only works if the life can form in the first place.
It's also possible extra-terrestrial intelligence could be in the form of beings made from pure energy and living in the center of stars, but it doesn't seem like the place we should start to look for them...
So? Why is this relevant?
Because we are talking about where we should be looking for life. While it may well be possible for "life" to exist in any place imaginable, where we look is determined by what we define as life. The only life that we know exists is carbon based and relies on water. From that we can say firmly that life can possibly exist based on a different carbon-like molecule (silicon) and/or using a different solvent. That is as far as our knowledge of chemistry allows us to extrapolate.
Also, if you think that non-solid life is possible, please provide an explanation on how it would work and why it should be considered life. That's not to say it cannot exist but until your hypothesis has some basis in fact all it is is imagination. If that is all it is, what is the point in seeking it out.
Comparing silicon to water is wrong - silicon based life could exist, but we are not water based life, we are carbon based. Water is a solvent which we use, so where we'd need to look is where there are other liquid solvents and enough energy to allow the required reactions to happen. As already said, liquid methane might do the trick as a water substitute, but silicon wouldn't.