It's a stigma for a good reason. It reflects on your sexual practices. If you've got it, you are probably pretty loose, and aren't the type to be monogamous even to the point where you stick around long enough to find out if your partner has a disease before you have sex and move on to your next partner. Generally, it's a fairly good indication of whether somebody will make a good life-long mate.
Lots of things that have a negative social stigma are your evolved instictive ability to choose a good mate working correctly.
If so, you've never mentioned it before. I agree that people aren't using Linux largely because most of the dealers don't provide it preinstalled, but that's not the only way to get it. However, I find it interesting that you now say the software is there, when earlier you were insisting it wasn't./me bangs his head against the wall
The first sentence of my first response to you said that you were right about that.
I should have known better than to think I could have a reasonable discussion with a person that used the word 'fanboi'
I say it is, and that the biggest obsticle it has is perfectionists like you.
That is a total load of trash.
People can say all they want, myself included, about why it isn't ready. Adoption isn't being delayed by this that or the other guy saying anything. The analysis isn't the cause of the problem, it's just analysis. You're over there insisting that it's ready, and I'm saying why it isn't. If it was ready, people would be using it. If there are two tools available that do the same job equally, the one that costs less generally wins. If the one that costs less isn't winning you have to ask what you're missing. The difference between you and me? I'm trying to find the source of a real problem, and you're just insisting that the problem doesn't exist. If the problem doesn't exist why are we even having this conversation?
I'm not saying people shouldn't use linux because it's not ready. People should use linux, because the software is there. I'm trying to explain why people aren't using linux. You can say whatever you want (and you're saying it over and over), but the fact of the matter is that people aren't adopting linux on the home desktop. I'm trying to tell you why, and you're just insisting that there is no problem.
Waiting until they're all there is pointless because the puzzle isn't static
Who is saying you should wait? It's not about waiting. When the pieces are there the utilization will follow. If anybody is advocating waiting in this discussion it is you. I'm proposing a plan of action that will get linux into home PCs. It's simple. Make it ready for corporate use, and home users will end up with Linux by default. What is your plan? Sit around waiting and insist that it's ready and wonder why nobody is using it?
The more I read of your posts, the more I get the impression that you don't believe Linux is ready and no matter what I or anybody else says, you're not going to change your mind.
It's funny, I feel the same way arguing with you about this. All I'm trying to say is that advocates can't get complacent, and the community can't think linux can win with open-source developers alone. It is dangerous to say that it's "ready" before all the pieces are in place because it allows people to overlook important details.
Which do you use? (Not a challenge, just curious.)
I'm write linux kernel code for a living. I use Linux almost exclusively at work and at home (though I have a Windows box at work as well in order to run some of our corporate software, and I've got a Windows partition on one of my boxes at home for games.)
Clearly you have no idea what business software is. Office and Exchange are just utilities. They aren't the Meat and Potatoes apps of your average business.
the software the average home user needs is different than what a corporation might want.
That's exactly my point. Software that is good enough for a home user doesn't cut it on the corporate world. The accounting, payroll, distribution, and CAM applications of the world need to be there... Unfortunatly, they all got ported from S/390 and System V to Windows 2003 Server over the last few years because Linux vendors can't get their act together with unified packaging base installations, library compatability and business grade utilities.
You're comparing apples and oranges here, in my opinion.
More like beating a dead horse I guess, since you spend a whole paragraph parroting my argument and then say I'm wrong. Aunt Minnie doesn't have a family geek to set up her PC, and if she did she doesn't want to bother them. It has nothing to do with what she needs to learn or unlearn, and she shouldn't need one. She doesn't need one to set up her Mac for her. Linux is ready for the home desktop the moment it is included on the box, and it isn't going to be included on the box until the customers computer makers actually turn a decent profit on are asking for it. I'm not comparing anything. The corporate desktop and the home desktop are two completely different things. They are your apples and oranges. But the fact of the matter is that no OS is ready for home use until it's ready for business use first because no first tier manufacturer is going to invest in infrastructure that only caters to home users when they can spend the same money and get something that works for all of their customers.
But she *can't* learn Linux because nobody is going to set it up for her. You can't be there for every mythical Aunt Minnie. You and people like you can't even be there for enough Aunt Minnies to make a statistical impact on the number of home desktop OS installations.
You're preaching to the choir if your argument is that Linux is great. If you want to be a successful Linux advocate you need to come to terms with reality though. This is not a matter of opinion like you say. It is easily demonstable fact. An OS that isn't ready for corporate consumption is not ready for home use due to complete lack of distribution channels and corporate software developer support. There is more to an OS being ready for the home than the software.
Until the advocates stop denying that fact no progress is going to be made.
When there is a mountain in front of you, no amount of denying the existance of the mountain is going to get you to the other side. (In fact that's a terrible analogy, because denying the existance of the problem is actually making the mountain bigger. While people like you stand by and stubbornly stamp your foot insisting that Linux is ready, the competition is filling the hole that Linux is not, and more Windows servers are appearing in the enterprise. More Windows servers means Windows desktops are further entrenched, and all the big apps that you have to have to be a viable OS are going to continue to go to Windows first.) Change the argument all you want, or tell me my definition is wrong, but the numbers speak for themselves. If Linux is ready for the home desktop as you say, and I'm not right, give me one good reason Linux isn't all over the home desktop. The price is certainly right...
Aunt Minnie isn't going to install an OS, no matter how easy you make it. An OS isn't 'ready' for her desktop until the top 3 computer manufacturer of her choice sells it to her pre-installed.
The other alternatives are half-baked or not real. The Notes client for linux isn't out yet, and the open source replacements are either not feature complete, or lack polish and support, or both.
I am going to pick nits though. Oracle Collaboration Suite doesn't run on 'Linux', it runs on 'RedHat Enterprise Linux'. Also, there is more to having a particular piece of software on linux in a way that is desktop ready than having the code written. Exchange isn't just a piece of software, it's a piece of software and a sales and support organization. Some Linux distributors have figured this out and know how to play in that world, but RedHat isn't one of them. (They know it, but they're bad at it)
I got excited for a moment when you pointed out Oracle colaboration suite because Exchange is the last thing keeping us in a two OS world (we all have a linux desktop for development and a windows desktop for Outlook. No, it wasn't my idea). The problem is, the SuSE sales team was the only one savvy enough to sell linux into the company, so OCS isn't an option here.:(
Even more to the point, as long as there's even one app running on MS or Mac that isn't on Linux, the naysayers and fanbois will claim that Linux isn't ready for the desktop because of that one app.
Just because you're right doesn't mean they're wrong.
Linux *isn't* ready for the desktop right now, because the corporate desktop comes first (manufacturers cater to business, home users get their OS from the computer manufacturer), and Linux can't succeed in large scale on the corporate desktop without an answer to Exchange+Outlook.
In the meantime, they never learn how to handle situations for themselves, and as they grow older they realize that you really don't trust them at all. Read your post. It is clear that you don't trust your children ("more communication keeps people more honest with each other"), and it's clear it's having exactly the negative effect I'm describing ("if they need help, they're not going to call a tow truck, they'll call ME").
Where will your kids be when you get old? Let them learn how the world works. Let them get themselves in a little bit of trouble without having a lifeline or a 'mommy button'. That way they may actually learn how to be an adult.
If you believe actuarial tables, then we as an American society have decided that turning 16 is sufficient "proof" of driving, turning 18 is proof for voting, and 21 for drinking.
Translation... We need an arbitrary line in the sand instead of definitive proof because otherwise we might offend somebody or put somebody at a perceived disadvantage.
providing your child with an easy and relatively cheap way to contact you seems like it has a lot of benefits at very *little* cost.
Considering this is exactly the kind of crap that is preventing children and young adults these days from developing a confident sense of independance, I think it's a high price to pay. Besides, you're fooling yourself if you think that people are buying those for the benefit of their children. Giving your child an easy way to contact you is a luxury for the overly protective parent, not a utility for the child. If the kid needs to call you, he/she will figure out how, and it'll be good for them to have to figure it out rather than having a 'mommy' button all the time.
Security + a constant stream of trust =
Constant stream of trust my ass. If you actually trusted your kid you wouldn't need them to carry a Firefly phone. Your kid is smart enough to know that, and when you wonder why they resent you when they are older (instead of when they are young, which is when the kid is supposed to resent you), well now you'll know why.
It's simple, buddy, cell phones are a luxury device in almost every situation.
Because if they don't get you hooked by 18 or 21, you generally won't EVER be hooked! You may choose to smoke, or drink but you generally won't have a "problem" with it.
I don't believe that for a second. Alcoholism can start at any age, and if you're the type of person that is likely to end up having a problem with it, it doesn't matter when you start; it only matters that you started.
Also, I don't think that insurance for kids would be so expensive if we didn't let kids on the road by themselves before they were qualified to be there. If the driving test were harder, and cops ticketed for agressive driving, and failure to signal instead of just setting up speed traps, the number of accidents caused by kids would be lower, and the insurance rates would drop.
You are misunderstanding.... practicaly every news piece that this article *isn't* talking about.
All news orginizations have agendas, and almost all of them are for sale. I don't see how this is any worse than what makes up 90% of, say, the New York Times... No matter how much foolish blind respect you hold for the journalistic profession, they are just as self serving as every other capatalistic organization, and if you trust them irrationally they will take advantage of you.
Make all the rules you want. You're still a fool if you don't engage your brain when you're listening to/watching/reading the news. If you *are* engaging your brain these 'fake' broacasts aren't a problem. If you're not, the rest of the news cast is just as much a problem.
Every Apple flat panel has a Dell equivalent with exactly the same LCD from exactly the same supplyer for about 40% less money. I'd never recommend a Dell computer to anybody, but I'll recommend their higher end monitors.
Well, for phones, I'd say being able to pay for it is a good metric. For driving, passing a very dificult drivers test; for voting, a high-school diploma should do fine.
Drinking is hard. I don't have an answer for that one.
The car thing seems arbitrary, though the 16 year old driving age seems arbitrary to me too. You should be able to (drive|drink|vote) when you can prove you are responsible and capable enough to handle it. I think the same should go for cell phone ownership. When you are responsible enough and capable of paying for your phone, you are old enough to have one. Until then you aren't. They are a luxury device, and no matter what anybody says, nobody *needs* one.
As for the 'medical concerns', I'm convinced that this crap is only ever brought up by people who find phones objectionable for other reasons, and they're just trying to find some way to get everybody else to hate them too.
The fact that, er, on paper it's so much more economically viable screams of the likelihood that we don't use it.
He left a lot out. You don't irrigate timber farms. They're pretty much plant and forget... They're also frequently planted in places where your options are timber farm, or forrest. Field of (insert your favorite crop here) isn't an option for environmental reasons. Then there is diversification of your investment. What can you make the hemp into? Paper, crappy rope, or crappy cloth? When it comes time to harvest you don't have much flexability if your typical market is in the tank. With wood, you can make lumber (several varieties), paper, heating fuel, etc... And best of all, you can make the most valuable (lumber), and use the scraps for the least valuable (paper). Plus, good paper is made out of non-tree fibers already anyway.
He gave you numbers for higher yields. Those numbers don't mean lower costs.
Time Machine: Incremental backups with Exposé eye-candy. The hooks for applications to use Time Machine are a pretty cool idea, I don't think I've seen that kind of capability before.
That's just plain wrong. There is a world of difference between incremental backups or snapshotting and CDP, no matter what Veritas tells you. That is true even if you are snapshotting once per second. How big is the difference? It's the difference between the crash consistant recovery functionality of your app working every time with CDP, or occationally losing all your data with incrementals.
You have never seen any of Time Machine's functionality from a major vendor before.
Even if you can afford a $2000 cabinet saw, the cost of tripping this thing falsely would be insane. Plus, how do I know it is going to work correctly with non-metalic blades, or blades that aren't the full diameter? Good saw blades easily run over $100. You don't have to wreck many of those before you're out a signifigant percentage of the cost of your saw. In a commercial environment there is the downtime to consider as well.
The vast majority of table saw injuries happen to people who don't know what they are doing. If you do things properly, you're not going to get hurt, and if you don't, I'm not convinced that this device will save you. (You're more likely to get injured by the wood you are cutting than the blade in many circumstances)
You can't change the default, but changing the sort order to desc is as easy as clicking the column header once...
Actually, you can change the default. I just got back to work, and tried it. The default search sort order is the same as the sort order of the preview pane.
Changing the sort order does not change the search order though. No matter how you sort, Outlook 2003 (Mine says version 11.5608.5606) searches the oldest messages in the folder first.
I thought the reason Apple computers were more expensive was because they spent more money on better compponents and that they didn't use the cheap low end parts like Dell uses...
Whatever put you under that impression? Many of Apple's machines are made by the same manufacturing company as Dell's machines and many of their products use the same key components (like their monitors, etc...). Apple's are just generally designed more thoughtfully. This is even true of the power adapters, which often have niceties like built in cord storage.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a stigma for a good reason. It reflects on your sexual practices. If you've got it, you are probably pretty loose, and aren't the type to be monogamous even to the point where you stick around long enough to find out if your partner has a disease before you have sex and move on to your next partner. Generally, it's a fairly good indication of whether somebody will make a good life-long mate.
Lots of things that have a negative social stigma are your evolved instictive ability to choose a good mate working correctly.
If so, you've never mentioned it before. I agree that people aren't using Linux largely because most of the dealers don't provide it preinstalled, but that's not the only way to get it. However, I find it interesting that you now say the software is there, when earlier you were insisting it wasn't. /me bangs his head against the wall
The first sentence of my first response to you said that you were right about that.
I should have known better than to think I could have a reasonable discussion with a person that used the word 'fanboi'
Aaha! I know what you're stuck on.
I say it is, and that the biggest obsticle it has is perfectionists like you.
That is a total load of trash.
People can say all they want, myself included, about why it isn't ready. Adoption isn't being delayed by this that or the other guy saying anything. The analysis isn't the cause of the problem, it's just analysis. You're over there insisting that it's ready, and I'm saying why it isn't. If it was ready, people would be using it. If there are two tools available that do the same job equally, the one that costs less generally wins. If the one that costs less isn't winning you have to ask what you're missing. The difference between you and me? I'm trying to find the source of a real problem, and you're just insisting that the problem doesn't exist. If the problem doesn't exist why are we even having this conversation?
I'm not saying people shouldn't use linux because it's not ready. People should use linux, because the software is there. I'm trying to explain why people aren't using linux. You can say whatever you want (and you're saying it over and over), but the fact of the matter is that people aren't adopting linux on the home desktop. I'm trying to tell you why, and you're just insisting that there is no problem.
Waiting until they're all there is pointless because the puzzle isn't static
Who is saying you should wait? It's not about waiting. When the pieces are there the utilization will follow. If anybody is advocating waiting in this discussion it is you. I'm proposing a plan of action that will get linux into home PCs. It's simple. Make it ready for corporate use, and home users will end up with Linux by default. What is your plan? Sit around waiting and insist that it's ready and wonder why nobody is using it?
The more I read of your posts, the more I get the impression that you don't believe Linux is ready and no matter what I or anybody else says, you're not going to change your mind.
It's funny, I feel the same way arguing with you about this. All I'm trying to say is that advocates can't get complacent, and the community can't think linux can win with open-source developers alone. It is dangerous to say that it's "ready" before all the pieces are in place because it allows people to overlook important details.
Which do you use? (Not a challenge, just curious.)
I'm write linux kernel code for a living. I use Linux almost exclusively at work and at home (though I have a Windows box at work as well in order to run some of our corporate software, and I've got a Windows partition on one of my boxes at home for games.)
Not only are there business packages for Linux
Clearly you have no idea what business software is. Office and Exchange are just utilities. They aren't the Meat and Potatoes apps of your average business.
the software the average home user needs is different than what a corporation might want.
That's exactly my point. Software that is good enough for a home user doesn't cut it on the corporate world. The accounting, payroll, distribution, and CAM applications of the world need to be there... Unfortunatly, they all got ported from S/390 and System V to Windows 2003 Server over the last few years because Linux vendors can't get their act together with unified packaging base installations, library compatability and business grade utilities.
You're comparing apples and oranges here, in my opinion.
More like beating a dead horse I guess, since you spend a whole paragraph parroting my argument and then say I'm wrong. Aunt Minnie doesn't have a family geek to set up her PC, and if she did she doesn't want to bother them. It has nothing to do with what she needs to learn or unlearn, and she shouldn't need one. She doesn't need one to set up her Mac for her. Linux is ready for the home desktop the moment it is included on the box, and it isn't going to be included on the box until the customers computer makers actually turn a decent profit on are asking for it. I'm not comparing anything. The corporate desktop and the home desktop are two completely different things. They are your apples and oranges. But the fact of the matter is that no OS is ready for home use until it's ready for business use first because no first tier manufacturer is going to invest in infrastructure that only caters to home users when they can spend the same money and get something that works for all of their customers.
...Video at 11:00.
But she *can't* learn Linux because nobody is going to set it up for her. You can't be there for every mythical Aunt Minnie. You and people like you can't even be there for enough Aunt Minnies to make a statistical impact on the number of home desktop OS installations.
You're preaching to the choir if your argument is that Linux is great. If you want to be a successful Linux advocate you need to come to terms with reality though. This is not a matter of opinion like you say. It is easily demonstable fact. An OS that isn't ready for corporate consumption is not ready for home use due to complete lack of distribution channels and corporate software developer support. There is more to an OS being ready for the home than the software.
Until the advocates stop denying that fact no progress is going to be made.
When there is a mountain in front of you, no amount of denying the existance of the mountain is going to get you to the other side. (In fact that's a terrible analogy, because denying the existance of the problem is actually making the mountain bigger. While people like you stand by and stubbornly stamp your foot insisting that Linux is ready, the competition is filling the hole that Linux is not, and more Windows servers are appearing in the enterprise. More Windows servers means Windows desktops are further entrenched, and all the big apps that you have to have to be a viable OS are going to continue to go to Windows first.) Change the argument all you want, or tell me my definition is wrong, but the numbers speak for themselves. If Linux is ready for the home desktop as you say, and I'm not right, give me one good reason Linux isn't all over the home desktop. The price is certainly right...
It depends on how you define 'ready'.
Aunt Minnie isn't going to install an OS, no matter how easy you make it. An OS isn't 'ready' for her desktop until the top 3 computer manufacturer of her choice sells it to her pre-installed.
I was not aware of Oracle Collaboration Suite.
:(
The other alternatives are half-baked or not real. The Notes client for linux isn't out yet, and the open source replacements are either not feature complete, or lack polish and support, or both.
I am going to pick nits though. Oracle Collaboration Suite doesn't run on 'Linux', it runs on 'RedHat Enterprise Linux'. Also, there is more to having a particular piece of software on linux in a way that is desktop ready than having the code written. Exchange isn't just a piece of software, it's a piece of software and a sales and support organization. Some Linux distributors have figured this out and know how to play in that world, but RedHat isn't one of them. (They know it, but they're bad at it)
I got excited for a moment when you pointed out Oracle colaboration suite because Exchange is the last thing keeping us in a two OS world (we all have a linux desktop for development and a windows desktop for Outlook. No, it wasn't my idea). The problem is, the SuSE sales team was the only one savvy enough to sell linux into the company, so OCS isn't an option here.
Even more to the point, as long as there's even one app running on MS or Mac that isn't on Linux, the naysayers and fanbois will claim that Linux isn't ready for the desktop because of that one app.
Just because you're right doesn't mean they're wrong.
Linux *isn't* ready for the desktop right now, because the corporate desktop comes first (manufacturers cater to business, home users get their OS from the computer manufacturer), and Linux can't succeed in large scale on the corporate desktop without an answer to Exchange+Outlook.
I say that as a Linux developer and zealot.
In the meantime, they never learn how to handle situations for themselves, and as they grow older they realize that you really don't trust them at all. Read your post. It is clear that you don't trust your children ("more communication keeps people more honest with each other"), and it's clear it's having exactly the negative effect I'm describing ("if they need help, they're not going to call a tow truck, they'll call ME").
Where will your kids be when you get old? Let them learn how the world works. Let them get themselves in a little bit of trouble without having a lifeline or a 'mommy button'. That way they may actually learn how to be an adult.
If you believe actuarial tables, then we as an American society have decided that turning 16 is sufficient "proof" of driving, turning 18 is proof for voting, and 21 for drinking.
Translation... We need an arbitrary line in the sand instead of definitive proof because otherwise we might offend somebody or put somebody at a perceived disadvantage.
providing your child with an easy and relatively cheap way to contact you seems like it has a lot of benefits at very *little* cost.
Considering this is exactly the kind of crap that is preventing children and young adults these days from developing a confident sense of independance, I think it's a high price to pay. Besides, you're fooling yourself if you think that people are buying those for the benefit of their children. Giving your child an easy way to contact you is a luxury for the overly protective parent, not a utility for the child. If the kid needs to call you, he/she will figure out how, and it'll be good for them to have to figure it out rather than having a 'mommy' button all the time.
Security + a constant stream of trust =
Constant stream of trust my ass. If you actually trusted your kid you wouldn't need them to carry a Firefly phone. Your kid is smart enough to know that, and when you wonder why they resent you when they are older (instead of when they are young, which is when the kid is supposed to resent you), well now you'll know why.
It's simple, buddy, cell phones are a luxury device in almost every situation.
Because if they don't get you hooked by 18 or 21, you generally won't EVER be hooked! You may choose to smoke, or drink but you generally won't have a "problem" with it.
I don't believe that for a second. Alcoholism can start at any age, and if you're the type of person that is likely to end up having a problem with it, it doesn't matter when you start; it only matters that you started.
Also, I don't think that insurance for kids would be so expensive if we didn't let kids on the road by themselves before they were qualified to be there. If the driving test were harder, and cops ticketed for agressive driving, and failure to signal instead of just setting up speed traps, the number of accidents caused by kids would be lower, and the insurance rates would drop.
You are misunderstanding.... practicaly every news piece that this article *isn't* talking about.
All news orginizations have agendas, and almost all of them are for sale. I don't see how this is any worse than what makes up 90% of, say, the New York Times... No matter how much foolish blind respect you hold for the journalistic profession, they are just as self serving as every other capatalistic organization, and if you trust them irrationally they will take advantage of you.
Make all the rules you want. You're still a fool if you don't engage your brain when you're listening to/watching/reading the news. If you *are* engaging your brain these 'fake' broacasts aren't a problem. If you're not, the rest of the news cast is just as much a problem.
Every Apple flat panel has a Dell equivalent with exactly the same LCD from exactly the same supplyer for about 40% less money. I'd never recommend a Dell computer to anybody, but I'll recommend their higher end monitors.
Well, for phones, I'd say being able to pay for it is a good metric. For driving, passing a very dificult drivers test; for voting, a high-school diploma should do fine.
Drinking is hard. I don't have an answer for that one.
The car thing seems arbitrary, though the 16 year old driving age seems arbitrary to me too. You should be able to (drive|drink|vote) when you can prove you are responsible and capable enough to handle it. I think the same should go for cell phone ownership. When you are responsible enough and capable of paying for your phone, you are old enough to have one. Until then you aren't. They are a luxury device, and no matter what anybody says, nobody *needs* one.
As for the 'medical concerns', I'm convinced that this crap is only ever brought up by people who find phones objectionable for other reasons, and they're just trying to find some way to get everybody else to hate them too.
The fact that, er, on paper it's so much more economically viable screams of the likelihood that we don't use it.
He left a lot out. You don't irrigate timber farms. They're pretty much plant and forget... They're also frequently planted in places where your options are timber farm, or forrest. Field of (insert your favorite crop here) isn't an option for environmental reasons. Then there is diversification of your investment. What can you make the hemp into? Paper, crappy rope, or crappy cloth? When it comes time to harvest you don't have much flexability if your typical market is in the tank. With wood, you can make lumber (several varieties), paper, heating fuel, etc... And best of all, you can make the most valuable (lumber), and use the scraps for the least valuable (paper). Plus, good paper is made out of non-tree fibers already anyway.
He gave you numbers for higher yields. Those numbers don't mean lower costs.
It can definitely prove that something is non-compliant. But it cannot definitely prove that something is compliant.
It seems that not being proven non-compliant is a worthy goal. When they get anywhere close to that then maybe they'll have a point.
Time Machine: Incremental backups with Exposé eye-candy. The hooks for applications to use Time Machine are a pretty cool idea, I don't think I've seen that kind of capability before.
That's just plain wrong. There is a world of difference between incremental backups or snapshotting and CDP, no matter what Veritas tells you. That is true even if you are snapshotting once per second. How big is the difference? It's the difference between the crash consistant recovery functionality of your app working every time with CDP, or occationally losing all your data with incrementals.
You have never seen any of Time Machine's functionality from a major vendor before.
If you read TFA it says they have 7 million gamers a month and 93 million bored office workers and former AOL users.
Even if you can afford a $2000 cabinet saw, the cost of tripping this thing falsely would be insane. Plus, how do I know it is going to work correctly with non-metalic blades, or blades that aren't the full diameter? Good saw blades easily run over $100. You don't have to wreck many of those before you're out a signifigant percentage of the cost of your saw. In a commercial environment there is the downtime to consider as well.
The vast majority of table saw injuries happen to people who don't know what they are doing. If you do things properly, you're not going to get hurt, and if you don't, I'm not convinced that this device will save you. (You're more likely to get injured by the wood you are cutting than the blade in many circumstances)
That's a teriffic idea. We should ban everything that is mostly used to do evil.
Let's start with P2P software.
You can't change the default, but changing the sort order to desc is as easy as clicking the column header once...
Actually, you can change the default. I just got back to work, and tried it. The default search sort order is the same as the sort order of the preview pane.
Changing the sort order does not change the search order though. No matter how you sort, Outlook 2003 (Mine says version 11.5608.5606) searches the oldest messages in the folder first.
I thought the reason Apple computers were more expensive was because they spent more money on better compponents and that they didn't use the cheap low end parts like Dell uses...
Whatever put you under that impression? Many of Apple's machines are made by the same manufacturing company as Dell's machines and many of their products use the same key components (like their monitors, etc...). Apple's are just generally designed more thoughtfully. This is even true of the power adapters, which often have niceties like built in cord storage.