Huh? I havn't had a land line in almost a year, but I remember when I did that every long distance company under the sun was calling me to "switch and save" on my long distance. I would ask them if their long distance was less than my calling card at 3 or so cents a minute with no monthly charge and they would say "no", but they were always willing to take my money anyway.
Phones are a scam. It kills me that people are willing to pay $50 to more dollars a month for the things. To me its only worth about $10 or so. I don't pay anything for a phone, and I have no ambition to do so (my work pays for my only phone, a cell).
Being that the now "old" phone companies (and cable companies) are into the internet thing now by providing the fiber for the internet, I just wonder when they are just going to start overcharging for a "data" line to your house? I guess they will put that off as long as they can because now they can overcharge people for 3 services now -- cell, land line, and internet.
OK, first off the grandparent post didn't really say anything, let alone anything insiteful.
Now your WMD example is ridiculous. A p2p app is used to copy files from one place to another, the "bad" part of that is that it can illegally copy files. Now a WMD is used for mass destruction or the threat of mass destruction, I don't see any other way to use a WMD.
What the study results really show is that for a typical usage patern, the IBM Mainframe product running Linux is a complete waste of money because the typical user needs only a typical PC worth of resources on their server. The fact that the two machines being compared ran different operating systems was more or less incidential.
So was this an advertisement or a public service announcement? I thought Microsoft was a software company, not a PC vendor.
Oh, BTW slash coders, why doesn't the "Exclude Stories from the Homepage" feature work anymore? I accidentally got sucked into this M$ article, but I have checked to exclude all M$ related stories. And why is Science listed twice?
My solution to spam that I've been kicking around in my head for a while is to make DNS servers more authoritative and blacklist those DNS servers that are known to produce spam. What this would do is it would stop all incoming mail from the blacklisted DNS servers because their domains would not reverse resolve, and if the spam came from a hijacked windows machine from a "good" domain with an acceptable DNS server, the payload (URLs) in the email would generate 0 business, because all of the links would come up as "Host not found".
The only problem is who is going to maintain this blacklist and what will we do if a domain is falsely or maliciously labeled as spam. This might be a pain at first, but soon all legitimate DNS servers will not host any spam because they don't want to have their other paying customers pissed off. Also, it would be nice if the local DNS servers have the rite to override a blacklisted DNS server just in case.
Not only is it ugly, its not in any way shape or form a "photomosaic", its just a bunch of pictures with a little alpha channel in and between the pictures. For those that don't know a photomosaic is a bunch of pictures that are put together to make another new picture.
Also, there are no up the skirt shots or thong shots. Next....
Yeah, I remember when 104 keys on a keyboard was more than enough for anyone. The problem is that more an more keys get thrown onto keyboards and more and more of them are getting unused "legacy" keys.
Although its been years since I've used windows, I remember back in that dark time of my life where I would be using VIM to write code or whatever and I would invariably hit the "Windows" key instead of control with some other key and I believe that the "Start" menu thingy would pop open, thus taking my keyboard focus to the "Start" menu instead of my editor.
Needless to say, after the umpteenth time that I did this, I promptly took a screwdriver and pulled the damned key off of my keyboard and shoved it in a whole in the wall that I drilled:) Believe me, I never hit the key on the wall by accident.
KISS (Keep it simple stupid). If you are unable to interface with your computer with less than 80 or so keys, something is very, very wrong.
Dude, you just confirmed my rewording of your original statement:
The only people who want freewill to exist, are those who lust after the technique to impose theirs over your own.
I'm sorry that I caused you to choose to reply in such an incoherent mannor, but I challenge you and anyone else that feels the need for the myth of free will to provide one piece of objective, observable, and repeatable evidence that free will exists.
And for those that say I'm full of shit, I'll offer something substantial. Where is their AI?
So, your saying what here? I don't see any support for free will by arguing that people choose to be so stupid that they cannot create good artificial intelligence.
Lets talk more on tangible terms, and not emotional ones.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I always thought that rural == low population density and cities == high population density. For example, I consider a rural setting one like that of a farm where there are a few people every couple of miles, and a city setting where there are up to thousands of people in one city block.
If you look at the "Summary" table from the county-by-county link that you provide, and find the population density for those voting for Gore and W, you will see that the people/sq mile for Bush comes out to be 45.03 and for Gore it comes out to be 199.25.
If the guy who discovers his biology determines his behavior, and he's sophisticated enough to change the biology... what does it mean when he chooses to do that?
When the technology becomes available, and it will, and even just a few people overcome it, and change their biology.... what will that mean that they choose to change it?
OK, by these statements the biology is the causal agent for the initial behavior and the motive to change it. I see no choosing here. Take for example someone who has a big ugly nose. I think that we are in agreement that a person did not "choose" to have the gene or their parents in order to obtain this big ugly nose. Also, I believe that we are in agreement that the "decision" that the nose is big and ugly is entirely based upon the environment by visually comparing their nose to other people's noses. If the person were to "choose" to change this big ugly nose, that "decision" would be entirely based upon biology (the biology of others as well as the problematic nose owners).
The only people who want freewill to not exist, are those who lust after the technique to impose theirs over your own.
I believe that everyone feels more comfortable with the notion of having free will, and we play the game of life as if free will exists, but there is no data supporting the notion of free will. None. In fact, your previous statement does not make sense. Why would an individual that does not "want freewill to exist" impose something that they do not believe in on someone else? Read "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" by BF Skinner. He does not believe in free will, nor does he try to impose this on someone else. He is merely stating observations based upon a lifetime of observing the behavior of animals (including humans).
I don't remember if it was Epstein, a student of Skinner, who wrote the cartoon I'm about to describe, or if it was just in Epstein's book, but there was a cartoon that shows a scientist hovering over a rat in a skinner box (a box that has a leaver that drops food when the rat pushes the leaver). The rat is thinking "Hey, I have just operationally conditioned this scientist to give me food every time I press this leaver!"
Actually, your statement "The only people who want freewill to not exist, are those who lust after the technique to impose theirs over your own." Can be rewritten as:
The only people who want freewill to exist, are those who lust after the technique to impose theirs over your own.
The RIAA does not care about CD sales. Why? They don't make CDs. A majority of what the RIAA does are lawyer games and this new internet file sharing thing is really giving these lawyers that cannot get real law jobs something to do that seems to be justified.
People, please recognise and treat the RIAA for what they are. They are not a company, they have no business model, they have no products, they are a group of people that a) announce records as gold, silver, etc b) put little warnings on albums that use bad words and c) sue people. Personally, I don't understand how they have any grounds to sue because they do not own the copyrights and they are not loosing any money from copyright violations (in fact they benefit from them).
First off, it kills me that people are functional enough to own a home, but stupid enough to answer a deceptive email to get a low mortage rate or whatever. I feel stupid for financing my house from lendingtree.com, but at least that is a somewhat respectable company. Offtopic hint about lendingtree and many of these mortage "banks". They are not banks, they are fee collecting agencies, and they immediatly sell your mortage to a real bank.
Another thing about the mortage spams that I have investigated is that they are not legitimate banks, and I do not know what thier goal is. My guess is identitiy theft or theft in general. One spam I got was from a company from France that purported to be FDIC insured (the US insurance on bank deposits). I know they were not FDIC insured. Also they had a "yeah we're a secure site, click on the little icon here for verisign verification". None of the pages were served over SSL, and the verisign link was bogus as well.
Oh, and I do track down some spammers, give them a call, and tell them to stop spamming me in a very angry/irratated tone. I personally get pissed at one spam shitlist that I am on because it is not to a real email address. I admin a domain, and we have one mail handler for the whole domain, and all other machines on this domain have the mail machine as its MX DNS entry. Anyway, I get direct mails to a machine that is not a real email address. I do send mail from that machine, and so the mail headers to have this email address/machine in them, but like I said, only about 5 people know this machine exists, and it has never been publically available as a valid email address. I do my best to track down people that mail to this address, but unfortunately, many of spammers are not from the US.
My spam solution would be to make DNS more authoritative like getting X509 certs from verisign or whoever. If a DNS server hosts a spam domain, its blacklisted. Then the names won't reverse lookup so no incoming mail, and if they spoof or hijack a windows box from a "good" domain, then the urls in the spam will still not work because the host will not resolve.
Someone needs to be held accountable for serving the spam sites. If none of a company's names resolve, I think they would ditch the spammers very quickly so that they can be on the net again.
But if I write something that influences technology on a global scale, I want something more than a pat on the back and my name buried in the source code. I want to get paid for my effort/time/expertise. I can't afford to be altruistic until I don't have to worry about making mortgage payments any more.
Err, yeah, all of the OSS programmers are homeless people that write code at public libraries and on peoples computers at net cafes while they are looking in the other direction.
I mean, even RMS, who intentionally does not do mainstream modern stuff like own a television is not homeless.
In fact, I challenge you to name anyone that has influenced technology on a global scale, and can't make a mortgage payment because of their work is OSS.
And this is coming from a person that pays his mortgage by giving away free porn.
Magstrips are terribly insecure. They are a reprogramable single number on a card. Do you know why at retail stores that they scan your card, and then put in the last 4 digits manually? And wonder why those 4 digits are under a hologram? Its because its trivial to reprogram one of these with a new number. A magstripe writer new costs like $500 or $600. Trust me, I could get a pretty return on investment with that upfront cost. CC numbers all have some kind of checksumming algorithm with them, and if someone put a random valid number on a card, it still would not match the last 4 numbers. I've heard that phonecards in europe had to go with smartcards because people were getting fake magstrip cards.
I'm actually shocked that magstripe reprogramming is not more common. Since CCs are taken everywhere now, and most of them are self swipe, hmm....
Isn't the Tor system a type of P2P system that is being developed with backing from the Navy?
This is from a FAQ I found on the net:
Logon as the Administrator or as a member of the Administrators, Server Operators, or Power Users groups Open the Windows Explorer Expand My Computer to the C: drive Click the C: drive with the right button on your mouse Select Sharing Click the New Share button at the bottom, right of the resulting window Enter the following in the Share Name box: C Click the Permissions Button Select Everyone Check the desired boxes Click OK Click OK Click the down arrow to the right of the Share name box Select C (not C$) Click the Apply button at the bottom (this is where people usually muck up) OK
I guess that it will be illegal for operating systems to have file sharing anymore.
I had to make a formal request, that was time-consuming for me and the librarians involved in obtaining a copy of the article from a different library that had that particular journal.
When I did research in college, I actually prefered that my library did not have the journal. Why? Because all I had to do was put the journal information, page numbers, etc on a form and Interlibrary Loan would go and find the journal for me, photocopy it for free, and call me up when it was ready. Granted I couldn't get it right then, but it was nice having full service research.
Its not worth fishing through some 503 errors, but in yesterday's article about this, a few people said that they had mailed Katie Tarbox, and she said that she had no control over the situation, that it was Penguin that was doing the lawyering.
Although this is true, its mute. I first used DOS, which I cannot really call an operating system, but anyway. Then windows. Got sick of reinstalling, dropped windows in 97. Started using linux. Stopped using linux on the desktop in 2004 when I got my powerbook and OS X. I'll never look back. OS X is not perfect, but its hands down the best end user OS I've ever used, and all of my dotfiles from my *NIX machines work flawlessly. Printing still sucks under linux, setting up networks still sucks under linux, nfs/samba shares are still difficult. Try getting power management to work properly under linux.
Myth #2: Lack of Applications
Again true. I'm sory, but OpenOffice is only useful because its better than strings WORD.doc | less. I can view stuff, but its not 100% compatable, and its ugly as hell, and just clunky. Most any app under linux will work on OS X plus all of the native OS X apps. KDE and GNOME are Windows wannabes, OS X is different and very slick IMHO.
Myth #3: It's hard to install software
Again true. rpm dependancy hell../configure, blah. With OS X, to install an app you either have a nifty installer that asks for the admin password and it "just works", or you do something difficult like drag the app to some folder, usually/Applications. The only distro that gets installation right is debian. Oh, and I have apt on my Mac too.
I used Linux pretty much exclusively on the desktop from 97 to 2004, and I have no plans on looking back at it. I've found what I want. I use and admin linux daily. I like linux. But I don't want to admin my laptop. It just works, and that is a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, I was always told that H bombs were uncontrolled nuclear fusion reactions, but maybe I was lied to.
Huh? I havn't had a land line in almost a year, but I remember when I did that every long distance company under the sun was calling me to "switch and save" on my long distance. I would ask them if their long distance was less than my calling card at 3 or so cents a minute with no monthly charge and they would say "no", but they were always willing to take my money anyway.
Phones are a scam. It kills me that people are willing to pay $50 to more dollars a month for the things. To me its only worth about $10 or so. I don't pay anything for a phone, and I have no ambition to do so (my work pays for my only phone, a cell).
Being that the now "old" phone companies (and cable companies) are into the internet thing now by providing the fiber for the internet, I just wonder when they are just going to start overcharging for a "data" line to your house? I guess they will put that off as long as they can because now they can overcharge people for 3 services now -- cell, land line, and internet.
I hate phones.
OK, first off the grandparent post didn't really say anything, let alone anything insiteful.
Now your WMD example is ridiculous. A p2p app is used to copy files from one place to another, the "bad" part of that is that it can illegally copy files. Now a WMD is used for mass destruction or the threat of mass destruction, I don't see any other way to use a WMD.
What the study results really show is that for a typical usage patern, the IBM Mainframe product running Linux is a complete waste of money because the typical user needs only a typical PC worth of resources on their server. The fact that the two machines being compared ran different operating systems was more or less incidential.
So was this an advertisement or a public service announcement? I thought Microsoft was a software company, not a PC vendor.
Oh, BTW slash coders, why doesn't the "Exclude Stories from the Homepage" feature work anymore? I accidentally got sucked into this M$ article, but I have checked to exclude all M$ related stories. And why is Science listed twice?
My solution to spam that I've been kicking around in my head for a while is to make DNS servers more authoritative and blacklist those DNS servers that are known to produce spam. What this would do is it would stop all incoming mail from the blacklisted DNS servers because their domains would not reverse resolve, and if the spam came from a hijacked windows machine from a "good" domain with an acceptable DNS server, the payload (URLs) in the email would generate 0 business, because all of the links would come up as "Host not found".
The only problem is who is going to maintain this blacklist and what will we do if a domain is falsely or maliciously labeled as spam. This might be a pain at first, but soon all legitimate DNS servers will not host any spam because they don't want to have their other paying customers pissed off. Also, it would be nice if the local DNS servers have the rite to override a blacklisted DNS server just in case.
This is the best solution I can think of.
Not only is it ugly, its not in any way shape or form a "photomosaic", its just a bunch of pictures with a little alpha channel in and between the pictures. For those that don't know a photomosaic is a bunch of pictures that are put together to make another new picture.
Also, there are no up the skirt shots or thong shots. Next....
Yeah, I remember when 104 keys on a keyboard was more than enough for anyone. The problem is that more an more keys get thrown onto keyboards and more and more of them are getting unused "legacy" keys.
:) Believe me, I never hit the key on the wall by accident.
Although its been years since I've used windows, I remember back in that dark time of my life where I would be using VIM to write code or whatever and I would invariably hit the "Windows" key instead of control with some other key and I believe that the "Start" menu thingy would pop open, thus taking my keyboard focus to the "Start" menu instead of my editor.
Needless to say, after the umpteenth time that I did this, I promptly took a screwdriver and pulled the damned key off of my keyboard and shoved it in a whole in the wall that I drilled
KISS (Keep it simple stupid). If you are unable to interface with your computer with less than 80 or so keys, something is very, very wrong.
Dude, you just confirmed my rewording of your original statement:
The only people who want freewill to exist, are those who lust after the technique to impose theirs over your own.
I'm sorry that I caused you to choose to reply in such an incoherent mannor, but I challenge you and anyone else that feels the need for the myth of free will to provide one piece of objective, observable, and repeatable evidence that free will exists.
And for those that say I'm full of shit, I'll offer something substantial. Where is their AI?
So, your saying what here? I don't see any support for free will by arguing that people choose to be so stupid that they cannot create good artificial intelligence.
Lets talk more on tangible terms, and not emotional ones.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I always thought that rural == low population density and cities == high population density. For example, I consider a rural setting one like that of a farm where there are a few people every couple of miles, and a city setting where there are up to thousands of people in one city block.
If you look at the "Summary" table from the county-by-county link that you provide, and find the population density for those voting for Gore and W, you will see that the people/sq mile for Bush comes out to be 45.03 and for Gore it comes out to be 199.25.
Hmm.
If the guy who discovers his biology determines his behavior, and he's sophisticated enough to change the biology... what does it mean when he chooses to do that?
When the technology becomes available, and it will, and even just a few people overcome it, and change their biology.... what will that mean that they choose to change it?
OK, by these statements the biology is the causal agent for the initial behavior and the motive to change it. I see no choosing here. Take for example someone who has a big ugly nose. I think that we are in agreement that a person did not "choose" to have the gene or their parents in order to obtain this big ugly nose. Also, I believe that we are in agreement that the "decision" that the nose is big and ugly is entirely based upon the environment by visually comparing their nose to other people's noses. If the person were to "choose" to change this big ugly nose, that "decision" would be entirely based upon biology (the biology of others as well as the problematic nose owners).
The only people who want freewill to not exist, are those who lust after the technique to impose theirs over your own.
I believe that everyone feels more comfortable with the notion of having free will, and we play the game of life as if free will exists, but there is no data supporting the notion of free will. None. In fact, your previous statement does not make sense. Why would an individual that does not "want freewill to exist" impose something that they do not believe in on someone else? Read "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" by BF Skinner. He does not believe in free will, nor does he try to impose this on someone else. He is merely stating observations based upon a lifetime of observing the behavior of animals (including humans).
I don't remember if it was Epstein, a student of Skinner, who wrote the cartoon I'm about to describe, or if it was just in Epstein's book, but there was a cartoon that shows a scientist hovering over a rat in a skinner box (a box that has a leaver that drops food when the rat pushes the leaver). The rat is thinking "Hey, I have just operationally conditioned this scientist to give me food every time I press this leaver!"
Actually, your statement "The only people who want freewill to not exist, are those who lust after the technique to impose theirs over your own." Can be rewritten as:
The only people who want freewill to exist, are those who lust after the technique to impose theirs over your own.
Which is probably more accurate.
CD sales are down...the RIAA is in panic mode.
The RIAA does not care about CD sales. Why? They don't make CDs. A majority of what the RIAA does are lawyer games and this new internet file sharing thing is really giving these lawyers that cannot get real law jobs something to do that seems to be justified.
People, please recognise and treat the RIAA for what they are. They are not a company, they have no business model, they have no products, they are a group of people that a) announce records as gold, silver, etc b) put little warnings on albums that use bad words and c) sue people. Personally, I don't understand how they have any grounds to sue because they do not own the copyrights and they are not loosing any money from copyright violations (in fact they benefit from them).
First off, it kills me that people are functional enough to own a home, but stupid enough to answer a deceptive email to get a low mortage rate or whatever. I feel stupid for financing my house from lendingtree.com, but at least that is a somewhat respectable company. Offtopic hint about lendingtree and many of these mortage "banks". They are not banks, they are fee collecting agencies, and they immediatly sell your mortage to a real bank.
Another thing about the mortage spams that I have investigated is that they are not legitimate banks, and I do not know what thier goal is. My guess is identitiy theft or theft in general. One spam I got was from a company from France that purported to be FDIC insured (the US insurance on bank deposits). I know they were not FDIC insured. Also they had a "yeah we're a secure site, click on the little icon here for verisign verification". None of the pages were served over SSL, and the verisign link was bogus as well.
Oh, and I do track down some spammers, give them a call, and tell them to stop spamming me in a very angry/irratated tone. I personally get pissed at one spam shitlist that I am on because it is not to a real email address. I admin a domain, and we have one mail handler for the whole domain, and all other machines on this domain have the mail machine as its MX DNS entry. Anyway, I get direct mails to a machine that is not a real email address. I do send mail from that machine, and so the mail headers to have this email address/machine in them, but like I said, only about 5 people know this machine exists, and it has never been publically available as a valid email address. I do my best to track down people that mail to this address, but unfortunately, many of spammers are not from the US.
I hate spam.
My spam solution would be to make DNS more authoritative like getting X509 certs from verisign or whoever. If a DNS server hosts a spam domain, its blacklisted. Then the names won't reverse lookup so no incoming mail, and if they spoof or hijack a windows box from a "good" domain, then the urls in the spam will still not work because the host will not resolve.
Someone needs to be held accountable for serving the spam sites. If none of a company's names resolve, I think they would ditch the spammers very quickly so that they can be on the net again.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
Plonking Solaris on a Mac isn't going to do much for hardware compatibility
Much more so than plonking Solaris on a PeeCee. Solaris has been available for x86 for years.
I just found out it broke X11 for me on my powerbook. That sucks, because I need X....
OK, another exercise for the reader. Substitute again "store" with "website", and then put up a website like http://fuckmicrosoft.com/.
Now what?
And where can I get Google's source for their search engine technologies?
I love google as much as the next guy, and they use OSS, but to my knowledge they don't give code or patches back.
But if I write something that influences technology on a global scale, I want something more than a pat on the back and my name buried in the source code. I want to get paid for my effort/time/expertise. I can't afford to be altruistic until I don't have to worry about making mortgage payments any more.
Err, yeah, all of the OSS programmers are homeless people that write code at public libraries and on peoples computers at net cafes while they are looking in the other direction.
I mean, even RMS, who intentionally does not do mainstream modern stuff like own a television is not homeless.
In fact, I challenge you to name anyone that has influenced technology on a global scale, and can't make a mortgage payment because of their work is OSS.
And this is coming from a person that pays his mortgage by giving away free porn.
Wouldn't it be more interesting if you had read the article first?
From the FA:Moderators, shame on you too.
Magstrips are terribly insecure. They are a reprogramable single number on a card. Do you know why at retail stores that they scan your card, and then put in the last 4 digits manually? And wonder why those 4 digits are under a hologram? Its because its trivial to reprogram one of these with a new number. A magstripe writer new costs like $500 or $600. Trust me, I could get a pretty return on investment with that upfront cost. CC numbers all have some kind of checksumming algorithm with them, and if someone put a random valid number on a card, it still would not match the last 4 numbers. I've heard that phonecards in europe had to go with smartcards because people were getting fake magstrip cards.
I'm actually shocked that magstripe reprogramming is not more common. Since CCs are taken everywhere now, and most of them are self swipe, hmm....
Hey but after 300 years or so in 1981 the Catholic church "forgave" Galileo. It all works out in the end :)
Isn't the Tor system a type of P2P system that is being developed with backing from the Navy?
This is from a FAQ I found on the net:
Logon as the Administrator or as a member of the Administrators, Server Operators, or Power Users groups
Open the Windows Explorer
Expand My Computer to the C: drive
Click the C: drive with the right button on your mouse
Select Sharing
Click the New Share button at the bottom, right of the resulting window
Enter the following in the Share Name box:
C
Click the Permissions Button
Select Everyone
Check the desired boxes
Click OK
Click OK
Click the down arrow to the right of the Share name box
Select C (not C$)
Click the Apply button at the bottom (this is where people usually muck up)
OK
I guess that it will be illegal for operating systems to have file sharing anymore.
I had to make a formal request, that was time-consuming for me and the librarians involved in obtaining a copy of the article from a different library that had that particular journal.
When I did research in college, I actually prefered that my library did not have the journal. Why? Because all I had to do was put the journal information, page numbers, etc on a form and Interlibrary Loan would go and find the journal for me, photocopy it for free, and call me up when it was ready. Granted I couldn't get it right then, but it was nice having full service research.
Its not worth fishing through some 503 errors, but in yesterday's article about this, a few people said that they had mailed Katie Tarbox, and she said that she had no control over the situation, that it was Penguin that was doing the lawyering.
Myth #1: Linux is harder than Windows
./configure, blah. With OS X, to install an app you either have a nifty installer that asks for the admin password and it "just works", or you do something difficult like drag the app to some folder, usually /Applications. The only distro that gets installation right is debian. Oh, and I have apt on my Mac too.
Although this is true, its mute. I first used DOS, which I cannot really call an operating system, but anyway. Then windows. Got sick of reinstalling, dropped windows in 97. Started using linux. Stopped using linux on the desktop in 2004 when I got my powerbook and OS X. I'll never look back. OS X is not perfect, but its hands down the best end user OS I've ever used, and all of my dotfiles from my *NIX machines work flawlessly. Printing still sucks under linux, setting up networks still sucks under linux, nfs/samba shares are still difficult. Try getting power management to work properly under linux.
Myth #2: Lack of Applications
Again true. I'm sory, but OpenOffice is only useful because its better than strings WORD.doc | less. I can view stuff, but its not 100% compatable, and its ugly as hell, and just clunky. Most any app under linux will work on OS X plus all of the native OS X apps. KDE and GNOME are Windows wannabes, OS X is different and very slick IMHO.
Myth #3: It's hard to install software
Again true. rpm dependancy hell.
I used Linux pretty much exclusively on the desktop from 97 to 2004, and I have no plans on looking back at it. I've found what I want. I use and admin linux daily. I like linux. But I don't want to admin my laptop. It just works, and that is a good thing.