Bill Gates' response to the "OS X" is more unique is basically this: "Who came up with the File, Edit, View idea?" This is about as silly as Apple (many years ago) claiming they had been ripped off because Microsoft decided to include a Recycle bin (ripping off their Trash can.) Which, while true, is trivial. That reponse side-steps the truth of the matter... that they did, in fact, take what they liked about the other guy's OS because the market liked it. Microsoft doesn't invent anything at all (otherwise, Windows would be running a modern OS "under the hood", not DOS.) He doesn't respond to the substantive similarities that they did, in fact, rip off from OS X (the ones users care about): the transparency[ish] app stuff, the search mechanism, etc.
The problem, as I understand it, is that Apple does a uniquely inventive job of UI-work, which Microsoft then emulates. Microsoft's OS's (which are really one OS: DOS) don't convey "we're thinking of the user." They convey "we're thinking of ourselves by giving the user a couple of new things which they have to pay for if they want them." However, neither has done anything truly inventive in the actual OS, just in how you use it. Remember, the OS is more than the interface.
In my opinion, the only company that has done anything inventive on the OS front in the last 3 years is Sun. The Solaris OE has: Zones (containers), ZFS (the near-zero administration, massively scalable zettabyte file-system), DTrace, a TCP/IP re-write aimed solely at performance, the new "milestone" changes, etc.
Here's the problem with Solaris: nobody at Sun puts 10-seconds-worth of thought into the UI. If Solaris had the appearance (on the desktop) of EITHER OS X OR Vista, it would dominate the market entirely (well, they'd also have to get desktop manufacturers to ship, but...) Solaris "looks" like it hasn't been updated in 10 years, meanwhile carrying the payload of the most modern OS in recent history! Get a usable UI developed, Sun!
The OS is not the UI! But people (including myself) do become attached to this or that UI feature of the OS. Just remember what the discussion is about at this point...UI's, not OS's.
Prayer is not [necessarily] religion. Nor is it, for any logical reason known to me, the wholly owned real-estate of the religious. Only the "God told me so.." people should disagree with this (thereby giving up their stake in the logical.)
Prayer can, alternatively, be viewed as an act of acceptance (which I know is going to sound a little new-agey, but bear with me). I'm just saying prayer (being defined as an act of acceptance and the recognition that the person offering the prayer is not himself the creator of everything) has positive benefits (health+ social) and I don't think it should be given over so readily to those who clearly can't think for themselves ("the religious").
I know that this is a problem for "rugged individualists" (and so, it's a problem for me personally:) ), but let's be clear that, not only are we talking about "prayer is not owned by a specific religion", but should also allow for "prayer is not owned by any religion at all".
You may have seen complaints about the growing science gap during "the Clinton years", but never has the president of the US directly eschewed basic research in a public forum until the election of the lowest common denominator--Bush. Now, 6 years into his administration we are finally hearing lip-service about basic research (which he'll fund about as well as "no child left behind"). This moron's driving us into the dirt. You need basic research not for the 1 problem you need fixed today, but for the thousand solutions it may provide tomorrow. You also need it because basic research is what attracts people who love science for the right reasons.
Immediate application of a research topic should not be a requisite for funding (what was that thing that no one saw an application for, again? Oh yeah--the internet.) But it is under this intellectually clumsy administration.
Don't even get me started on "applied vs. basic" research. One of them is Ph.D.-worthy, the other is simple technical training.
Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates' response to the "OS X" is more unique is basically this: "Who came up with the File, Edit, View idea?" This is about as silly as Apple (many years ago) claiming they had been ripped off because Microsoft decided to include a Recycle bin (ripping off their Trash can.) Which, while true, is trivial. That reponse side-steps the truth of the matter... that they did, in fact, take what they liked about the other guy's OS because the market liked it. Microsoft doesn't invent anything at all (otherwise, Windows would be running a modern OS "under the hood", not DOS.)
He doesn't respond to the substantive similarities that they did, in fact, rip off from OS X (the ones users care about): the transparency[ish] app stuff, the search mechanism, etc.
The problem, as I understand it, is that Apple does a uniquely inventive job of UI-work, which Microsoft then emulates. Microsoft's OS's (which are really one OS: DOS) don't convey "we're thinking of the user." They convey "we're thinking of ourselves by giving the user a couple of new things which they have to pay for if they want them." However, neither has done anything truly inventive in the actual OS, just in how you use it. Remember, the OS is more than the interface.
In my opinion, the only company that has done anything inventive on the OS front in the last 3 years is Sun. The Solaris OE has: Zones (containers), ZFS (the near-zero administration, massively scalable zettabyte file-system), DTrace, a TCP/IP re-write aimed solely at performance, the new "milestone" changes, etc.
Here's the problem with Solaris: nobody at Sun puts 10-seconds-worth of thought into the UI. If Solaris had the appearance (on the desktop) of EITHER OS X OR Vista, it would dominate the market entirely (well, they'd also have to get desktop manufacturers to ship, but...) Solaris "looks" like it hasn't been updated in 10 years, meanwhile carrying the payload of the most modern OS in recent history! Get a usable UI developed, Sun!
The OS is not the UI! But people (including myself) do become attached to this or that UI feature of the OS. Just remember what the discussion is about at this point...UI's, not OS's.
That's the only prayer that is a priori guaranteed to work! :) They are 100% likely to die with||without the prayer.
Prayer is not [necessarily] religion. Nor is it, for any logical reason known to me, the wholly owned real-estate of the religious. Only the "God told me so.." people should disagree with this (thereby giving up their stake in the logical.)
:) ), but let's be clear that, not only are we talking about "prayer is not owned by a specific religion", but should also allow for "prayer is not owned by any religion at all".
Prayer can, alternatively, be viewed as an act of acceptance (which I know is going to sound a little new-agey, but bear with me). I'm just saying prayer (being defined as an act of acceptance and the recognition that the person offering the prayer is not himself the creator of everything) has positive benefits (health+ social) and I don't think it should be given over so readily to those who clearly can't think for themselves ("the religious").
I know that this is a problem for "rugged individualists" (and so, it's a problem for me personally
You may have seen complaints about the growing science gap during "the Clinton years", but never has the president of the US directly eschewed basic research in a public forum until the election of the lowest common denominator--Bush. Now, 6 years into his administration we are finally hearing lip-service about basic research (which he'll fund about as well as "no child left behind"). This moron's driving us into the dirt. You need basic research not for the 1 problem you need fixed today, but for the thousand solutions it may provide tomorrow. You also need it because basic research is what attracts people who love science for the right reasons.
Immediate application of a research topic should not be a requisite for funding (what was that thing that no one saw an application for, again? Oh yeah--the internet.) But it is under this intellectually clumsy administration.
Don't even get me started on "applied vs. basic" research. One of them is Ph.D.-worthy, the other is simple technical training.