How about solving problems of radioactive waste disposal
Why dispose it? Why not use it to generate even more power? Not only would you significantly reduce the amount of radioactive waste, the resulting waste would be hazardous for only 300-400 ears. Sounds like a win-win-scenario to me.
And safety issues with reactor technology itself?
Such as? No, Chernobyl is not a valid argument (flawed design + incompetent operators + dangerous experiment = disaster).
What the hell does Slashdot have to do with this? Or do you think that since Slashdot (and some other websites) offer it's contents for free, everyone else must do it as well.
If some website wants to display it's contents to everyone for free, they have that right. But that doesn't mean that ALL websites are required to do so. If some website decides to require registration or even sell the content, they have that right.
I went to FROG Design, a company that had designed the enclosures for many Apple products. They came up with several design possibilities for my remote control. But one weekend (I heard) Steve Jobs encountered this product design there and blew up. FROG told us they could not do it for me. They even tried to collect money after this attrocious thing. I suspect that Steve had a bad impression of my departure, probably fueled by a very inaccurate article in the Wall Street Journal that made it sound that my reason for leaving Apple was because of bad feelings about Apple
So yes, there does seem to be some truth in the claim. Funny, people seem to get mighty upset when it's hinted that maybe Steve Jobs is not that great of a guy. Personality-cult, perhaps?
Off-topic, I know but... I was just reading the article about Woz on Wikipedia. It contained this interesting piece of info:
Woz left Apple for good on February 6, 1985, nine years after setting up the company. Wozniak then founded a short-lived venture called CL9 which developed home remote control switches.
Out of spite, Jobs threatened his suppliers to not do business with Wozniak or risk losing Apple's business. Wozniak was able to find suppliers other than the ones he had worked with for years, but was disappointed in his former friend's bitterness.
I never knew that Jobs was such an ass. Egomaniac? Sure! Asshole? it seems so.
Its intersting because the language that he described sounds very similar to Esperanto which is one of the languages that he speaks.
The vocabulary sounded eerily like Finnish (or Estonian, which are closely related). In his language, "Ema" means "mother". In Finnish "mother" is "äiti", but if you are talking about animals, then it's "emä". In his language, "päive" is "day". In Finnish it's "päivä". Related to this: the name of his language is "Mänti". In Finnish, "Mäntti" means "moron";).
Your other "points" aside, perhaps you'd be interested to learn that OS X's widgets are on the left because that's where the close box has been ever since January 1984. "Every other OS on the planet" apparently chose to follow Windows' example, and can you guess why Windows originally put the widgets on the right? Yep. To be different for the sake of being different.
I don't really care for the situation in 1984, I care what it is today. And today OS X is the odd man out.
And your calling the color highlight on KDE's close button a "nice visual cue" while sniping about the same thing on the Mac is pretty bizarre, too, but who's really keeping track?
*sigh*.... the difference between the widgets in OS X and KDE is this: In KDE, the widgets have symbols that tell the user what they do. And they are visible all the time! The symbols do light up, and it is a nice visual cue. The red highlight wars the user that "hey, this button here will close the app!". It's not required in order to determine the meaning of the widget, it simply provides additional visual info. In OS X it IS required since there no other way to see what the widget does!
OS X does NOT have those symbols by default. they are only shown when you hover your mouse over them. So new user can't simply glance at the widgets and determine what they do, he has to point them with a mouse in order for the symbols to be visible. In KDE (or Windows, Or GNOME etc. etc.) the user does NOT have to do that.
People have commented on OS X's "gumdrop" window controls, which look cute and friendly
Cute? Perhaps. Friendly? No way in hell! They are supposed to be intuitive, right? Everyone should know what they do? Well, the first time I used OS X I was at a loss with them! Hell, if I wanted to have even a vague idea what they were about, I had to individually hover the mouse over them! I couldn't simply glance at them and determine what they do. And they were in the opposite corner when compared to every other OS on the planet! is this a case of being different for the sake of being different?
Now, on KDE I have similar controls on my windows. I can maximise (and on KDE: "maximise" REALLY means "maximise", and not "The window won't be _really_ maximised, it will just be enlarged a bit), minimise and close the app. And the widgets that do that are VERY easy to navigate. No need to hover over them with the pointer, you can instantly see what they do. they do light up when I hover over them, and the "close"-button lights up in red (a nice visual cue). And they are such that even color-blind people can use them without problems (unlike in the Mac).
So it's OK for USA (the world biggest polluter) to keep on increasing it's emissions because "others are doing it as well!"? What USA does (or doesn't do) has pretty big consequences as far as this issue (air-pollution) is concerned. Just because some other country does something, is not IMO a valid excuse.
I know it's convenient for the PEOPLE to hide behind the corporation. But Microsoft (as a corporation) and the people behind it pull crappy stunts like this. Yes, the grunts at MS are propably OK people. But the executives are scum, and therefore the company they lead is scum.
Just because my examples were file-level does not somehow "prove your point". those were just the activities I use the most. I could say that you haven't proven a damn thing, since you haven't told ANY examples yourself! You just said "ooooh, but it's more _granular_!". Sorry, but that doesn't fly. It would be same if I just said "ooooh, but KDE is _better_!"
just try dragging things - anything - into other applications to see what I mean.
KDE has extensive support for drag 'd drop. if I drag an mp3-file from Konqueror to Amarok it get's added to the playlist. If I drag an image-file to the desktop I get an prompt asking whether I want to make it my desktop-wallpaper (seriously, I remember reading a review of OS X where they raved about that feature. I had had it in KDE for a long time already!). Same thing with burning files, ripping music to mp3's/ogg's (have you tried doing that with Konqueror? You just drag and drop the wav-files to your HD, Konqueror does the conversion on the fly. Seriously: it just works!). I fail to see what I'm missing.
Also, try looking a little harder for free OS X software - it's definitely there, I have loads of it!
That's just it. With Linux, I don't have to "look for it". Just about all software is free by default.
256MB is enough to run KDE and maybe two other programs.
My machine has 1GB of RAM. But still: I have studied how much RAM KDE eats (I have 64bit AMD64-machine, so the mem-consumption is a bit higher than on a 32bit machine). With full-blown desktop (including services like Klipper, Kopete, Kwallet and the like) plus few apps (Konqueror, Amarok, Kontact, Konsole), the whole system eats about... 150MB of RAM. If I start a brand-new KDE-session in the background with a host of yet another apps, the RAM-consumption goes to about 200-270MB.
So, your claim that "256MB of RAM is enough for KDE and two programs!", is quite simply false. It seems to me that it's enough for TWO simultaneous KDE-sessions with severalapps and services running.
Weird, Konqueror loads in about 1 second on my A64 3200+. The whole desktop loads in about 8 seconds (IIRC), but that is not that important, since I don't spend my time loading and then re-loading the desktop. I load it once, and then I just use it.
Maybe OS X is good for you. But that doesn't mean that it's good for me. I have fiddled around with OS X now and then. And I can see why some people love it. But I wasn't blown away by it. I like Linux and I like how it works and I like KDE over Aqua.
Yes yes yes.... You say that "But OS X just works!". Well, my Linux-OS also "just works". Every problem I have thrown at it has worked or they have worked with minimium of fuzz.
I like Linux, it's a fantastic server OS, but in my opinion, the desktop software is lacking massively because it has no integration
Weird, my KDE-desktop is integrated. The software works seamlessly together. I fail to see your point.
Actual features which simply don't exist - not to mention the more esoteric things like look-and-feel differences from having different toolkits on the same desktop.
I use KDE-apps, so I don't see any "look 'n feel issues". Well, I do have Firefox installed (although I don't use it that often), and it does look different from rest of KDE-apps. And guess what? That doesn't bother me one bit! And what about Mac? Will that particular app use the brushed-metal look or not?
And another thing: Everything I need in Linux is free. They are just download away. I have looked around for Mac-software, and free-software (as in price, not to mention speech) seems alot rarer. Maybe they are not that expensive, but I would still have to shell out money for them, whereas in Linux I get it all for free. I guess I'm just spoiled in that regard.
While you do say that "these are all just my opinions", your whole post stinks of the "you would be crazy if you used Linux instead of the divine Mac OS X!"-drivel Mac-users seem to spout. Is it REALLY that difficult to comprehend that some people simply prefer some other OS instead of OS X? I don't spend my time trying to convert Mac-users in to Linux-users, but heaven forbid if I dare to mention that I actually prefer Linux over Mac OS X. I get half a dozen Mac-fanboys trying to convert me to OS X. I have known that Mac-fanatics are even more fanatical than Linux-fanatics are, but it's getting ridiculous! Hell, some of them seem to think that running Linux on Mac-hardware is a sacrilige. Yes, I'm planning to buy the Mac Mini. And I'm planning to install Linux on it. Maybe I will try out OS X for one more time. But I wasn't blown away earlier, and I fail to see why I would be blown away this time.
Maybe some people want something else than performance. I have Athlon64 3200+. But having it up & running all the time would be a pain in the ass. The case I use is specially built to be as silent as possible. And I can STILL hear the machine from next room! Not to mention that the thing is HUGE!
Mac Mini would be completely opposite. It's tiny. I can have it on my desk with no problems. It's also silent. And, as a plus, it looks drop-dead gorgerous. Sure, it wouldn't be anywhere near as powerful as my A64-machine. But it doesn't have to be! I don't need some uber-machine to do basic things. And most of the time, my A64-machine is used to do basic things. Things that the Mini could habdle just fine. And it would handle them without sounding like a jet-engine. Maybe I could save few bucks on my electricity-bill while I'm at it.
I find it really surprising that some people (apparently Mac-heads) really think that "why would you want to run Linux, when you can run OS X?". They honestly seem to think that Linux-users will migrate to OS X in hordes. I mean, why should they? Because of the eye-candy?
Honestly, do they think that people use Linux for the eye-candy? Maybe they want an OS that suits their needs? Maybe they want an OS that is free both in speech and in beer. Maybe Linux simply outperforms Mac OS? Maybe they prefer Gnome or KDE over Aqua? Maybe they don't need GUI?
Yes, OS X is a fine OS. No, it's not the OS that will end all other OS'es. It might be the greatest thing since sliced bread for some people, but it might not suit some other people (even though those people might like the hardware OS X runs on). I have fiddled around with OS X and there are several things in the UI that annoy me. I don't like the OS X style menubar in the top of the screen. I fail to be impressed by the dock, I absolutely hate the minimize/"maximise"/close-buttons.
And before anyone says "But OS X is based on Unix! That's the reason to use OS X!". Well, Linux-users haven't meen migrating to FreeBSD either (which is more free that OS X is), so why would they move to OS X? Becuase of the eye-candy? Think again!
I didn't know that you were forced to own and watch a TV in USA. I thought that buying and watching TV was completely voluntary. I guess I was mistaken.
DHS, DEA, IRS, NSA, FBI, local police, your employer(see above)
They have cameras in your house?
prison, school
Uh-huh. So I assume you are on your way to prison for your anti-government thoughts?
I believe there are some "survivalist-militias" in outbacks of Montana. I'm sure they will would welcome you with open arms (unless you look like a G-man). And Canada seems to be mostly empty.
I don't know about you, but all the grocery stores in my town just started printing ads on the back of the damned RECEIPTS.
Oh the humanity! When will it stop?! I have ADS on my RECEIPTS! this is worse than having Big Brother in your home watching you 24x7 and spouting propaganda at you!
If you are so troubled by this, move to the mountains and hunt your own food.
Now, it seems a few want to make Orwell seem like a conservative vision.
Orwell's vision involved constant supervision (even in your home), propaganda being streamed to you all the time, people spying on you, forced re-education etc. etc. If you think that this proposed system makes "Orwell seem like a conservative vision", you are WAY off your rocker!
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't be surprised if he did....
How do you replace the built-in one-button mouse in iBook or PB with a decent mouse? No, "buy an external mouse!" is not the answer I'm looking for.
Why dispose it? Why not use it to generate even more power? Not only would you significantly reduce the amount of radioactive waste, the resulting waste would be hazardous for only 300-400 ears. Sounds like a win-win-scenario to me.
Such as? No, Chernobyl is not a valid argument (flawed design + incompetent operators + dangerous experiment = disaster).
Every time I hear the "Gandhi-quote", I'm reminded of the Gandhi-scene in Weird Al's UHF. Those who have seen the movie, know what I'm talking about.
"No more Mr. Passive Resistance! Gandhi II!"
What the hell does Slashdot have to do with this? Or do you think that since Slashdot (and some other websites) offer it's contents for free, everyone else must do it as well.
If some website wants to display it's contents to everyone for free, they have that right. But that doesn't mean that ALL websites are required to do so. If some website decides to require registration or even sell the content, they have that right.
So yes, there does seem to be some truth in the claim. Funny, people seem to get mighty upset when it's hinted that maybe Steve Jobs is not that great of a guy. Personality-cult, perhaps?
I never knew that Jobs was such an ass. Egomaniac? Sure! Asshole? it seems so.
The vocabulary sounded eerily like Finnish (or Estonian, which are closely related). In his language, "Ema" means "mother". In Finnish "mother" is "äiti", but if you are talking about animals, then it's "emä". In his language, "päive" is "day". In Finnish it's "päivä". Related to this: the name of his language is "Mänti". In Finnish, "Mäntti" means "moron"
I don't really care for the situation in 1984, I care what it is today. And today OS X is the odd man out.
*sigh*.... the difference between the widgets in OS X and KDE is this: In KDE, the widgets have symbols that tell the user what they do. And they are visible all the time! The symbols do light up, and it is a nice visual cue. The red highlight wars the user that "hey, this button here will close the app!". It's not required in order to determine the meaning of the widget, it simply provides additional visual info. In OS X it IS required since there no other way to see what the widget does!
OS X does NOT have those symbols by default. they are only shown when you hover your mouse over them. So new user can't simply glance at the widgets and determine what they do, he has to point them with a mouse in order for the symbols to be visible. In KDE (or Windows, Or GNOME etc. etc.) the user does NOT have to do that.
Comprende?
Cute? Perhaps. Friendly? No way in hell! They are supposed to be intuitive, right? Everyone should know what they do? Well, the first time I used OS X I was at a loss with them! Hell, if I wanted to have even a vague idea what they were about, I had to individually hover the mouse over them! I couldn't simply glance at them and determine what they do. And they were in the opposite corner when compared to every other OS on the planet! is this a case of being different for the sake of being different?
Now, on KDE I have similar controls on my windows. I can maximise (and on KDE: "maximise" REALLY means "maximise", and not "The window won't be _really_ maximised, it will just be enlarged a bit), minimise and close the app. And the widgets that do that are VERY easy to navigate. No need to hover over them with the pointer, you can instantly see what they do. they do light up when I hover over them, and the "close"-button lights up in red (a nice visual cue). And they are such that even color-blind people can use them without problems (unlike in the Mac).
Business is what their executives and employees make it out to be. If people behind MS are scum, then the business is scum as well.
So it's OK for USA (the world biggest polluter) to keep on increasing it's emissions because "others are doing it as well!"? What USA does (or doesn't do) has pretty big consequences as far as this issue (air-pollution) is concerned. Just because some other country does something, is not IMO a valid excuse.
I know it's convenient for the PEOPLE to hide behind the corporation. But Microsoft (as a corporation) and the people behind it pull crappy stunts like this. Yes, the grunts at MS are propably OK people. But the executives are scum, and therefore the company they lead is scum.
yes, they really are scum.
Just because my examples were file-level does not somehow "prove your point". those were just the activities I use the most. I could say that you haven't proven a damn thing, since you haven't told ANY examples yourself! You just said "ooooh, but it's more _granular_!". Sorry, but that doesn't fly. It would be same if I just said "ooooh, but KDE is _better_!"
So what else is new?
KDE has extensive support for drag 'd drop. if I drag an mp3-file from Konqueror to Amarok it get's added to the playlist. If I drag an image-file to the desktop I get an prompt asking whether I want to make it my desktop-wallpaper (seriously, I remember reading a review of OS X where they raved about that feature. I had had it in KDE for a long time already!). Same thing with burning files, ripping music to mp3's/ogg's (have you tried doing that with Konqueror? You just drag and drop the wav-files to your HD, Konqueror does the conversion on the fly. Seriously: it just works!). I fail to see what I'm missing.
That's just it. With Linux, I don't have to "look for it". Just about all software is free by default.
My machine has 1GB of RAM. But still: I have studied how much RAM KDE eats (I have 64bit AMD64-machine, so the mem-consumption is a bit higher than on a 32bit machine). With full-blown desktop (including services like Klipper, Kopete, Kwallet and the like) plus few apps (Konqueror, Amarok, Kontact, Konsole), the whole system eats about... 150MB of RAM. If I start a brand-new KDE-session in the background with a host of yet another apps, the RAM-consumption goes to about 200-270MB.
So, your claim that "256MB of RAM is enough for KDE and two programs!", is quite simply false. It seems to me that it's enough for TWO simultaneous KDE-sessions with severalapps and services running.
Weird, Konqueror loads in about 1 second on my A64 3200+. The whole desktop loads in about 8 seconds (IIRC), but that is not that important, since I don't spend my time loading and then re-loading the desktop. I load it once, and then I just use it.
Yes yes yes.... You say that "But OS X just works!". Well, my Linux-OS also "just works". Every problem I have thrown at it has worked or they have worked with minimium of fuzz.
Weird, my KDE-desktop is integrated. The software works seamlessly together. I fail to see your point.
I use KDE-apps, so I don't see any "look 'n feel issues". Well, I do have Firefox installed (although I don't use it that often), and it does look different from rest of KDE-apps. And guess what? That doesn't bother me one bit! And what about Mac? Will that particular app use the brushed-metal look or not?
And another thing: Everything I need in Linux is free. They are just download away. I have looked around for Mac-software, and free-software (as in price, not to mention speech) seems alot rarer. Maybe they are not that expensive, but I would still have to shell out money for them, whereas in Linux I get it all for free. I guess I'm just spoiled in that regard.
While you do say that "these are all just my opinions", your whole post stinks of the "you would be crazy if you used Linux instead of the divine Mac OS X!"-drivel Mac-users seem to spout. Is it REALLY that difficult to comprehend that some people simply prefer some other OS instead of OS X? I don't spend my time trying to convert Mac-users in to Linux-users, but heaven forbid if I dare to mention that I actually prefer Linux over Mac OS X. I get half a dozen Mac-fanboys trying to convert me to OS X. I have known that Mac-fanatics are even more fanatical than Linux-fanatics are, but it's getting ridiculous! Hell, some of them seem to think that running Linux on Mac-hardware is a sacrilige. Yes, I'm planning to buy the Mac Mini. And I'm planning to install Linux on it. Maybe I will try out OS X for one more time. But I wasn't blown away earlier, and I fail to see why I would be blown away this time.
Maybe some people want something else than performance. I have Athlon64 3200+. But having it up & running all the time would be a pain in the ass. The case I use is specially built to be as silent as possible. And I can STILL hear the machine from next room! Not to mention that the thing is HUGE!
Mac Mini would be completely opposite. It's tiny. I can have it on my desk with no problems. It's also silent. And, as a plus, it looks drop-dead gorgerous. Sure, it wouldn't be anywhere near as powerful as my A64-machine. But it doesn't have to be! I don't need some uber-machine to do basic things. And most of the time, my A64-machine is used to do basic things. Things that the Mini could habdle just fine. And it would handle them without sounding like a jet-engine. Maybe I could save few bucks on my electricity-bill while I'm at it.
I find it really surprising that some people (apparently Mac-heads) really think that "why would you want to run Linux, when you can run OS X?". They honestly seem to think that Linux-users will migrate to OS X in hordes. I mean, why should they? Because of the eye-candy?
Honestly, do they think that people use Linux for the eye-candy? Maybe they want an OS that suits their needs? Maybe they want an OS that is free both in speech and in beer. Maybe Linux simply outperforms Mac OS? Maybe they prefer Gnome or KDE over Aqua? Maybe they don't need GUI?
Yes, OS X is a fine OS. No, it's not the OS that will end all other OS'es. It might be the greatest thing since sliced bread for some people, but it might not suit some other people (even though those people might like the hardware OS X runs on). I have fiddled around with OS X and there are several things in the UI that annoy me. I don't like the OS X style menubar in the top of the screen. I fail to be impressed by the dock, I absolutely hate the minimize/"maximise"/close-buttons.
And before anyone says "But OS X is based on Unix! That's the reason to use OS X!". Well, Linux-users haven't meen migrating to FreeBSD either (which is more free that OS X is), so why would they move to OS X? Becuase of the eye-candy? Think again!
I didn't know that you were forced to own and watch a TV in USA. I thought that buying and watching TV was completely voluntary. I guess I was mistaken.
They have cameras in your house?
Uh-huh. So I assume you are on your way to prison for your anti-government thoughts?
I believe there are some "survivalist-militias" in outbacks of Montana. I'm sure they will would welcome you with open arms (unless you look like a G-man). And Canada seems to be mostly empty.
Oh the humanity! When will it stop?! I have ADS on my RECEIPTS! this is worse than having Big Brother in your home watching you 24x7 and spouting propaganda at you!
If you are so troubled by this, move to the mountains and hunt your own food.
Orwell's vision involved constant supervision (even in your home), propaganda being streamed to you all the time, people spying on you, forced re-education etc. etc. If you think that this proposed system makes "Orwell seem like a conservative vision", you are WAY off your rocker!