--- Power Computing demonstrated a CHRP based laptop shortly before Apple (Jobs) killed CHRP and took them over. ---
First, you can't kill CHRP - it's a standard, not a company. What Apple did was refuse to license the MacOS. Power Computing could very easily have produced CHRP compliant BeOS powered machine.
Of course, this completely ignores the market viability of such a move, but that's not Apple's problem. Apple pretty much killed Power Computing, but CHRP was and is an open standard that anyone could work with.
--- Apple wanted to raise licensing fees, so it (Jobs) killed CHRP rather than lose that source of income. ---
This is true, if you replace CHRP with MacOS licensing. Apple changed their mind on who they wanted to license their OS to. I didn't like it either (I was a big Power Computing fan, and own a PTP 225 myself) but in hindsight it's hard to argue with the turnaround Apple made soon after.
But either way, Apple did not kill CHRP. Apple doesn't even 'own' CHRP. CHRP is still there, waiting for someone to use it (in fact, didn't Umax come out with a 'mostly' CHRP compliant box some time back?).
--- How wrong you are: Be was already porting before Jobs killed CHRP. Even BeOS 5 runs on PPC, so they never really left PPC space. ---
I never said Be did it because Apple stopped licensing the MacOS out. Be did it because X86 machines outnumber PowerPC machines 10 to 1, and Intel sold them on the idea. The MacOS licensing issue was just convenient timing, but in the end it didn't matter that much other than in the platform's viability as a whole (Be wouldn't have cared one way or the other - it's not like Power Computing was going to sell BeOS-only machines any time soon, and BeOS ran just fine on Apple's boxen).
Given that Windows is on a vast majority of the desktops out there, and that packet-watching isn't exactly uncommon, you'd think someone would notice by now.
Plus, what exactly would Microsoft have to gain? Certainly not enough to make up for the potential lawsuits...
Oddly enough, I'm taking an Astronomy class as we speak from the former Apple employee who designed the 'hole' that you use the paper clip on (Thom Ahl - a pretty nice guy).
--- OSX is covered cause even tho apple is a hugely proprietry company, everyone here loves microsoft competitors. ---
Well, Apple was a Microsoft competitor long before Slashdot started seriously covering them. I think it's more the hardware and Unix-based nature of their recent OS movements more than anything. Note that OSX is based on Mach/BSD, which goes to show you that they're not focused on Linux only.
--- Anyway, point was slashdot IS primarily a linux site. ---
If by that you mean that most of the people here have an interest in it, sure.
I'm not saying that Slashdot isn't incredibly biased toward Linux, but that doesn't mean the Slashdot editors won't use *BSD when the occasion warrants.
Anyhow, Slashdot may be Linux-oriented, but nowhere do they say that they are so to the exclusion of everything else (which was the point I was arguing).
--- The reason why Linux gets the necessary specs is because the commercial interest is tiny or non-existent, and Linux is not seen as a threat. ---
Are you serious? Linux is a much bigger threat than BeOS. I'm not going to argue technological specs with you (as I'd say BeOS has lots of things over MacOS and Linux in that respect), but I'd say Linux has multiple times the amount of commercial support that the BeOS has. Linus Torvalds - not JLG - is on the cover of Money magazine this month. Who do you think has more commercial support?
Last I checked, the major Linux companies haven't had to repurpose their OS efforts into the phantom 'Internet Appliance' market.
--- Be however would stand to make profits, and make Mac OS look old fashioned, crufty and slow. ---
Other than interface, Linux makes the current MacOS look pretty crufty in many ways (most notable are stability issues). Does Apple worry? Not really. To use Linux or BeOS on their hardware you have to buy their boxes AND their OS. Sure, they may lose somewhat in OS upgrade sales and 3rd parties may mis out, but really it's a no-brainer.
I mean, think about it: If you can sell 10 machines running one OS or 12 machines with the other 2 moving to an alternative OS, wouldn't you? These aren't as good to Apple as those who stick with MacOS, but they're not _hurting_ in the slightest. When 90% of the world already runs something else other than MacOS already, it's not like they're keeping a big secret about those other operating systems anyhow.
--- Secondly, Apple have never once challenged Be's oft-stated claim that the necessary specs have been witheld. ---
If you're expecting a press release, though, you're probably not going to get it (Apple doesn't respond to damn near anything, especially rumors - call their PR group, it's their policy).
Actually, Apple had a Linux distribution they were pushing long before Darwin came out. Apple certainly helped there.
Did they base the company on it? Nope, but I don't think you can say that support on those operating systems was hacked when Apple had at least 1-2 people working on it.
--- It's probably relevant that Apple killed the CHRP platform that was the basis of Be's entire business. ---
Apple never killed CHRP. Nobody bit on CHRP (and as far as I know, few/none of the MacOS licensees were CHRP).
--- Given that Apple made it clear that they didn't want to help Be, and Intel did (with info and money), it probably became a pretty easy choice... ---
This may be a better way to put it. Apple didn't deny Be anything, they simply didn't subsidize their development. Be was lured by the siren song of Intel, and needed an excuse to move away from the PPC space.
--- Note that the reason Be can't make the BeOS run on PowerMac G3 and G4 machines is not because of their processors but because Apple won't give Be the specs for the proprietary chips on the motherboards of the new machines. ---
Ah yes. Apple has been terrible about releasing the information used in order to port alternative operating systems on their hardware, eh?
Think for yourself. No matter what Be's propaganda says, Apple has nothing to lose from Be porting their OS to their hardware, since they still gain sales either way. Perhaps they don't want to subsidize Be's development, but that's besides the point. Be's argument was questionable from the beginning, and is twice as questionable now that Apple has released Darwin.
Don't get me wrong - I love BeOS, but the company behind it doesn't seem to have any trouble hiding reality from their userbase. They got seduced by Wintel and they know it.
Have you thought that if these Mac people preferred the functionality of Linux, they would consider switching to it?
I run LinuxPPC myself, and it's pretty good - but for one reason I find myself switching back to the MacOS regularly (and it's not just app support either).
Unix/Linux have some damn good ideas, but a UI that doesn't fight you every step of the way isn't one of them (and yeah, I know there is no one UI out there).
Um, first off, was this just a poor attempt to spam Slashdot with a link to your own site?
Either way, it's obvious nobody cares. Out of the 20 last stories you've posted on the site, there are a total of *3* comments between them, with each posted in a different story. Not even a single reply. It's worth noting that if you reply to this message, we'll have matched in one thread the total messages posted on GeekPress in a span of three days.
If you're going to spam Slashdot with links to your own site, at least make it a decent site to visit. Ripping on Slashdot for whatever reason (note: it works perfectly for me, and has for weeks) is one thing, but doing it for free advertising is quite another.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds it slightly amusing that you've used 'ihatespam' to obfusctate your email address, either.
Right, but you totally misread what he was saying. The fact that it's Gnome-centric means that running apps developed without the same widget sets and user interface guidelines will remain problematic.
Even know - with Gnome, no less - I see a multitude of different help systems, button layouts, open/save dialog boxes, etc. Eazel is great, but it's not going to solve everything. You still need to get coders give a damn about usability and UI consistancy (while projects like Mozilla are completely throwing it away).
That's the problem, though - you're judging interface design on what it is currently. Yes, right now Windows is an imperfect user interface (even MacOS has its problems).
However, I can tell you this: Both are easier to grok for the average person after an hour or two of sitting down and playing. The original Mac was extremely good about this - but it has become somewhat bloated in the race to achieve feature-parity with Windows.
Just because something sucks from a UI perspective doesn't mean you should give up and simply hand the user a 3 inch thick book that they have to keep propped open next to their computer. The trick is to make it easy enough that referring to a manual is an unfortunate and rare occurance.
(And yes, I worked for a couple years on a help desk - answering calls and doing field work.)
This really isn't that big of a departure from Apple's previous stategy.
Before, they were going to release a final beta now and ship sometime this summer. However, they weren't going to bundle the OS with their hardware until January of '01.
The only difference now is that they're re-labeling that initial 1.0 release a beta and stilling bundling it with their hardware in January '01. To be perfectly honest, to anyone who has seriously used OSX DP3, this makes perfect sense. The user interface had a long way to go before it'd make a decent successor to OS9. If they had released anything even remotely like DP3 as a final product, they'd have been filleted by the Mac press and userbase.
It seems they have taken the criticism to heart, and might be fixing some of the stupider elements (ie. the dock) which possibly providing a replacement for some of the gaping holes (ie. the lack of an Apple menu or something similar). As a bonus, they released another beta today and will release another sometime this summer.
This is a Good Thing, IMHO. No use making people buy something labeled a release when in all reality it's a beta. There's no way Apple was going to have something release-quality within 6-8 months of DP3...
--- So, although the sun produces radiations, it is natural. not man made. ---
So? What does 'man-made' versus 'natural' have to do with anything? I guarantee you that you won't die any differently if you stand on the surface of the sun as you would if you stood in a nuclear blast. Natural? Man-made? It's all trivial, you're dead either way.
--- Question Authority ---
Question the health food industry that has spent millions trying to convince people that natural is somehow inherantly safer/healthier than man-made.
I would like to personally apologize on this guy's behalf. Please please please understand that this, contrary to popular belief, is not the typical viewpoint shared by the average American. Most of us are absolutely nothing like this.
Once again, please don't let a few bad apples spoil your view on our country. Really, America is pretty damned nice if you learn to deal with the occasional nutball.
(just when we start to get halfway decent PR for something, someone has to go and make a damned Joseph McCarthy out of himself)
This was the primary reason I left my previous employer. These kinds of contracts make sense in some cases, but most of the time they're way too restrictive.
--- Wow, a Macintosh in a nuclear facility? No wonder they use a bomb to indicate a computer failure. ---
That was pretty bad.:>
--- To think of alternative energy sources is to think of vigorous well-organized opponents.... The most visible are those that oppose nuclear power, but I have yet to meet anyone who wants a coal-fired, electrical-generating plant next to him ---
Well, PNNL isn't really a nuclear power plant - and I doubt LANL does anything like that either. Most of the nuclear material here is/was used for research, or is left over from previous nuclear power activity (PNNL is actually heavily involved in nuclear cleanup, not production, and has been since most of the local nuclear reactors were taken offline).
That said, nuclear power is extremely clean if done correctly. That's the problem, though, if something does go wrong, it goes _really_ wrong. We've already got our share of waste slowly making its way to the Columbia river (south-east WA state). This has kept the cleanup industry in business for some time.
But in the hands of someone who gives a damn about safety, it generates almost no pollution whatsoever.
Having once worked at a National Lab (PNNL, operated by Battelle) I can say that if LANL is anything like where I worked, they're not lying. Nuclear material is handled very carefully and a forest fire is the least of their worries.
There are other issues with the Natl labs (namely, national security) that aren't all that great - but I don't think fire is going to be a problem.
(yes, I was certified as a level 1 rad worker, and no it wasn't my main focus - I was a computer tech who had to go into rad zones from time to time. if you think an old Quadra 605 is slow now, it feels ten times as slow when you're surrounded by geiger counters and have a quota as to how long you would be allowed to stay there)
Look at it this way. What is Microsoft's greatest asset other than its brand? Its people. The engineers who work there.
How does Microsoft keep them there? Stock options, mostly. The pay is decent, but the main draw is a chunk of the company that is always going up.
What happens when the stock is wounded? People leave. As simple as that. There are tons of other companies out there who would love to have Microsoft's talent (and yes, even though they make a lot of shitty products, the engineers are usually not to blame in the end). By wounding their stock price, you deal a blow far greater than a perceived drop in faith in Microsoft's stock.
--- A bunch of idiots with guns are not going to be able to overthrow the army of the greatest super power in the world. ---
Just a thought: consider that the 'greatest superpower in the world' is staffed by none other than the children, brothers, sisters, and friends of mainstream Americans. Do you really think that the entire military would rather shoot down their own families rather then defect?
Your assumption is that the military would stay as-is. In reality, you'll find that those tanks and fighter jets will be aiming elsewhere than where a tyrannical government intended. These people are humans after all...
--- If it doesn't, then it is pointless. But it is my opinion that this is the point that should be argued, not the points of discussions mentioned above (which seem to be the ones most focus on). ---
It's a tough thing to decide on. Traditionally, Americans have been very stubborn about our personal rights - even sacrificing a little safety for the sake of liberty. There are two philosophies on this: those who feel that the government should care for its people and tell them how to live their lives, and those who feel that liberty and freedom is worth losing a bit of security.
Want to take the 100% practical side? It's hard to say - as others have posted, crime-rates don't seem to correlate perfectly with gun ownership. Other factors are at play. Should people have 100% full reign? Probably not. People forfeit their rights when they endanger someone else. A line must be drawn, and it must be somewhere in between. I'd rather not go too far in either direction though...
--- They try to pass bills against guns so they you can fight against them and think you are rebelling against the system. ---
Well said. Instead, we should post to Slashdot about how blind everyone is. Revolution through a web form. If only we could be the rebel that you are...
Slashdot Mirror
---
Power Computing demonstrated a CHRP based laptop shortly before Apple (Jobs) killed CHRP and took them over.
---
First, you can't kill CHRP - it's a standard, not a company. What Apple did was refuse to license the MacOS. Power Computing could very easily have produced CHRP compliant BeOS powered machine.
Of course, this completely ignores the market viability of such a move, but that's not Apple's problem. Apple pretty much killed Power Computing, but CHRP was and is an open standard that anyone could work with.
---
Apple wanted to raise licensing fees, so it (Jobs) killed CHRP rather than lose that source of income.
---
This is true, if you replace CHRP with MacOS licensing. Apple changed their mind on who they wanted to license their OS to. I didn't like it either (I was a big Power Computing fan, and own a PTP 225 myself) but in hindsight it's hard to argue with the turnaround Apple made soon after.
But either way, Apple did not kill CHRP. Apple doesn't even 'own' CHRP. CHRP is still there, waiting for someone to use it (in fact, didn't Umax come out with a 'mostly' CHRP compliant box some time back?).
---
How wrong you are: Be was already porting before Jobs killed CHRP. Even BeOS 5 runs on PPC, so they never really left PPC space.
---
I never said Be did it because Apple stopped licensing the MacOS out. Be did it because X86 machines outnumber PowerPC machines 10 to 1, and Intel sold them on the idea. The MacOS licensing issue was just convenient timing, but in the end it didn't matter that much other than in the platform's viability as a whole (Be wouldn't have cared one way or the other - it's not like Power Computing was going to sell BeOS-only machines any time soon, and BeOS ran just fine on Apple's boxen).
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Here's your rebuttal:
Given that Windows is on a vast majority of the desktops out there, and that packet-watching isn't exactly uncommon, you'd think someone would notice by now.
Plus, what exactly would Microsoft have to gain? Certainly not enough to make up for the potential lawsuits...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Oddly enough, I'm taking an Astronomy class as we speak from the former Apple employee who designed the 'hole' that you use the paper clip on (Thom Ahl - a pretty nice guy).
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
OSX is covered cause even tho apple is a hugely proprietry company, everyone here loves microsoft competitors.
---
Well, Apple was a Microsoft competitor long before Slashdot started seriously covering them. I think it's more the hardware and Unix-based nature of their recent OS movements more than anything. Note that OSX is based on Mach/BSD, which goes to show you that they're not focused on Linux only.
---
Anyway, point was slashdot IS primarily a linux site.
---
If by that you mean that most of the people here have an interest in it, sure.
I'm not saying that Slashdot isn't incredibly biased toward Linux, but that doesn't mean the Slashdot editors won't use *BSD when the occasion warrants.
Anyhow, Slashdot may be Linux-oriented, but nowhere do they say that they are so to the exclusion of everything else (which was the point I was arguing).
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Um, this isn't a "Linux site". This is a geek site, which often covers Linux (but also covers OSX, BSD, even Win2k).
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
The reason why Linux gets the necessary specs is because the commercial interest is tiny or non-existent, and Linux is not seen as a threat.
---
Are you serious? Linux is a much bigger threat than BeOS. I'm not going to argue technological specs with you (as I'd say BeOS has lots of things over MacOS and Linux in that respect), but I'd say Linux has multiple times the amount of commercial support that the BeOS has. Linus Torvalds - not JLG - is on the cover of Money magazine this month. Who do you think has more commercial support?
Last I checked, the major Linux companies haven't had to repurpose their OS efforts into the phantom 'Internet Appliance' market.
---
Be however would stand to make profits, and make Mac OS look old fashioned, crufty and slow.
---
Other than interface, Linux makes the current MacOS look pretty crufty in many ways (most notable are stability issues). Does Apple worry? Not really. To use Linux or BeOS on their hardware you have to buy their boxes AND their OS. Sure, they may lose somewhat in OS upgrade sales and 3rd parties may mis out, but really it's a no-brainer.
I mean, think about it: If you can sell 10 machines running one OS or 12 machines with the other 2 moving to an alternative OS, wouldn't you? These aren't as good to Apple as those who stick with MacOS, but they're not _hurting_ in the slightest. When 90% of the world already runs something else other than MacOS already, it's not like they're keeping a big secret about those other operating systems anyhow.
---
Secondly, Apple have never once challenged Be's oft-stated claim that the necessary specs have been witheld.
---
Actually, they have.
If you're expecting a press release, though, you're probably not going to get it (Apple doesn't respond to damn near anything, especially rumors - call their PR group, it's their policy).
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Actually, Apple had a Linux distribution they were pushing long before Darwin came out. Apple certainly helped there.
Did they base the company on it? Nope, but I don't think you can say that support on those operating systems was hacked when Apple had at least 1-2 people working on it.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
It's probably relevant that Apple killed the CHRP platform that was the basis of Be's entire business.
---
Apple never killed CHRP. Nobody bit on CHRP (and as far as I know, few/none of the MacOS licensees were CHRP).
---
Given that Apple made it clear that they didn't want to help Be, and Intel did (with info and money), it probably became a pretty easy choice...
---
This may be a better way to put it. Apple didn't deny Be anything, they simply didn't subsidize their development. Be was lured by the siren song of Intel, and needed an excuse to move away from the PPC space.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
Note that the reason Be can't make the BeOS run on PowerMac G3 and G4 machines is not because of their processors but because Apple won't give Be the specs for the proprietary chips on the motherboards of the new machines.
---
Ah yes. Apple has been terrible about releasing the information used in order to port alternative operating systems on their hardware, eh?
Darwin
MkLinux
LinuxPPC
NetBSD
Yellow Dog Linux
Debian
SuSE
Think for yourself. No matter what Be's propaganda says, Apple has nothing to lose from Be porting their OS to their hardware, since they still gain sales either way. Perhaps they don't want to subsidize Be's development, but that's besides the point. Be's argument was questionable from the beginning, and is twice as questionable now that Apple has released Darwin.
Don't get me wrong - I love BeOS, but the company behind it doesn't seem to have any trouble hiding reality from their userbase. They got seduced by Wintel and they know it.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
True enough. I completely forgot the fact that NeXTStep is where the dock more or less appeared.
Linux has a lot of things, but most of its innovations come from its development paradigm rather than any one piece of technology...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
(where do I get that ROM again...).
---
You download it.
Some time back, Apple moved the ROM out of hardware and into software.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Have you thought that if these Mac people preferred the functionality of Linux, they would consider switching to it?
I run LinuxPPC myself, and it's pretty good - but for one reason I find myself switching back to the MacOS regularly (and it's not just app support either).
Unix/Linux have some damn good ideas, but a UI that doesn't fight you every step of the way isn't one of them (and yeah, I know there is no one UI out there).
Docked apps are a good thing, though.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Um, first off, was this just a poor attempt to spam Slashdot with a link to your own site?
Either way, it's obvious nobody cares. Out of the 20 last stories you've posted on the site, there are a total of *3* comments between them, with each posted in a different story. Not even a single reply. It's worth noting that if you reply to this message, we'll have matched in one thread the total messages posted on GeekPress in a span of three days.
If you're going to spam Slashdot with links to your own site, at least make it a decent site to visit. Ripping on Slashdot for whatever reason (note: it works perfectly for me, and has for weeks) is one thing, but doing it for free advertising is quite another.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds it slightly amusing that you've used 'ihatespam' to obfusctate your email address, either.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
What a profoundly clueless person.
---
I'll say.
---
Guess what Eazel is working on? GNOME.
---
Right, but you totally misread what he was saying. The fact that it's Gnome-centric means that running apps developed without the same widget sets and user interface guidelines will remain problematic.
Even know - with Gnome, no less - I see a multitude of different help systems, button layouts, open/save dialog boxes, etc. Eazel is great, but it's not going to solve everything. You still need to get coders give a damn about usability and UI consistancy (while projects like Mozilla are completely throwing it away).
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
That's the problem, though - you're judging interface design on what it is currently. Yes, right now Windows is an imperfect user interface (even MacOS has its problems).
However, I can tell you this: Both are easier to grok for the average person after an hour or two of sitting down and playing. The original Mac was extremely good about this - but it has become somewhat bloated in the race to achieve feature-parity with Windows.
Just because something sucks from a UI perspective doesn't mean you should give up and simply hand the user a 3 inch thick book that they have to keep propped open next to their computer. The trick is to make it easy enough that referring to a manual is an unfortunate and rare occurance.
(And yes, I worked for a couple years on a help desk - answering calls and doing field work.)
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
This really isn't that big of a departure from Apple's previous stategy.
Before, they were going to release a final beta now and ship sometime this summer. However, they weren't going to bundle the OS with their hardware until January of '01.
The only difference now is that they're re-labeling that initial 1.0 release a beta and stilling bundling it with their hardware in January '01. To be perfectly honest, to anyone who has seriously used OSX DP3, this makes perfect sense. The user interface had a long way to go before it'd make a decent successor to OS9. If they had released anything even remotely like DP3 as a final product, they'd have been filleted by the Mac press and userbase.
It seems they have taken the criticism to heart, and might be fixing some of the stupider elements (ie. the dock) which possibly providing a replacement for some of the gaping holes (ie. the lack of an Apple menu or something similar). As a bonus, they released another beta today and will release another sometime this summer.
This is a Good Thing, IMHO. No use making people buy something labeled a release when in all reality it's a beta. There's no way Apple was going to have something release-quality within 6-8 months of DP3...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
So, although the sun produces radiations, it is natural. not man made.
---
So? What does 'man-made' versus 'natural' have to do with anything? I guarantee you that you won't die any differently if you stand on the surface of the sun as you would if you stood in a nuclear blast. Natural? Man-made? It's all trivial, you're dead either way.
---
Question Authority
---
Question the health food industry that has spent millions trying to convince people that natural is somehow inherantly safer/healthier than man-made.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
To all of the non-Americans out there.
I would like to personally apologize on this guy's behalf. Please please please understand that this, contrary to popular belief, is not the typical viewpoint shared by the average American. Most of us are absolutely nothing like this.
Once again, please don't let a few bad apples spoil your view on our country. Really, America is pretty damned nice if you learn to deal with the occasional nutball.
(just when we start to get halfway decent PR for something, someone has to go and make a damned Joseph McCarthy out of himself)
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
"...and haters of Christianity to establish the "New World Order" that plays into the hands of the Antichrist."
:>
...
That's very good. Now, let's put your jacket back on. Yes, the one with the extra long arms you love so much.
Pssst. By the way, I think you're on the wrong website. Try here.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
This was the primary reason I left my previous employer. These kinds of contracts make sense in some cases, but most of the time they're way too restrictive.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
:>
Wow, a Macintosh in a nuclear facility? No wonder they use a bomb to indicate a computer failure.
---
That was pretty bad.
---
To think of alternative energy sources is to think of vigorous well-organized opponents.... The most visible are those that oppose nuclear power, but I have yet to meet anyone who wants a coal-fired, electrical-generating plant next to him
---
Well, PNNL isn't really a nuclear power plant - and I doubt LANL does anything like that either. Most of the nuclear material here is/was used for research, or is left over from previous nuclear power activity (PNNL is actually heavily involved in nuclear cleanup, not production, and has been since most of the local nuclear reactors were taken offline).
That said, nuclear power is extremely clean if done correctly. That's the problem, though, if something does go wrong, it goes _really_ wrong. We've already got our share of waste slowly making its way to the Columbia river (south-east WA state). This has kept the cleanup industry in business for some time.
But in the hands of someone who gives a damn about safety, it generates almost no pollution whatsoever.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Having once worked at a National Lab (PNNL, operated by Battelle) I can say that if LANL is anything like where I worked, they're not lying. Nuclear material is handled very carefully and a forest fire is the least of their worries.
There are other issues with the Natl labs (namely, national security) that aren't all that great - but I don't think fire is going to be a problem.
(yes, I was certified as a level 1 rad worker, and no it wasn't my main focus - I was a computer tech who had to go into rad zones from time to time. if you think an old Quadra 605 is slow now, it feels ten times as slow when you're surrounded by geiger counters and have a quota as to how long you would be allowed to stay there)
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Look at it this way. What is Microsoft's greatest asset other than its brand? Its people. The engineers who work there.
How does Microsoft keep them there? Stock options, mostly. The pay is decent, but the main draw is a chunk of the company that is always going up.
What happens when the stock is wounded? People leave. As simple as that. There are tons of other companies out there who would love to have Microsoft's talent (and yes, even though they make a lot of shitty products, the engineers are usually not to blame in the end). By wounding their stock price, you deal a blow far greater than a perceived drop in faith in Microsoft's stock.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
A bunch of idiots with guns are not going to be able to overthrow the army of the greatest super power in the world.
---
Just a thought: consider that the 'greatest superpower in the world' is staffed by none other than the children, brothers, sisters, and friends of mainstream Americans. Do you really think that the entire military would rather shoot down their own families rather then defect?
Your assumption is that the military would stay as-is. In reality, you'll find that those tanks and fighter jets will be aiming elsewhere than where a tyrannical government intended. These people are humans after all...
---
If it doesn't, then it is pointless. But it is my opinion that this is the point that should be argued, not the points of discussions mentioned above (which seem to be the ones most focus on).
---
It's a tough thing to decide on. Traditionally, Americans have been very stubborn about our personal rights - even sacrificing a little safety for the sake of liberty. There are two philosophies on this: those who feel that the government should care for its people and tell them how to live their lives, and those who feel that liberty and freedom is worth losing a bit of security.
Want to take the 100% practical side? It's hard to say - as others have posted, crime-rates don't seem to correlate perfectly with gun ownership. Other factors are at play. Should people have 100% full reign? Probably not. People forfeit their rights when they endanger someone else. A line must be drawn, and it must be somewhere in between. I'd rather not go too far in either direction though...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
They try to pass bills against guns so they you can fight against them and think you are rebelling against the system.
---
Well said. Instead, we should post to Slashdot about how blind everyone is. Revolution through a web form. If only we could be the rebel that you are...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)