On a side note, I really don't think quantum computers will overrun the market much though.
Okay, maybe this is weirdo logic, but here goes:
Consider how much faster our processors are now than they were 20 years ago.
Consider that even now, there are programs that we have to wait on as they use the processor.
My guess is that as quantum computers become available, we will get software that needs that level of computing power.
Non-existent quotes concerning 64K aside, I don't think many people in the computing field would have imagined in the 80s that we would now routinely have computers with 1GB of RAM. There was a time when a 20MB hard drive could easily hold everything you needed. Processors had speeds in Mhz, not Ghz, and that was the single or double digits max.
The amount of work we're putting on our computers is much greater than the amount of work we put on them 20 years ago. In 20 years, who knows how much work we'll be putting on them.
I put ROCKS in my BLENDER, and now it's acting CRAZY!!!
I don't agree that you could apply the term "neurotic" to a computer that, when given conflicting inputs, behaves erratically.
Unpredictable behavior usually occurs when something is incorrectly programmed, or bad input is given.
Calling the resulting behaviour "neurotic" would be like calling a loaf of bread "neurotic" if it turns out bad when you use a bad recipe or use salt instead of sugar.
Granted, it is frustrating when computers behave in a non-familiar way, but I think that calling computers "neurotic" for this behavior really is more a reflection of our tendency to anthromorphise things in our environment: My computer hates me (that implies emotion)! This program is so stupid! (that implies a level of mental activity, which the program doesn't really have).
I haven't yet read of a succesful attempt to mimic the human mind. Neural networks seem particularly stupid -- you should see how well they are able to guess the congugation of English verbs. This is why I tend to ignore people who warn about cyborgs and robots overtaking humans. I'm fairly confident it won't happen in my lifetime, and extremely doubtful that it will ever happen.
We talk about the threat to *us* from this ozone, but what about what's been used up to now -- powerful and *definitely* toxic pesticides, right? I'm assuming here that the pesticides currently being used are a lot more harmful, otherwise ozone wouldn't be seen as a positive replacement.
I guess the main thing to keep in mind is that, just as it is at the present, the main population affected by this would be migrant farm workers, who apparently suffer many health problems due to the insecticides and herbicides that they come into contact with during harvesting. If the use of ozone is less harmful, then I'm all for it.
I'm guessing that by the time the harvesting comes, most of the ozone will have drifted away. The same cannot be said of pesticides, which are even on the food we buy at the store.
The big question in my mind is -- since ozone is more or less natural, will use of ozone as a pesticide be allowed for organic farming?
AND NOW, TO GET REALLY OFFTOPIC
Speaking of Organic farming, there was a new law added as a rider to the Omnibus Bill that actually allows chicken farms to label their chickens as organic *even if they feed them non-organic feed* if the price of organic feed rises to twice the price of normal feed. Since organic feed is *usually* around 3 times the cost of normal feed, this means they would always be feeding their chickens non-organic feed. There are some senators trying to overturn this crazy law. Call your senators to support the Organic Restoration Act, which would ensure that farmers claiming to sell organic poultry and livestock actually are feeding them organic feed.
Basically, it is the best text editor out there that *acts* like a Mac program.
BTW, I want to go on record as saying that I just downloaded emacs for OS X, carbonized and aquified and everything, and it looks little different than emacs running within a terminal window.
However, since I'm increasingly using Linux (our shop is moving from almost all Windows/IIS servers to Linux/Apache), I'll probably take the time at some point to teach myself emacs (*never* vi. I hate that text editor, and I doubt that anything will ever happen to change my feelings about it).
I've never used gvim, but I have tried to use vim and I find that it just isn't intuitive. Except for more complicated features, such as language recognition and learning RegEx, I've never had to look at the manual to figure out how to open, edit, save, copy, paste, etc in BBEdit.
When I tried using vim, I instantly had to look up a manual to figure out how to do standard things like open and save files. Granted, it may have been the particular port I was using, but it seemed to me non-intuitive.
I've used emacs in the past, but unless I'm mistaken it uses yanking and unyanking to cut and copy text, instead of the cut and paste I'm more familiar with. And again, I'm needing to look in the manual to figure out how to do extremely standard things, such as quiting the damn program.
BBEdit has won huge support mostly because it has strictly adhered to Mac guidelines for user interfaces. This means that it pretty much will behave across the board exactly like I expect any Mac application to behave.
I didn't understand the article at all. Then I saw the helpful graphic at the bottom of the article. It clearly showed just how the process worked! Without that picture, I would have been in the dark.
This is why I feel they should have been a non-profit from the start, not a for-profit company. Especially since their main readership has a big overhang with NPR listeners (okay, I'm going out on a limb here) many of them would be very familiar with the idea of public sponsorship.
And without access to capital of some kind or another, you're not going to get massive growth rates.
You know, I think if anything was the downfall of the dot-coms, this was it--the push towards massive growth rates. Most businesses actually take a long time to grow. But because the Internet itself was pervasive, the expectation was that you had to be a national or international success overnight. If many of these companies had built up slowly and modestly, they might still be around. With interest rates amazingly low and businesses desperate for customers and willing to seriously slash their costs for equipment and services, now is a *good* time to try to grow a business if you want to.
Right, and this revenue that Salon never even had in the first place. It's true that online content has cost traditional publications some print sales, but my point was that the only additional *expenses* were for the technology and hardware.
It gets worse the further into the article you get. One of the things the writer states is that there's no loss when you give up Salon because he still considers the New York Times and the Washington Post to carry sufficiently left-wing views.
If I recall correctly, Salon frequently took on the New York Times and other publications for too frequently kow-towing to the agendas of both the Clinton and Bush administrations.
I'd say that Salon was definitely more left, but it was also more *away*. Unlike mainstream publications, it seemed willing to take on issues on *both* sides, attacking inconsistencies in both liberal and conservative viewpoints.
The assertion of this writer, that having more publications competing against each other isn't a good thing, adds weight to what I've felt all along -- "free market" enthusiasts like him really only want their kind of businesses around.
Also, okay, this writer is an idiot. He states that it's not just the political opinions that rub him the wrong way. It's Talbot. Okay, I'll buy that. What is it about him that rubs you the wrong way? Apparently, it's the fact that Talbot once said that Salon writes what other papers won't. Whatever, that's what every paper has to say, otherwise why read that paper at all? I don't see exactly why that makes you not like Mr Talbot. He then goes on to say, that he doesn't believe that Salon really writes what other papers won't, since he feels that columnists in the NY Times and Washington Post already write the same sort of liberal clap-trap. So what he is actually saying, in a roundabout way, is that in fact he doesn't like Salon because it *is* leftist. He just doesn't want to look like a positional ass.
I also want to point out that I'm sure that pretty much every web-based professional media, such as the NY Times on the Web, or the Washington Post on the web, or even the Wall Street Journal on the web, has been losing money. The fact is, that making revenue on the web is very, very difficult. Most of these companies maintain their web-based sites because they have to or otherwise they'd look like nobodies. But they are the cash-killers of the company, while the traditional print advertising and subscribership is making them all the money. And it actually costs *less* money for these institutions, since they're using mostly the same articles they use in their print form, so the only extra money they're having to pay for is for the technology, hardware, and support behind the website itself.
I am not a long-time visitor of the Kuro5hin website -- I've only been to the website once or twice -- but it seems to me that comparing the two websites is a little bizarre. Sort of like looking at a health food restaurant closing its doors, shaking your head, and saying, "It should have followed McDonald's business model."
First of all, the main focus of the Kur5hin website is technology. That's actually a pretty inexpensive topic to research and report on. You can do pretty much all of the research from a bed room, and your only cost is purchasing the hardware or software you're reporting on -- assuming that it's not even some form of free/opensource software.
Also, while the writers of these articles do a fair job, they appear, to me, to be amateurs--that is, not occupationally writers. They are not professional writers, they are not journalists who do this for a living. Rather, they're individuals with ideas they want to share. It's not even clear to me that they get paid for their articles, and in fact I'm pretty sure they don't.
Even though there are many people out there willing to write about their ideas in a wide range of topics, in order to have a successful media publication (which, in my opinion, Kuro5hin is not), you must use professional writers.
Re:How does a website spend $80mln?
on
Salon Asks for Help
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Part of the problem is that to get financing, you must look like you already have money.
This is why a lot of dot-coms had to get offices in places that were expensive.
While it might be cost effective to have a server farm and offices in the middle of Iowa or something, it would have done damage to their image.
That being said, this might be the lesson of the whole dot-com (and even post-dot-com) world. Not necessarily that you have to be financially solvent from the get go (look at Amazon, for example), but rather that it may make more sense to ignore the financing world entirely.
If they had started with cheaper digs and had begun early on with a subscription model, they may have not gotten as large of an initial audience, but they would have developed a subscribership much earlier on. They also might have done well actually trying to start out as a non-profit entity. The truth is that a lot of business are effectively non-profit (all of the revenues generally go towards salary and operating costs). Had they gone non-profit, they could have easily wrangled the grants and donations necessary to survive, especially since becoming a member would be tantamount to a charitable contribution.
Trying to build one *after* the bubble burst was harder because no one trusted dot-coms to stick around anymore anyway.
I'd love to finance Salon.com. There are a *lot* of things I'd like to help out, if I had the money (and even though I'm a geek, I don't. Times are tough). The problem is that right now Salon really isn't at the top of the list.
I have a feeling they were hoping for a state with *more restrictive* spam laws, not because they want to send spam. If they're starting up as an ISP, I'm sure they'd love to sue the pants off of someone who Spammed them.
total cost to charge the ht for the 14 days of commuting = $0.06 x 14 = $0.84. in seattle we get 82% of our power from hydropower, seattle does not have coal or nuclear plants--it does get other power from other areas which do for the remaining percentage.
Not that I still don't think he's an ass:
the book of seg is an informational site and personal journal of phillip torrone about the segway ht (human transporter). i am in no way affiliated with segway l.l.c. i do not work for or with segway in any way and i do not get paid to do any of this at all in any way. for the offical segway ht site, visit www.segway.com.
Oh, aye? Then how come you've already got one of 'em, seeing as they don't ship till March 2003?!?
He doesn't divulge that information, and I have a sinking suspicion that he was able to get his Segway in a manner that was considerably less expensive than most people.
Also, for those of you wondering why he can segway to work, but not bike. I imagine that he goes on pedestrian paths that forbid the use of bikes. Since Segways aren't common, there are no laws banning them. But just you wait. If they get into common use, they will be banned from those pathways just as bikes are. And then he'll be fscked.
I don't know about the most recent machines, but most ATA drives can be placed right into my PowerMac G4. I done it all be myself.
I can also pretty much put in any kind of memory I want, so long as it complies with the expected stats: 168 Pin PC100 SDRAM DIMM
Changing modems and NICs are easy on Macs too, assuming you're just putting them in the PCI slot. You just have to make sure you have a driver for them. It is true that sometimes Mac drivers do not exist for the cards, but as I understand this is also true in *nix. Sound cards aren't as easy to change but I have never in my 10+ years of using computers felt a need to change mine.
The reason I prefer Macs is...surprise, surprise! The ease of Hardware configuartion! I have used PCs for many things over the years, and consistently found that setting up new hardware can be difficult on PCs whereas it is generally a breeze on the Mac.
Honestly, it really is just familiarity that drives my preference. If I had been raised on Windows, no doubt I would use that instead.
However, I think that it's wrong to say that the appearance of a computer should have no say in your preference.
When I get my next car, my #1 priority is that it be a nice shade of blue. I really don't have any major preference beyond that, so long as it looks good, gets decent mileage and is fairly dependable. These days, a lot of cars fit that bill, but if it ain't blue, I ain't buying it. Is it a stupid criteria? Maybe. But it's a criteria nonetheless. A lot of people tie up their identity in their "look", and their computer might fall under that too.
If you were buying some piece of shit computer that looked pretty, then I'd agree that it was a stupid decision. But Apple computers aren't pieces of shit.
"We think Safari is one of the best and most innovative browsers in the world, and it seems our customers do too," the Mac maker said in a statement. "No one is making Mac users choose Safari over Opera--they're doing it of their own free will--and Opera's trashing of Safari sounds like sour grapes to us."
Boy, that sure doesn't sound like someone in Public Relations would say. It'd be interesting to know just who it was at Apple who said this, as it seems more inflammatory than anything else.
IANAPWRTFA, but just the story description alone seems to suggest that you need to have the source cells before printing the organ tissue.
As a result, to create blood, you would already need blood cells.
So it doesn't seem to me that this would be an effective technique for synthesizing blood.
Now, if all you're suggesting is using this cell printer as a way of evenly distributing blood cells over a larger surface then, yeah, this probably would do the trick...but why?
Actually, I think it's just a normal language program in English. The web page is in Arabic.
The interface is deceiving, though. You'd think, clicking on the word "Arabic" would mean it would filter out programs that were Arabic only.
But if you click on the Word "English" at the top, you see the same product, same product id. Only now all the descriptions and links on the page are in English, not Arabic.
Software specifically designed to teach Japanese to Arabs would be cool, but I'm not sure that many on-English language to non-English language software packages exist.
Like it or not, English now appears to be the lingua franca (pun intended) of the world.
Since the website you are hosting the code on is owned by the school, they may have more rights than if you were posting the code elsewhere.
Certain rights and freedoms have been known to be limited when they are done from within an organization, school, or company. For instance, schools have the right to search students' lockers, and companies generally have the right to monitor and read e-mail sent by their employees.
The solution, in my opinion? Get a website elsewhere, not hosted on the schools webserver. Then, include a link which points to the other page saying something like,
To view code I have written,
you may visit my other website. Keep in mind that by clicking the above link you confirm that you will not use any code located on the other website for plagiarism, or for school assignments. NOTE: It is a violation of the University of Deleware's Academic dishonesy policy to use this code for completing your own assignments.
Once your code is no longer on the school's servers, they really have no case on you, as you could argue that if students really wanted, they could probably search Google and find examples of the code on other websites. By including the disclaimer below the link, you are essentially putting the onus on the student who visits your site. If they do use your code, they do so knowingly disobeying the Academic dishonesty policy.
Slashdot Mirror
On a side note, I really don't think quantum computers will overrun the market much though.
Okay, maybe this is weirdo logic, but here goes:
Consider how much faster our processors are now than they were 20 years ago.
Consider that even now, there are programs that we have to wait on as they use the processor.
My guess is that as quantum computers become available, we will get software that needs that level of computing power.
Non-existent quotes concerning 64K aside, I don't think many people in the computing field would have imagined in the 80s that we would now routinely have computers with 1GB of RAM. There was a time when a 20MB hard drive could easily hold everything you needed. Processors had speeds in Mhz, not Ghz, and that was the single or double digits max.
The amount of work we're putting on our computers is much greater than the amount of work we put on them 20 years ago. In 20 years, who knows how much work we'll be putting on them.
I put ROCKS in my BLENDER, and now it's acting CRAZY!!!
I don't agree that you could apply the term "neurotic" to a computer that, when given conflicting inputs, behaves erratically.
Unpredictable behavior usually occurs when something is incorrectly programmed, or bad input is given.
Calling the resulting behaviour "neurotic" would be like calling a loaf of bread "neurotic" if it turns out bad when you use a bad recipe or use salt instead of sugar.
Granted, it is frustrating when computers behave in a non-familiar way, but I think that calling computers "neurotic" for this behavior really is more a reflection of our tendency to anthromorphise things in our environment: My computer hates me (that implies emotion)! This program is so stupid! (that implies a level of mental activity, which the program doesn't really have).
I haven't yet read of a succesful attempt to mimic the human mind. Neural networks seem particularly stupid -- you should see how well they are able to guess the congugation of English verbs. This is why I tend to ignore people who warn about cyborgs and robots overtaking humans. I'm fairly confident it won't happen in my lifetime, and extremely doubtful that it will ever happen.
Well...
We talk about the threat to *us* from this ozone, but what about what's been used up to now -- powerful and *definitely* toxic pesticides, right? I'm assuming here that the pesticides currently being used are a lot more harmful, otherwise ozone wouldn't be seen as a positive replacement.
I guess the main thing to keep in mind is that, just as it is at the present, the main population affected by this would be migrant farm workers, who apparently suffer many health problems due to the insecticides and herbicides that they come into contact with during harvesting. If the use of ozone is less harmful, then I'm all for it.
I'm guessing that by the time the harvesting comes, most of the ozone will have drifted away. The same cannot be said of pesticides, which are even on the food we buy at the store.
The big question in my mind is -- since ozone is more or less natural, will use of ozone as a pesticide be allowed for organic farming?
AND NOW, TO GET REALLY OFFTOPIC
Speaking of Organic farming, there was a new law added as a rider to the Omnibus Bill that actually allows chicken farms to label their chickens as organic *even if they feed them non-organic feed* if the price of organic feed rises to twice the price of normal feed. Since organic feed is *usually* around 3 times the cost of normal feed, this means they would always be feeding their chickens non-organic feed. There are some senators trying to overturn this crazy law. Call your senators to support the Organic Restoration Act, which would ensure that farmers claiming to sell organic poultry and livestock actually are feeding them organic feed.
Thank You
END OF INCREDIBLY OFFTOPIC COMMENT
Uh...
In soviet russia, there's some sort of article about oleds.
There wouldn't happen to be an English version of this page, would there?
Would you rather have the military and government using open source software or Microsoft?
Yeah, there's this smart bomb heading your way, and then suddenly, instead of killing you, you see the blue screen of death.
Please see above re: comments on ease of use.
Basically, it is the best text editor out there that *acts* like a Mac program.
BTW, I want to go on record as saying that I just downloaded emacs for OS X, carbonized and aquified and everything, and it looks little different than emacs running within a terminal window.
However, since I'm increasingly using Linux (our shop is moving from almost all Windows/IIS servers to Linux/Apache), I'll probably take the time at some point to teach myself emacs (*never* vi. I hate that text editor, and I doubt that anything will ever happen to change my feelings about it).
That editor would "voom" if you put 4 million volts through it.
*sigh*
That editor *wouldn't* "voom", you mean.
And BBEdit Lite's not dead, it's just resting.
Ease of use.
I've never used gvim, but I have tried to use vim and I find that it just isn't intuitive. Except for more complicated features, such as language recognition and learning RegEx, I've never had to look at the manual to figure out how to open, edit, save, copy, paste, etc in BBEdit.
When I tried using vim, I instantly had to look up a manual to figure out how to do standard things like open and save files. Granted, it may have been the particular port I was using, but it seemed to me non-intuitive.
I've used emacs in the past, but unless I'm mistaken it uses yanking and unyanking to cut and copy text, instead of the cut and paste I'm more familiar with. And again, I'm needing to look in the manual to figure out how to do extremely standard things, such as quiting the damn program.
BBEdit has won huge support mostly because it has strictly adhered to Mac guidelines for user interfaces. This means that it pretty much will behave across the board exactly like I expect any Mac application to behave.
I didn't understand the article at all. Then I saw the helpful graphic at the bottom of the article. It clearly showed just how the process worked! Without that picture, I would have been in the dark.
This is why I feel they should have been a non-profit from the start, not a for-profit company. Especially since their main readership has a big overhang with NPR listeners (okay, I'm going out on a limb here) many of them would be very familiar with the idea of public sponsorship.
And without access to capital of some kind or another, you're not going to get massive growth rates.
You know, I think if anything was the downfall of the dot-coms, this was it--the push towards massive growth rates. Most businesses actually take a long time to grow. But because the Internet itself was pervasive, the expectation was that you had to be a national or international success overnight. If many of these companies had built up slowly and modestly, they might still be around. With interest rates amazingly low and businesses desperate for customers and willing to seriously slash their costs for equipment and services, now is a *good* time to try to grow a business if you want to.
Right, and this revenue that Salon never even had in the first place. It's true that online content has cost traditional publications some print sales, but my point was that the only additional *expenses* were for the technology and hardware.
It gets worse the further into the article you get. One of the things the writer states is that there's no loss when you give up Salon because he still considers the New York Times and the Washington Post to carry sufficiently left-wing views.
If I recall correctly, Salon frequently took on the New York Times and other publications for too frequently kow-towing to the agendas of both the Clinton and Bush administrations.
I'd say that Salon was definitely more left, but it was also more *away*. Unlike mainstream publications, it seemed willing to take on issues on *both* sides, attacking inconsistencies in both liberal and conservative viewpoints.
The assertion of this writer, that having more publications competing against each other isn't a good thing, adds weight to what I've felt all along -- "free market" enthusiasts like him really only want their kind of businesses around.
Also, okay, this writer is an idiot. He states that it's not just the political opinions that rub him the wrong way. It's Talbot. Okay, I'll buy that. What is it about him that rubs you the wrong way? Apparently, it's the fact that Talbot once said that Salon writes what other papers won't. Whatever, that's what every paper has to say, otherwise why read that paper at all? I don't see exactly why that makes you not like Mr Talbot. He then goes on to say, that he doesn't believe that Salon really writes what other papers won't, since he feels that columnists in the NY Times and Washington Post already write the same sort of liberal clap-trap. So what he is actually saying, in a roundabout way, is that in fact he doesn't like Salon because it *is* leftist. He just doesn't want to look like a positional ass.
I also want to point out that I'm sure that pretty much every web-based professional media, such as the NY Times on the Web, or the Washington Post on the web, or even the Wall Street Journal on the web, has been losing money. The fact is, that making revenue on the web is very, very difficult. Most of these companies maintain their web-based sites because they have to or otherwise they'd look like nobodies. But they are the cash-killers of the company, while the traditional print advertising and subscribership is making them all the money. And it actually costs *less* money for these institutions, since they're using mostly the same articles they use in their print form, so the only extra money they're having to pay for is for the technology, hardware, and support behind the website itself.
I am not a long-time visitor of the Kuro5hin website -- I've only been to the website once or twice -- but it seems to me that comparing the two websites is a little bizarre. Sort of like looking at a health food restaurant closing its doors, shaking your head, and saying, "It should have followed McDonald's business model."
First of all, the main focus of the Kur5hin website is technology. That's actually a pretty inexpensive topic to research and report on. You can do pretty much all of the research from a bed room, and your only cost is purchasing the hardware or software you're reporting on -- assuming that it's not even some form of free/opensource software.
Also, while the writers of these articles do a fair job, they appear, to me, to be amateurs--that is, not occupationally writers. They are not professional writers, they are not journalists who do this for a living. Rather, they're individuals with ideas they want to share. It's not even clear to me that they get paid for their articles, and in fact I'm pretty sure they don't.
Even though there are many people out there willing to write about their ideas in a wide range of topics, in order to have a successful media publication (which, in my opinion, Kuro5hin is not), you must use professional writers.
Part of the problem is that to get financing, you must look like you already have money.
This is why a lot of dot-coms had to get offices in places that were expensive.
While it might be cost effective to have a server farm and offices in the middle of Iowa or something, it would have done damage to their image.
That being said, this might be the lesson of the whole dot-com (and even post-dot-com) world. Not necessarily that you have to be financially solvent from the get go (look at Amazon, for example), but rather that it may make more sense to ignore the financing world entirely.
If they had started with cheaper digs and had begun early on with a subscription model, they may have not gotten as large of an initial audience, but they would have developed a subscribership much earlier on. They also might have done well actually trying to start out as a non-profit entity. The truth is that a lot of business are effectively non-profit (all of the revenues generally go towards salary and operating costs). Had they gone non-profit, they could have easily wrangled the grants and donations necessary to survive, especially since becoming a member would be tantamount to a charitable contribution.
Trying to build one *after* the bubble burst was harder because no one trusted dot-coms to stick around anymore anyway.
I'd love to finance Salon.com. There are a *lot* of things I'd like to help out, if I had the money (and even though I'm a geek, I don't. Times are tough). The problem is that right now Salon really isn't at the top of the list.
I have a feeling they were hoping for a state with *more restrictive* spam laws, not because they want to send spam. If they're starting up as an ISP, I'm sure they'd love to sue the pants off of someone who Spammed them.
Not that I still don't think he's an ass:Oh, aye? Then how come you've already got one of 'em, seeing as they don't ship till March 2003?!?
He doesn't divulge that information, and I have a sinking suspicion that he was able to get his Segway in a manner that was considerably less expensive than most people.
Also, for those of you wondering why he can segway to work, but not bike. I imagine that he goes on pedestrian paths that forbid the use of bikes. Since Segways aren't common, there are no laws banning them. But just you wait. If they get into common use, they will be banned from those pathways just as bikes are. And then he'll be fscked.
I was looking at this comet and then it was like "Poof". And then, like, the comet was gone, and I was like, "huh?"
It was a really good comet.
It was kind of a bummer.
I don't know about the most recent machines, but most ATA drives can be placed right into my PowerMac G4. I done it all be myself.
I can also pretty much put in any kind of memory I want, so long as it complies with the expected stats:
168 Pin PC100 SDRAM DIMM
Changing modems and NICs are easy on Macs too, assuming you're just putting them in the PCI slot. You just have to make sure you have a driver for them. It is true that sometimes Mac drivers do not exist for the cards, but as I understand this is also true in *nix. Sound cards aren't as easy to change but I have never in my 10+ years of using computers felt a need to change mine.
The reason I prefer Macs is...surprise, surprise! The ease of Hardware configuartion! I have used PCs for many things over the years, and consistently found that setting up new hardware can be difficult on PCs whereas it is generally a breeze on the Mac.
Honestly, it really is just familiarity that drives my preference. If I had been raised on Windows, no doubt I would use that instead.
However, I think that it's wrong to say that the appearance of a computer should have no say in your preference.
When I get my next car, my #1 priority is that it be a nice shade of blue. I really don't have any major preference beyond that, so long as it looks good, gets decent mileage and is fairly dependable. These days, a lot of cars fit that bill, but if it ain't blue, I ain't buying it. Is it a stupid criteria? Maybe. But it's a criteria nonetheless. A lot of people tie up their identity in their "look", and their computer might fall under that too.
If you were buying some piece of shit computer that looked pretty, then I'd agree that it was a stupid decision. But Apple computers aren't pieces of shit.
"We think Safari is one of the best and most innovative browsers in the world, and it seems our customers do too," the Mac maker said in a statement. "No one is making Mac users choose Safari over Opera--they're doing it of their own free will--and Opera's trashing of Safari sounds like sour grapes to us."
Boy, that sure doesn't sound like someone in Public Relations would say. It'd be interesting to know just who it was at Apple who said this, as it seems more inflammatory than anything else.
Yeah, I guess...but the stem cells would have to come from somewhere.
I guess I was wondering why you would try to "print" blood.
Hmmm...
IANAPWRTFA, but just the story description alone seems to suggest that you need to have the source cells before printing the organ tissue.
As a result, to create blood, you would already need blood cells.
So it doesn't seem to me that this would be an effective technique for synthesizing blood.
Now, if all you're suggesting is using this cell printer as a way of evenly distributing blood cells over a larger surface then, yeah, this probably would do the trick...but why?
*sigh*
Actually, I think it's just a normal language program in English. The web page is in Arabic.
The interface is deceiving, though. You'd think, clicking on the word "Arabic" would mean it would filter out programs that were Arabic only.
But if you click on the Word "English" at the top, you see the same product, same product id. Only now all the descriptions and links on the page are in English, not Arabic.
Software specifically designed to teach Japanese to Arabs would be cool, but I'm not sure that many on-English language to non-English language software packages exist.
Like it or not, English now appears to be the lingua franca (pun intended) of the world.
Certain rights and freedoms have been known to be limited when they are done from within an organization, school, or company. For instance, schools have the right to search students' lockers, and companies generally have the right to monitor and read e-mail sent by their employees.
The solution, in my opinion? Get a website elsewhere, not hosted on the schools webserver. Then, include a link which points to the other page saying something like,Once your code is no longer on the school's servers, they really have no case on you, as you could argue that if students really wanted, they could probably search Google and find examples of the code on other websites. By including the disclaimer below the link, you are essentially putting the onus on the student who visits your site. If they do use your code, they do so knowingly disobeying the Academic dishonesty policy.
Yeah, but check out the University's webpage! Maybe it's just my browser (Chimera), but the text is so small, it's unreadable!