lol... I know, man. But, ya gotta believe these fundamentalists are always looking for targets. They have to have something to protest about or they don't get enough news coverage or support from their cult members... err.. congregations... yeahhhh.
I don't think they'll accept any sort of tampering with any life on earth. I mentioned to a friend of mine who thinks we shouldn't play with DNA the fact that people are now selling glow-in-the-dark rabbits and fish that have a jellyfish gene in them that lets them glow... and he went into a fit about how people are playing with god's creation and all that. I just thought it was cool. lol. Genes change every day in animals... what's the harm in adding one just for fun? Sure, one day we'll play with the wrong DNA and make some sort of super-disease that'll kill half the planet, but we'll learn and move on;-)
I see things your way... it's tissue. It doesn't feel any pain and we can tinker with it or use it for medical or scientific purposes. They probably see it as some sinful act of destroying or mutilating god's creations that'll bring down brimstone and hellfire on us all.
Hey, I'm with ya there.. lol. I hate the new homeland defense crap and the CIA, FBI, and NSA still aren't cooperating the way they should. Not to mention the Patriot Act and the fact that the DOJ wussed out on going after Microsoft.
Also, I think spending money on a war that wasn't necessary was a bad plan.
Still, I unfortunately would back a Republican because of their monetary and fiscal policies of tax cuts and privatization of government entities. I think the Dems are so at the mercy of interest groups that they want to throw money at anything and everything to make people happy instead of doing what is right. I might back a Democrat that was a "fiscal republican" lol. I'm all for clean air and the environment & switching to other power sources... and I'm all for more personal freedoms. I'm more libertarian than anything I guess. I just hate that the average taxpayer pays over 1/3 of their money back to the government which is largely used for things they don't need. I'd prefer a way to keep my money rather than having it sent off for a failed social security system as well. But, this is a discussion for another time... We'll see who makes the best case for election come election day:-)
The thing is, the religious right will still have a field day with this and try to ban it, too. It's not so much "another way of getting stem cells" as it is the same way -- only using a donor egg from another species.
You're still using human DNA -- probably the whole human nucleus in a cell that is allowed to become a fetus. The major difference between all animal embryos is the DNA of the nucleus, so essentially you have a human embryo w/ mitochondria that are unique from other humans. Mitochondrial DNA changes slowly as it is passed from mother to children & all mammals have a common ancester, so the mitochondria isn't radically different genetically from ours, nor does it change the function of the mitochondria themselves to any noticable degree.
It's possible that embryos braught to full term could produce normal looking humans -- if the cloning process for primates even worked. There seem to be problems with human cloning that are even more complex than cloning with other animals
The religious right will stomp their feet and shout that these living things are "human" b/c they have human DNA & that "playing God" with living things with human DNA is wrong & try to shut this down. Many Republican senators (even the president) bow to these religious wackos & would try to stop this research if they could.
Having said that, I usually vote Republican, though I consider myself a moderate... if it weren't for the Democrat's stupid fiscal and monetary policies, I'd vote for them;-) But, I digress.
Most of that crap is installed b/c something popped up on their screen and they clicked "yes" to it. It's not like they went looking for a nice spyware program and chose Gator. Some of that crap is installed on the PC when they get it, too.
Suppose you have two masses rotating each other like the Moon around the earth. Space time curvature is changing as this happens. One moment it's shaped like X, the next like Y. A test mass will see a lag time in the shape of its local spacetime due to this movement. That is, when the masses are eclipsed, they won't appear or "feel" that way at a distance where the test mass is because the image of the masses AND the spacetime curvature changes go at the speed of light. Einstein referred to these spacetime changes as gravity waves and they are a form of energy. If the masses are really large (like rotating neutron stars) the energy in these waves could be significant and it's hoped that gravity wave detectors may be able to detect them.
I'm not familiar with that experiment, and I may be over my head in that particular area to comment, however I don't believe any physics professor at our university would describe gravity or gravity "waves" as a form of energy. The distortion in space caused by matter is represented as a "force" which is somewhat different than energy. The force of gravity is an illusion that appears to act on objects, but in fact is simply a matter of perspective. In a sense, when space-time is curved, objects appear to behave differently because of the force, but in actuality, they are behaving normally only in another dimension. Any energy tranferred from one object to another is due to changes in momentum of objects (such as orbital launches which use the earth's gravity to assist propulsion). While it may be easier on the math sometimes to express the transaction with formulas that use wave functions, there is no evidence of a gravity "particle" or wave-like energy other than the "wave-like bends" in space itself.
For instance: Objects in orbit around the sun are in orbit due to the curviture of space around the sun -- they "think" they are moving in a straight line, but space itself is curved so their paths are also curved.
I'd like to understand more about this "lag time" you mentioned and if it's an effect of relativity (perspective of observer) or what exactly.:-)
Quantum Mechanics says much the same thing about all particles. Their wave function is smeared out everywhere it's just that the probability is very small that an electron, say, is a mile from it's nucleus. Now everyone will agree that Gravity and Quantum Mechanics are not unified very well with existing theory; but your explanation doesn't give evidence that gravitons don't exist. I've illustrated that like a oscillating charge which creates electromagnetic waves, an oscillating mass can create gravity waves (oscillations is the shape of spacetime). Since we agree quanta of such energy exists (photons) why not gravitons?
Photons are a form of energy, yes. But, Gravity may be a force which is an effect of another dimension. Light may not be. Light may be the smallest form of matter/energy in the universe. If gravity (force) were transmitted via particles, then all of the gravitons on earth would have to jump to your body and back in order to keep you on the planet. Having particles carrying such a force would crush you when they landed on you before returning to the earth (in theory).
As for Quantum physics, it is a pseudo-science at best b/c there's virtually no way to verify any of its theories. Theoretical physics has come up with some strange ideas like "particles don't exist unless you're observing them" -- which is stupid b/c whether an intelligent monkey can measure 'em or not doesn't determine their existance. Also, I don't necessarily buy the "wave function" of matter interpretation b/c wave functions of probability are statistics & mathematitions and physicists often misinterpret statistics. Just because there's a wave function for a particle doesn't mean that the particle is in 2 places at once or that the particle sometimes even exists in places of low probability -- or even that the particle is sometimes a wave or even necessa
Gravity is a bending of space-time caused by matter. In order for the warp in space-time to move faster than light, the mass causing the warp in space must also move faster than light, which is impossible.
Because no body with mass can move faster than light, neither can its effect on space-time (the gravity "field" surrounding it), thus gravity cannot move faster than light either.
The only way to test the speed of gravity compared to light would be to have some sort of "wormhole" scoop up a large mass at a known time and measure the effects of that. Of course, we can't make wormholes, much less control them -- assuming they can exist at all.
My bet would be that the warp in space-time would snap into a new shape at exactly the speed of light, yet it would be difficult to measure unless you were far enough away from the phenominon so that the changing of space-time doesn't mess up your measurements. Anyone taking odds??? lol
By the way,
some theoretical physicists will tell you a bunch of mumbo jumbo about graviton particles which have never been proven to exist and even theoretically can't exist b/c they'd cause all matter to collapse upon itself in the universe. This is because in order for gravitons to create gravity, they'd have to jump between all objects in the universe constantly... it's a bunch of hogwash. Each theory which begins to explain a graviton also contradicts itself on some fundamental level. Quantum physicists just like it b/c they like the dual nature of light and hope to make some mathematical equivilant in gravity. Much of this testing for faster than light speeds is b/c people hope to one day send gravitons instead of photons, but it ain't gonna happen. -- at least not until my alien masters come down and teach us how.
While noone can prove or disprove the existance of a god-like being in the universe that may have guided evolution... We can research individual religions on the planet and disprove each religion with scientific evidence contrary to its beliefs or with evidence that its beliefs were copied from another older religion. While this may not prove there is no god... it does put significant doubt on any particular god that people have invented so far. The fact that most religions have a different creation story than evolution is a slap in the face of many religions. Fossil records and genetic mapping have come a long way towards filling in any gaps in the fossil records and will one day provide a clear lineage for all life on earth which will be difficult to explain any other way than evolution.
Whenever modern science fails to explain something, it's often human nature to attribute that event to a god. (I don't know, so I guess a higher power did it syndrome) The more that science can explain, the less room there is for mystical explanations. Religion was the first science and government structure of mankind. It gave explanations (admittedly silly ones) for everyday things and seemed to give comfort to people and a purpose for things. The belief in god has largely become a psychological addiction for people. People want to believe in justice, forgiveness, and in some cause that they can be a part of. With a god and an afterlife, we have a judge, a king, and some feeling that when we all die, we get what we deserve. Good people get good things even if they never were treated well on the earth & Bad people get bad things even if they only had the best things on the planet while they were alive. (They won't get away with it... they'll go to hell or whatever when they die).
I find it impossible to believe that life, even in a primitive form, could spontaneously form from random atoms flying around in space, and that its formation happened on a planet with exactly the right chemical make-up and just the right temperature and just the right atmosphere, and that I evolved from this thing. It's way too big a coincidence to be believable. Therefore, it makes sense that something guided the formation of life. I call this thing "God." I think it's unfortunate that scientists are stuck with the Big Bang Theory, since God is outside the realm of science.
While today's lifeforms are extremely complex -- even on the cellular level, the first forms of life on Earth were likely so primitive you wouldn't recognize them as "alive" today if you saw them. Even viruses would be considered extremely complex by comparison. Life most likely didn't form from "random atoms flying around in space". It most likely formed on ocean sea vents and was somewhat similar to clusters of soap bubbles with primitive proteins mixed in for millions of years before it ever formed a single-celled organism. It wouldn't have had mitochondria or chloroplasts... wouldn't have had a nucleus... wouldn't have used oxygen (in fact, oxygen would have been a poison to it)... and it would be little more "alive" than a crystal growing on the sea floor.
As for happening "on a planet with exactly the right chemical make-up and just the right temperature and just the right atmosphere", you should know that the Earth is made of the same stuff as Mercury, Venus, Mars, the moon, the asteroid belt (which might have once been a planet itself), and all other rocky bodies in space in almost the exact same proportions. There's no magic in the soil on Earth. Most other planets around other stars are expected to be made of nearly the same proportions of elements due to the elements produced during the life cycle of stars when they explode.
As for the right atmosphere, primitive earth likely had little to no oxygen in its atmosphere -- it was created as a byproduct of life. The other gasses are commonplace on planets without life (Co2, N2, etc).
Earth's position from the sun is the single-most important necessity for life
Most news readers implimented yEnc within the first 6 months of its initial release. Mozilla's still waiting around fixing other problems while this one's been on hold for about a year and a half since it's initial proposal on bugzilla.
At least it looks like people are working on the issue now
Even if they did include yEnc support, I'd probably continue to use Xnews (free newsreader with yEnc support) instead, though. I'd prefer to use Xnews b/c it's a stand-alone news reader... that's all it does & it's good at what it does.
Many of these "suite" programs loose sight of what users want and fail to impliment changes quickly. They're busy on the browser part, so they slack off on the newsgroup part w/ yEnc.. or maybe slack off on some other part in favor of another. I think Firebird is an excellent browser & with a little work, it'll be the best one out there... in part because that's all it does. Seperate projects with seperate teams helps keep focus on important features. One part of the "suite" doesn't suffer because people are focusing on another part because they give that other part higher priority. Outlook Express (MS's mail reader) has newsgroup capability bolted on -- but, it's crappy & it'll stay crappy because Microsoft, the monster with many heads, doesn't have any reason to make improving newsgroup reading a priority... so, they'll probably impliment yEnc sometime after hell freezes over... or there's an official RFC for it whichever comes first... lol. Unfortunately, many suites suffer from the high priority of one portion which makes the suite little more than one cool application with lots of other crappy ones bolted on that are hardly worth using.
That's not to say that all suites suffer from this problem... or that Mozilla as a whole is necessarily suffering from it. I hear Chatzilla is pretty neat, but I haven't bothered with it as I have a stand-alone IRC client that I'm happy with (MIRC). Still, I think dropping the ball on yEnc support, the most popular encoding method on usenet, is akin to dropping the entire newsgroup reader b/c attempting to download anything would be useless without either native yEnc support or a plugin like Yproxy.
I'm running an AMD 900 mhz w/ 512 mb of RAM with cable modem internet service and both Mozilla and Firebird run faster than IE under Windows XP. With Firebird's adblocking plugin and server block capabilities, I'm beginning to use it as my primary browser.
No problems here with plugins so far & most web pages load faster in Mozilla and Firebird than in IE... sounds like you're running an old build or have something else wrong w/ your machine. maybe an old version of Java??? *shrugs*
Best of luck fixing your problem... I've never seen a machine where Mozilla ran slower than IE.
I agree with you in functionality and ease-of-use... but, the primary distinction between MSOffice and OpenOffice is one is MS and one isn't. lol. Getting people to switch from one to the other has more to do with the fear factor of incompatability in file formats and the lack of integration with the OS and other MS products than with the interface itself.
My post was merely to point out that GUI's and program interfaces tend to rapidly advance, then plataeu at some level, so students learning whatever software today won't have that much of a learning curve.
Software like openoffice and linux are seen as "generic" software for people that can't afford the best in the eyes of most sysadmins I've spoken to. It's still a step up from hearing "What's linux?" or "Training people would take too much time".
I certainly hope schools adopt linux as a replacement for windows and install such apps as Openoffice. The grandparent poster was simply joking about VI, bash, and other ubergeek tools that end-users don't want to deal with. I think many linux flavors could suit a school's needs very well.
My experience with openoffice has been a good one. I've never been unable to open an MS office document in it, though sometimes the fonts screw up on occasion.
I don't see any reason why someone who used OpenOffice in school wouldn't be able to adapt to use MS Office at work if need be, though the tools and menus may be different (I don't recall.. haven't played with openoffice in a year).
Unfortunately, it's been my experience that end-users don't even know the difference between what is on the internet and what is on their hard drive. They also don't know what Internet Explorer is. They just know to click on the funky blue E icon to get to the internet.
I have the hardest time explaining to people that you can use several different programs to do the same thing & you can pick which one you like. Most people want to know which one is best, learn that, and never have to deal with the choice again.
It's sad, but most users don't know a lot about computers, installing things, and which programs do what... much less anything about web standards.
I just hope that computer classes in highschools and colleges will train the masses so that we won't have this problem in the next decade or so.
I don't know about that. Windows has had the same basic user interface since 1995 (windows 95). While the core technologies have changed (9x codebase to NT), the look and feel haven't changed that much.
As far as the end-user is concerned, I don't think the GUI will change that much in the near future. Maybe when Longhorn is finally finished it'll have a new codebase and some different methods of searching for files on the PC, but I bet someone who has only used Windows 95 will have little trouble learning to use it because of the similarities in the GUI.
In essence, technology changes rapidly, yes. But, interfaces change slowly. We're still using the same basic I/O's we have for decades... keyboard and mouse. The GUI of operating systems will likely change very little in the near future as well b/c people like what they have now and don't want any radical changes.
I hear all this talk about AI agents, voice communication with a PC, etc. etc... but, I don't see it happening for another decade or two at least -- maybe longer. It's still faster to type than to talk for most PC users. Perhaps we'll have a few more buttons on our keyboards and mice for "hot key" functions and maybe a few voice commands. Maybe Windows will put a few interesting things in their OS like virtual folders and stacking folders since with a database filesystem files can be in more than one folder at the same time... or a few new things here and there to the OS...
I wouldn't be surprised if almost ALL software 10 years from now looks almost identical to today's except with more menus, options, and prettier colors. Word hasn't changed so much that it's unrecognizable from its first release. Neither have packages such as AutoCAD or the internet service provider AOL. (I had AOL instant messaging way back in 1995 and it's not that much different now in 2003)
Actually, the law is more like: energy can't be created or destroyed in the sense of "energy from nothing" and "nothing to energy", but it CAN be converted into matter -- and matter can be converted into energy. E=Mc^2 is the formula for conversion... and during an atomic explosion, a minute amount of matter is converted into energy -- just as a densely compact point of matter/energy exploded in the "big bang" and released an enormous amount of energy and proto-matter.
The only experiment I know of that seems to defy this law is called the cassimir effect where two charged plates in a vaccuum tend to move towards each other even though the charges should repel them. I believe it was explained as some sort of quantum effect of particles and antiparticles appearing within the vaccuum and bouncing around putting pressure on the plates. (I believe its based on an antiparticle and particle emerging at once, bouncing around, then anhialating each other out of existence over and over). I don't put much faith in quantum theories, though.
If there is an exception to the law, I bet it's such as mall effect as to be nearly unmeasurable -- certainly not enough to allow for enough energy to propel an automobile indefinitely. Unless this guy is reabsorbing heat, using some form of alternator, and using braking power to recharge the batteries, I can't imagine how he'd get even a fraction of the power back into the system he's using for motion.
It'll be interesting to see what the feds turn up. I think if the guy was legit, he'd have patented his idea and showed it off to the public by now if it is a perpetual motion machine.
One of my engineering professors said that thousands of people have applied for patents on supposed perpetual motion machines & even more had created businesses that suckered people into investing in such ideas, but there's always a flaw in the design b/c you just can't beat the laws of conservation of matter & energy (other than converting one to the other). If there's motion, there must be energy powering it somehow & if you're powering a motor with electricity, then that electrical potential will be converted to mechanical motion and heat. There's no way to convert 100% of that mechanical motion and heat back into electricity, so I see no way for his magic box to recover the energy the vehicle used. The only alternatives I can imagine that are practical are... he's cheating and recharging the vehicle somehow, or he has another power source.
I admit there's a one in a trillion chance the wacko tapped into the power of a black hole in another universe to recharge his electric car, but... I doubt it;-) Even then, it wouldn't be perpetual. It'd just have an emensely powerful power supply... Hey, who needs batteries when ya got that kinda power? lol.
I agree with the "accessory" part. I disagree with the "crime" part. This is something the folks at the RIAA consistently ignore, and everyone else is starting to forget it too. Copyright infringement is not a crime. It is a tort (civil), not criminal, matter. At least, for now...:(
Excellent point! I'll have to use that the next time they say it's stealing (which it isn't) and that it's a crime (which you're right, it isn't!)
Ethically, I certainly see your point. I am also unsure of who is technically responsible for the unauthorized copy. While the copying itself takes place during the reading and sending of the file from the host machine, the settings for what files are available for copying are on the host machine, and the copyrighted work exists on the host machine... it is the downloader who sends the "command" or request to actually initiate the copying process. (whether that copying be legal or not). I can certainly see this as the same as pressing a button on a machine to make a copy.
I lean toward the idea that the person holding the original on the host machine has a duty not to allow the copying to take place without some sort of verification since the original, the copied data, and the transmission of the copied data come from the host's computer. It would be as if my printing press were inside my house and I let strangers in to print up new editions of whatever they wish from my collection of books without checking to see if they had the legal right to do so. It would seem that in the very least, you'd be an accessory to the crime for allowing such use of the machine... but perhaps the individual who knew they were making copies of what they shouldn't is more at fault. hmm... makes you wonder. I suppose it all goes towards the intent of the individual. However, legally one cannot make a copy of a friend's materials -- only copies of materials you posess for yourself unless you intend to use only portions of the material for "fair use". (I'm not a lawyer... I'd have to check on that, but I think that was how it was explained to me;-)
Because the purpose of P2P is actually to send/copy files -- not to legally temporarily share them, you have to assume that someone sharing files intends for them to be able for download by others (yes, I know many people don't know they're sharing b/c they don't understand all the settings, but follow me here.. lol). Perhaps a better analogy would be... you have a CD collection, a CD burner, and blank CDs & you let people you don't know over to your house to make copies of whatever they want. Because you do not have a license to allow any copies of copyrighted material to be made for distrobution, you would be at fault for allowing any copying at all to take place. The law allows people to make copies of works they own for backup purposes and some portions of works they do not own for "fair use" (media stories, quotes, exerpts, etc). Because they are technically copying works you own (instead of their own originals), that'd be illegal.
Taking this same idea into the digital world... the copy of a song or movie clip on a host computer may or may not be owned by the owner of the host machine and may or may not be copyrighted. If it is copyrighted, then the user of the host machine has no right to allow it to be publically available for download (which is technically a copy made by the host machine which is sent upon a request by another user... ftp, http, and P2P all send requests for files, so I still stand by the copying being done on the host machine & the agreement to copy the file would be automatic due to settings in the P2P application and the decision of the user to place the file where it could be d/l)
By granting permission to copy something of yours which is copyrighted & copying it on your machine and transmitting it, I think that spells out copyright infringement. The other user simply requests and recieves.
Having said that, I also believe copyright laws should be restricted to 7 years of ownership (perhaps with a right to extend it for a huge price) so... most everything from my childhood SHOULD be public domain... What morons think Life plus 70 years is a "limited time for the author to retain copyright control" ???? Geez... the insanity!
Hmm... I hope my post made sense... it's past my bedtime... lol.
You should be the one sued for not disabling sharing or moving the files you don't have the right to distribute to a non-shared folder.
sounds harsh, but yeah. Your machine is the one that copies the material and distributes it to others who request it, therefore you're breaking the copyright. It's the same thing as if you hosted an FTP or website with material you didn't have the legal right to post. They'd sue you in a heartbeat for that.
If people only uploaded content they legally had the right to distribute, then Kazaa and other file-sharing programs wouldn't be under fire... Of course, the number of users would drop like a rock -- cuz who doesn't like free stuff??? lol.
I always advise my friends and family to turn off file sharing or put their downloads in a different folder than their "upload" directory so that they can move only what they want into the upload directory -- or risk being sued. There's something about copyright law that clearly lets them go after the individual hosting the material, but you'd have a difficult time making the case for downloading.
A) You could play dumb and say you didn't know what you were downloading
B) You didn't make the copy, just requested it and it was sent to you
C) You may have a legal right to have a copy of the work if you own it, but if the sender doesn't know you -- they had no way of knowing that or checking for that before sending it to you, so they're liable.
I know there's legal precedent for fining an uploader, but there may be a way to find a downloader liable as well. You'd have to prove conspiracy, collusion, or an accessory to the crime, I suppose and all would be based on the intent of the downloader which would be hard to address. The lawyers could drag the computer into court and use the amount of pirated material against the downloader & the defense could bring out character witnesses... yadda yadda yadda. It's much easier to go after the clear cut copyright infringer which would be the uploader.
When someone uploads a file to a web page for download, it is they who are fined if it is copyrighted material they don't have the right to distribute. I've never heard of anyone asking for the FTP logs to go after the downloaders.
The host computer is the sender of the copy in P2P or FTP cases, therefore they are the ones breaking the copyright. There may be some liability for the reciever of a known pirated work, but I don't believe there is any actual law against it.
My admittedly flawed analogy would be if I had a newspaper press at my house. If you stopped by and requested a copy of today's paper, I could make you one and you'd leave with that copy. I copied without permission of the owner, so I broke the copyright -- not you. In much the same way, when someone on the web clicks on a file for download, they are making a request for a copy. The copy is then sent to them (sometimes in pieces and re-assembled, but the result is the same -- copied data is sent to your PC from a host). So, in this case, the Uploader is the one making the copy and sending it out.
I've heard time and time again that there is precedence for charging uploaders with violation, yet not downloaders. I always warn my friends if they choose to use Kazaa, WinMX, etc that they disable file sharing unless they're willing to risk a lawsuit.
*grins* Okay, in all seriousness, the information is stored by zip code (if you believe the execs at TIVO.. lol), so what you watch isn't tied directly to you as a customer (unless, perhaps you're the only person in your zip code with a TIVO -- even then, they'd have to cross-reference with their service contracts to find out it's you) The data is used for marketing purposes. I think it'd be great if they used TIVO information to help the ratings system b/c there is no way the current rating system accounts for all the niche markets out there that some shows appeal to, yet never get the time slots or season renewals they deserve b/c their niche doesn't show up at all for those houses that are priviledged enough to tell the networks what we all like to watch.
Having said that, I bet the people at Time Warner Cable have a nice database of everything I'm watching at home -- Video on demand content and pay per view especially, but perhaps they log every channel I flip to and every minute I'm on that station & send it back to the servers for analysis. I'd be okay with that if they did. So what? They know I watched "The Time Machine" the other night and liked this show or that show... great. I hope it goes towards improving their selection & providing better programming during the hours I choose to watch.
I'm all for privacy & yes, I'm a little concerned about how data about me might be collected and used, but... I don't see how this is a bad thing in the TV programming industry. More feedback should = better programming and more targeted advertising. I'd love to have commercials for computers and video games instead of ads for tampax or viagra on my television.
The only downside I see is perhaps the execs will see that I always flip the channel when a commercial comes on, so they might add those annoying pop-up ads at the bottom of the screen during shows or come up with an even more annoying advertising method. Then again, if the commercial were interesting enough to watch, I might not do that as often.
I'd really like to see some stations offer a pay-version of their service w/ out any commercials or ads just to see if it'd be worth it to subscribe. I'd pay $5 a month to watch the Sci-Fi channel without commercials -- especially if it means they can show R rated flicks without editing all the dialogue and juicy scenes out!
Their latest Kazaa 2.5 gives you "points" for hosting files which you can then use to "buy" certain songs or video clips or use to enter into contests (so many points = one entry to the sweepstakes, I guess). You get the short end of the stick either way as it takes thousands of points to buy a song & you can only buy from a crappy selection at the moment. Also, I'm sure the odds of winning contests aren't that great. Oh, also you only get points if someone actually downloads one of their paid hosted files from your machine -- not just the fact that you're hosting it.
I think I'll stick to Kazaa Lite & switch to WinMX or eDonkey2000 if they keep up this kinda crap. I d/l the latest version of Kazaa and it has more ads and adware than ever! Ugh!
I'm wondering how well it'll improve digital editing -- we just got a new camcorder w/ a firewire port & I'd love to play with it on an Athlon64 w/ video editing software:-)
I remember when apple first came out with the apple II Gs -- we got one. It did what it was made for, and I was happy to have it.
Windows does more, and Linux can do almost as much as windows for free... I just don't see the selling point for Macs. It's at least as expensive if not moreso than a PC w/ Windows & has less choices.
I've played with Mac OS 7 and 9, but I don't see what the value is in the system over alternatives.
I've heard the argument that Apple is a hardware company before, but I don't see how that's applicable when their main hardware (the Mac) is tied to its software (Mac OS). It's not like they're marketing the hardware seperate from the software. Mass production coupled with a zealous following may allow them to make more $ off of the hardware than the software, but if users can get similar or better use elsewhere, I don't see much of a future for them.
I know Apple has enjoyed a niche market with journalists and graphics artists who require Quark Express and Adobe Photoshop to do business, but seeing as how they're porting those apps to windows, I don't see much reason to stay with macs anymore.
It's not what your machine can or can't do. It's what you actually use it for, and how effectively you can use it for that purpose. That's the only way I can really explain the draw.
I agree with you on this point. I think a lot of newbies who thought the Imac was cute and would do everything they needed baught into the concept and now regret it b/c they see now what it can't do. Also, people who've always used macs for work don't see any reason to change things now.
Still, I don't see anything compelling about Apple's "switch" campaign as most windows XP machines are stable enough to where the "linux is more stable or mac os won't crash" mantra doesn't have as much effect these days.
I think the date was pushed to early september. Let me know if I'm wrong -- I'm waiting to buy one:-). I hope Windows XP-64 bit is ready by then! W/ the serial ATA drives, I plan to dual-boot into linux by simply swapping the drives *grins*
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think they'll accept any sort of tampering with any life on earth. I mentioned to a friend of mine who thinks we shouldn't play with DNA the fact that people are now selling glow-in-the-dark rabbits and fish that have a jellyfish gene in them that lets them glow... and he went into a fit about how people are playing with god's creation and all that. I just thought it was cool. lol. Genes change every day in animals... what's the harm in adding one just for fun? Sure, one day we'll play with the wrong DNA and make some sort of super-disease that'll kill half the planet, but we'll learn and move on ;-)
I see things your way... it's tissue. It doesn't feel any pain and we can tinker with it or use it for medical or scientific purposes. They probably see it as some sinful act of destroying or mutilating god's creations that'll bring down brimstone and hellfire on us all.
Also, I think spending money on a war that wasn't necessary was a bad plan.
Still, I unfortunately would back a Republican because of their monetary and fiscal policies of tax cuts and privatization of government entities. I think the Dems are so at the mercy of interest groups that they want to throw money at anything and everything to make people happy instead of doing what is right. I might back a Democrat that was a "fiscal republican" lol. I'm all for clean air and the environment & switching to other power sources... and I'm all for more personal freedoms. I'm more libertarian than anything I guess. I just hate that the average taxpayer pays over 1/3 of their money back to the government which is largely used for things they don't need. I'd prefer a way to keep my money rather than having it sent off for a failed social security system as well. But, this is a discussion for another time... We'll see who makes the best case for election come election day :-)
You're still using human DNA -- probably the whole human nucleus in a cell that is allowed to become a fetus. The major difference between all animal embryos is the DNA of the nucleus, so essentially you have a human embryo w/ mitochondria that are unique from other humans. Mitochondrial DNA changes slowly as it is passed from mother to children & all mammals have a common ancester, so the mitochondria isn't radically different genetically from ours, nor does it change the function of the mitochondria themselves to any noticable degree.
It's possible that embryos braught to full term could produce normal looking humans -- if the cloning process for primates even worked. There seem to be problems with human cloning that are even more complex than cloning with other animals
The religious right will stomp their feet and shout that these living things are "human" b/c they have human DNA & that "playing God" with living things with human DNA is wrong & try to shut this down. Many Republican senators (even the president) bow to these religious wackos & would try to stop this research if they could.
Having said that, I usually vote Republican, though I consider myself a moderate... if it weren't for the Democrat's stupid fiscal and monetary policies, I'd vote for them ;-) But, I digress.
Most of that crap is installed b/c something popped up on their screen and they clicked "yes" to it. It's not like they went looking for a nice spyware program and chose Gator. Some of that crap is installed on the PC when they get it, too.
I'm not familiar with that experiment, and I may be over my head in that particular area to comment, however I don't believe any physics professor at our university would describe gravity or gravity "waves" as a form of energy. The distortion in space caused by matter is represented as a "force" which is somewhat different than energy. The force of gravity is an illusion that appears to act on objects, but in fact is simply a matter of perspective. In a sense, when space-time is curved, objects appear to behave differently because of the force, but in actuality, they are behaving normally only in another dimension. Any energy tranferred from one object to another is due to changes in momentum of objects (such as orbital launches which use the earth's gravity to assist propulsion). While it may be easier on the math sometimes to express the transaction with formulas that use wave functions, there is no evidence of a gravity "particle" or wave-like energy other than the "wave-like bends" in space itself.
For instance: Objects in orbit around the sun are in orbit due to the curviture of space around the sun -- they "think" they are moving in a straight line, but space itself is curved so their paths are also curved.
I'd like to understand more about this "lag time" you mentioned and if it's an effect of relativity (perspective of observer) or what exactly. :-)
Quantum Mechanics says much the same thing about all particles. Their wave function is smeared out everywhere it's just that the probability is very small that an electron, say, is a mile from it's nucleus. Now everyone will agree that Gravity and Quantum Mechanics are not unified very well with existing theory; but your explanation doesn't give evidence that gravitons don't exist. I've illustrated that like a oscillating charge which creates electromagnetic waves, an oscillating mass can create gravity waves (oscillations is the shape of spacetime). Since we agree quanta of such energy exists (photons) why not gravitons?
Photons are a form of energy, yes. But, Gravity may be a force which is an effect of another dimension. Light may not be. Light may be the smallest form of matter/energy in the universe. If gravity (force) were transmitted via particles, then all of the gravitons on earth would have to jump to your body and back in order to keep you on the planet. Having particles carrying such a force would crush you when they landed on you before returning to the earth (in theory).
As for Quantum physics, it is a pseudo-science at best b/c there's virtually no way to verify any of its theories. Theoretical physics has come up with some strange ideas like "particles don't exist unless you're observing them" -- which is stupid b/c whether an intelligent monkey can measure 'em or not doesn't determine their existance. Also, I don't necessarily buy the "wave function" of matter interpretation b/c wave functions of probability are statistics & mathematitions and physicists often misinterpret statistics. Just because there's a wave function for a particle doesn't mean that the particle is in 2 places at once or that the particle sometimes even exists in places of low probability -- or even that the particle is sometimes a wave or even necessa
Because no body with mass can move faster than light, neither can its effect on space-time (the gravity "field" surrounding it), thus gravity cannot move faster than light either.
The only way to test the speed of gravity compared to light would be to have some sort of "wormhole" scoop up a large mass at a known time and measure the effects of that. Of course, we can't make wormholes, much less control them -- assuming they can exist at all.
My bet would be that the warp in space-time would snap into a new shape at exactly the speed of light, yet it would be difficult to measure unless you were far enough away from the phenominon so that the changing of space-time doesn't mess up your measurements. Anyone taking odds??? lol
By the way, some theoretical physicists will tell you a bunch of mumbo jumbo about graviton particles which have never been proven to exist and even theoretically can't exist b/c they'd cause all matter to collapse upon itself in the universe. This is because in order for gravitons to create gravity, they'd have to jump between all objects in the universe constantly... it's a bunch of hogwash. Each theory which begins to explain a graviton also contradicts itself on some fundamental level. Quantum physicists just like it b/c they like the dual nature of light and hope to make some mathematical equivilant in gravity. Much of this testing for faster than light speeds is b/c people hope to one day send gravitons instead of photons, but it ain't gonna happen. -- at least not until my alien masters come down and teach us how.
Whenever modern science fails to explain something, it's often human nature to attribute that event to a god. (I don't know, so I guess a higher power did it syndrome) The more that science can explain, the less room there is for mystical explanations. Religion was the first science and government structure of mankind. It gave explanations (admittedly silly ones) for everyday things and seemed to give comfort to people and a purpose for things. The belief in god has largely become a psychological addiction for people. People want to believe in justice, forgiveness, and in some cause that they can be a part of. With a god and an afterlife, we have a judge, a king, and some feeling that when we all die, we get what we deserve. Good people get good things even if they never were treated well on the earth & Bad people get bad things even if they only had the best things on the planet while they were alive. (They won't get away with it... they'll go to hell or whatever when they die).
I find it impossible to believe that life, even in a primitive form, could spontaneously form from random atoms flying around in space, and that its formation happened on a planet with exactly the right chemical make-up and just the right temperature and just the right atmosphere, and that I evolved from this thing. It's way too big a coincidence to be believable. Therefore, it makes sense that something guided the formation of life. I call this thing "God." I think it's unfortunate that scientists are stuck with the Big Bang Theory, since God is outside the realm of science.
While today's lifeforms are extremely complex -- even on the cellular level, the first forms of life on Earth were likely so primitive you wouldn't recognize them as "alive" today if you saw them. Even viruses would be considered extremely complex by comparison. Life most likely didn't form from "random atoms flying around in space". It most likely formed on ocean sea vents and was somewhat similar to clusters of soap bubbles with primitive proteins mixed in for millions of years before it ever formed a single-celled organism. It wouldn't have had mitochondria or chloroplasts... wouldn't have had a nucleus... wouldn't have used oxygen (in fact, oxygen would have been a poison to it)... and it would be little more "alive" than a crystal growing on the sea floor.
As for happening "on a planet with exactly the right chemical make-up and just the right temperature and just the right atmosphere", you should know that the Earth is made of the same stuff as Mercury, Venus, Mars, the moon, the asteroid belt (which might have once been a planet itself), and all other rocky bodies in space in almost the exact same proportions. There's no magic in the soil on Earth. Most other planets around other stars are expected to be made of nearly the same proportions of elements due to the elements produced during the life cycle of stars when they explode.
As for the right atmosphere, primitive earth likely had little to no oxygen in its atmosphere -- it was created as a byproduct of life. The other gasses are commonplace on planets without life (Co2, N2, etc).
Earth's position from the sun is the single-most important necessity for life
At least it looks like people are working on the issue now
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1199 64
Even if they did include yEnc support, I'd probably continue to use Xnews (free newsreader with yEnc support) instead, though. I'd prefer to use Xnews b/c it's a stand-alone news reader... that's all it does & it's good at what it does.
Many of these "suite" programs loose sight of what users want and fail to impliment changes quickly. They're busy on the browser part, so they slack off on the newsgroup part w/ yEnc.. or maybe slack off on some other part in favor of another. I think Firebird is an excellent browser & with a little work, it'll be the best one out there... in part because that's all it does. Seperate projects with seperate teams helps keep focus on important features. One part of the "suite" doesn't suffer because people are focusing on another part because they give that other part higher priority. Outlook Express (MS's mail reader) has newsgroup capability bolted on -- but, it's crappy & it'll stay crappy because Microsoft, the monster with many heads, doesn't have any reason to make improving newsgroup reading a priority... so, they'll probably impliment yEnc sometime after hell freezes over... or there's an official RFC for it whichever comes first... lol. Unfortunately, many suites suffer from the high priority of one portion which makes the suite little more than one cool application with lots of other crappy ones bolted on that are hardly worth using.
That's not to say that all suites suffer from this problem... or that Mozilla as a whole is necessarily suffering from it. I hear Chatzilla is pretty neat, but I haven't bothered with it as I have a stand-alone IRC client that I'm happy with (MIRC). Still, I think dropping the ball on yEnc support, the most popular encoding method on usenet, is akin to dropping the entire newsgroup reader b/c attempting to download anything would be useless without either native yEnc support or a plugin like Yproxy.
Just my 2 cents
No problems here with plugins so far & most web pages load faster in Mozilla and Firebird than in IE... sounds like you're running an old build or have something else wrong w/ your machine. maybe an old version of Java??? *shrugs*
Best of luck fixing your problem... I've never seen a machine where Mozilla ran slower than IE.
My post was merely to point out that GUI's and program interfaces tend to rapidly advance, then plataeu at some level, so students learning whatever software today won't have that much of a learning curve.
Software like openoffice and linux are seen as "generic" software for people that can't afford the best in the eyes of most sysadmins I've spoken to. It's still a step up from hearing "What's linux?" or "Training people would take too much time".
I certainly hope schools adopt linux as a replacement for windows and install such apps as Openoffice. The grandparent poster was simply joking about VI, bash, and other ubergeek tools that end-users don't want to deal with. I think many linux flavors could suit a school's needs very well.
My experience with openoffice has been a good one. I've never been unable to open an MS office document in it, though sometimes the fonts screw up on occasion.
I don't see any reason why someone who used OpenOffice in school wouldn't be able to adapt to use MS Office at work if need be, though the tools and menus may be different (I don't recall.. haven't played with openoffice in a year).
It's sad, but most users don't know a lot about computers, installing things, and which programs do what... much less anything about web standards.
I just hope that computer classes in highschools and colleges will train the masses so that we won't have this problem in the next decade or so.oops... forgot to put in my html paragraph breaks.... my bad
I don't know about that. Windows has had the same basic user interface since 1995 (windows 95). While the core technologies have changed (9x codebase to NT), the look and feel haven't changed that much. As far as the end-user is concerned, I don't think the GUI will change that much in the near future. Maybe when Longhorn is finally finished it'll have a new codebase and some different methods of searching for files on the PC, but I bet someone who has only used Windows 95 will have little trouble learning to use it because of the similarities in the GUI. In essence, technology changes rapidly, yes. But, interfaces change slowly. We're still using the same basic I/O's we have for decades... keyboard and mouse. The GUI of operating systems will likely change very little in the near future as well b/c people like what they have now and don't want any radical changes. I hear all this talk about AI agents, voice communication with a PC, etc. etc... but, I don't see it happening for another decade or two at least -- maybe longer. It's still faster to type than to talk for most PC users. Perhaps we'll have a few more buttons on our keyboards and mice for "hot key" functions and maybe a few voice commands. Maybe Windows will put a few interesting things in their OS like virtual folders and stacking folders since with a database filesystem files can be in more than one folder at the same time... or a few new things here and there to the OS... I wouldn't be surprised if almost ALL software 10 years from now looks almost identical to today's except with more menus, options, and prettier colors. Word hasn't changed so much that it's unrecognizable from its first release. Neither have packages such as AutoCAD or the internet service provider AOL. (I had AOL instant messaging way back in 1995 and it's not that much different now in 2003)
The only experiment I know of that seems to defy this law is called the cassimir effect where two charged plates in a vaccuum tend to move towards each other even though the charges should repel them. I believe it was explained as some sort of quantum effect of particles and antiparticles appearing within the vaccuum and bouncing around putting pressure on the plates. (I believe its based on an antiparticle and particle emerging at once, bouncing around, then anhialating each other out of existence over and over). I don't put much faith in quantum theories, though.
If there is an exception to the law, I bet it's such as mall effect as to be nearly unmeasurable -- certainly not enough to allow for enough energy to propel an automobile indefinitely. Unless this guy is reabsorbing heat, using some form of alternator, and using braking power to recharge the batteries, I can't imagine how he'd get even a fraction of the power back into the system he's using for motion.
It'll be interesting to see what the feds turn up. I think if the guy was legit, he'd have patented his idea and showed it off to the public by now if it is a perpetual motion machine.
One of my engineering professors said that thousands of people have applied for patents on supposed perpetual motion machines & even more had created businesses that suckered people into investing in such ideas, but there's always a flaw in the design b/c you just can't beat the laws of conservation of matter & energy (other than converting one to the other). If there's motion, there must be energy powering it somehow & if you're powering a motor with electricity, then that electrical potential will be converted to mechanical motion and heat. There's no way to convert 100% of that mechanical motion and heat back into electricity, so I see no way for his magic box to recover the energy the vehicle used. The only alternatives I can imagine that are practical are... he's cheating and recharging the vehicle somehow, or he has another power source.
I admit there's a one in a trillion chance the wacko tapped into the power of a black hole in another universe to recharge his electric car, but... I doubt it ;-) Even then, it wouldn't be perpetual. It'd just have an emensely powerful power supply... Hey, who needs batteries when ya got that kinda power? lol.
Excellent point! I'll have to use that the next time they say it's stealing (which it isn't) and that it's a crime (which you're right, it isn't!)
I lean toward the idea that the person holding the original on the host machine has a duty not to allow the copying to take place without some sort of verification since the original, the copied data, and the transmission of the copied data come from the host's computer. It would be as if my printing press were inside my house and I let strangers in to print up new editions of whatever they wish from my collection of books without checking to see if they had the legal right to do so. It would seem that in the very least, you'd be an accessory to the crime for allowing such use of the machine... but perhaps the individual who knew they were making copies of what they shouldn't is more at fault. hmm... makes you wonder. I suppose it all goes towards the intent of the individual. However, legally one cannot make a copy of a friend's materials -- only copies of materials you posess for yourself unless you intend to use only portions of the material for "fair use". (I'm not a lawyer... I'd have to check on that, but I think that was how it was explained to me ;-)
Because the purpose of P2P is actually to send/copy files -- not to legally temporarily share them, you have to assume that someone sharing files intends for them to be able for download by others (yes, I know many people don't know they're sharing b/c they don't understand all the settings, but follow me here.. lol). Perhaps a better analogy would be... you have a CD collection, a CD burner, and blank CDs & you let people you don't know over to your house to make copies of whatever they want. Because you do not have a license to allow any copies of copyrighted material to be made for distrobution, you would be at fault for allowing any copying at all to take place. The law allows people to make copies of works they own for backup purposes and some portions of works they do not own for "fair use" (media stories, quotes, exerpts, etc). Because they are technically copying works you own (instead of their own originals), that'd be illegal.
Taking this same idea into the digital world... the copy of a song or movie clip on a host computer may or may not be owned by the owner of the host machine and may or may not be copyrighted. If it is copyrighted, then the user of the host machine has no right to allow it to be publically available for download (which is technically a copy made by the host machine which is sent upon a request by another user... ftp, http, and P2P all send requests for files, so I still stand by the copying being done on the host machine & the agreement to copy the file would be automatic due to settings in the P2P application and the decision of the user to place the file where it could be d/l)
By granting permission to copy something of yours which is copyrighted & copying it on your machine and transmitting it, I think that spells out copyright infringement. The other user simply requests and recieves.
Having said that, I also believe copyright laws should be restricted to 7 years of ownership (perhaps with a right to extend it for a huge price) so... most everything from my childhood SHOULD be public domain... What morons think Life plus 70 years is a "limited time for the author to retain copyright control" ???? Geez... the insanity!
Hmm... I hope my post made sense... it's past my bedtime... lol.
sounds harsh, but yeah. Your machine is the one that copies the material and distributes it to others who request it, therefore you're breaking the copyright. It's the same thing as if you hosted an FTP or website with material you didn't have the legal right to post. They'd sue you in a heartbeat for that.
If people only uploaded content they legally had the right to distribute, then Kazaa and other file-sharing programs wouldn't be under fire... Of course, the number of users would drop like a rock -- cuz who doesn't like free stuff??? lol.
I always advise my friends and family to turn off file sharing or put their downloads in a different folder than their "upload" directory so that they can move only what they want into the upload directory -- or risk being sued. There's something about copyright law that clearly lets them go after the individual hosting the material, but you'd have a difficult time making the case for downloading.
A) You could play dumb and say you didn't know what you were downloading
B) You didn't make the copy, just requested it and it was sent to you
C) You may have a legal right to have a copy of the work if you own it, but if the sender doesn't know you -- they had no way of knowing that or checking for that before sending it to you, so they're liable.
I know there's legal precedent for fining an uploader, but there may be a way to find a downloader liable as well. You'd have to prove conspiracy, collusion, or an accessory to the crime, I suppose and all would be based on the intent of the downloader which would be hard to address. The lawyers could drag the computer into court and use the amount of pirated material against the downloader & the defense could bring out character witnesses... yadda yadda yadda. It's much easier to go after the clear cut copyright infringer which would be the uploader.
The host computer is the sender of the copy in P2P or FTP cases, therefore they are the ones breaking the copyright. There may be some liability for the reciever of a known pirated work, but I don't believe there is any actual law against it.
My admittedly flawed analogy would be if I had a newspaper press at my house. If you stopped by and requested a copy of today's paper, I could make you one and you'd leave with that copy. I copied without permission of the owner, so I broke the copyright -- not you. In much the same way, when someone on the web clicks on a file for download, they are making a request for a copy. The copy is then sent to them (sometimes in pieces and re-assembled, but the result is the same -- copied data is sent to your PC from a host). So, in this case, the Uploader is the one making the copy and sending it out.
I've heard time and time again that there is precedence for charging uploaders with violation, yet not downloaders. I always warn my friends if they choose to use Kazaa, WinMX, etc that they disable file sharing unless they're willing to risk a lawsuit.
*grins* Okay, in all seriousness, the information is stored by zip code (if you believe the execs at TIVO.. lol), so what you watch isn't tied directly to you as a customer (unless, perhaps you're the only person in your zip code with a TIVO -- even then, they'd have to cross-reference with their service contracts to find out it's you) The data is used for marketing purposes. I think it'd be great if they used TIVO information to help the ratings system b/c there is no way the current rating system accounts for all the niche markets out there that some shows appeal to, yet never get the time slots or season renewals they deserve b/c their niche doesn't show up at all for those houses that are priviledged enough to tell the networks what we all like to watch.
Having said that, I bet the people at Time Warner Cable have a nice database of everything I'm watching at home -- Video on demand content and pay per view especially, but perhaps they log every channel I flip to and every minute I'm on that station & send it back to the servers for analysis. I'd be okay with that if they did. So what? They know I watched "The Time Machine" the other night and liked this show or that show... great. I hope it goes towards improving their selection & providing better programming during the hours I choose to watch.
I'm all for privacy & yes, I'm a little concerned about how data about me might be collected and used, but... I don't see how this is a bad thing in the TV programming industry. More feedback should = better programming and more targeted advertising. I'd love to have commercials for computers and video games instead of ads for tampax or viagra on my television.
The only downside I see is perhaps the execs will see that I always flip the channel when a commercial comes on, so they might add those annoying pop-up ads at the bottom of the screen during shows or come up with an even more annoying advertising method. Then again, if the commercial were interesting enough to watch, I might not do that as often.
I'd really like to see some stations offer a pay-version of their service w/ out any commercials or ads just to see if it'd be worth it to subscribe. I'd pay $5 a month to watch the Sci-Fi channel without commercials -- especially if it means they can show R rated flicks without editing all the dialogue and juicy scenes out!
I think I'll stick to Kazaa Lite & switch to WinMX or eDonkey2000 if they keep up this kinda crap. I d/l the latest version of Kazaa and it has more ads and adware than ever! Ugh!
I'm wondering how well it'll improve digital editing -- we just got a new camcorder w/ a firewire port & I'd love to play with it on an Athlon64 w/ video editing software :-)
This was incredibly helpful. I had no idea they had Mac versions :-) Thanks
Windows does more, and Linux can do almost as much as windows for free... I just don't see the selling point for Macs. It's at least as expensive if not moreso than a PC w/ Windows & has less choices.
I've played with Mac OS 7 and 9, but I don't see what the value is in the system over alternatives.
I've heard the argument that Apple is a hardware company before, but I don't see how that's applicable when their main hardware (the Mac) is tied to its software (Mac OS). It's not like they're marketing the hardware seperate from the software. Mass production coupled with a zealous following may allow them to make more $ off of the hardware than the software, but if users can get similar or better use elsewhere, I don't see much of a future for them.
I know Apple has enjoyed a niche market with journalists and graphics artists who require Quark Express and Adobe Photoshop to do business, but seeing as how they're porting those apps to windows, I don't see much reason to stay with macs anymore.
It's not what your machine can or can't do. It's what you actually use it for, and how effectively you can use it for that purpose. That's the only way I can really explain the draw.
I agree with you on this point. I think a lot of newbies who thought the Imac was cute and would do everything they needed baught into the concept and now regret it b/c they see now what it can't do. Also, people who've always used macs for work don't see any reason to change things now.
Still, I don't see anything compelling about Apple's "switch" campaign as most windows XP machines are stable enough to where the "linux is more stable or mac os won't crash" mantra doesn't have as much effect these days.
seems like it uses 64 bit processing, but a 40 bit address space. hhmmm... I might have to look for those specs again.
I think the date was pushed to early september. Let me know if I'm wrong -- I'm waiting to buy one :-). I hope Windows XP-64 bit is ready by then! W/ the serial ATA drives, I plan to dual-boot into linux by simply swapping the drives *grins*