Does it strike anybody else as odd that you manage your photos on this thing using iTunes instead of iPhoto where you are presumably managing your photos?
Nothing strange in that. Even if you are an ubergeek, you can't ALWAYS carry your laptop with you, especially if it's not of the smallest and lightest in selection. iPod fits into any pocket of your choice. While on vacation, it's quite easy to run out of space on your memory card. And - while on vacation - your iPhoto-equipped computer is not neccessarily in direct vicinity. So all you need is to take the iPod from your pocket, connect it to your camera and keep on shooting.
Maybe we're supposed to just deal with it until Apple gets Tiger out the door and Sync services are built into the OS proper?
Actually, even if you don't use your iPod as photo storage medium, it is possible to have two kinds of data synchronized - you can set iSync to automatically synchronize contacts & iCal events with your iPod. iPhoto/iPod synchro will just add another task to the queue.
The iPod needs metadata. People will not suddenly start putting information along with their photos.
Most digital cameras create basic metadata as the Exif tags embedded in standard JPEG files. They provide basic informations such as camera type, shutter, aperture and original photo creation date (not necessarily the same as when the actual file was created). It's enough for iPhoto to sort pictures "by (virtual) roll", probably iPod software will work in similar way. On the musical side, iPod allows you to edit some of the metadata iTunes store in your musical library (you can alter your rating of a given file and also you automatically alter "last listening date" and "play count" just by playing a song file). Probably new iPod will also allow you to rate your photos and maybe change some of their arrangements.
I often think about what happens to the petrol that is used by my car. At the moment, I'm a fairly light user of my car. But it doesn't take long to go through 10 litres of petrol.
Thinking this way you will lure yourself into madness. It's not just petrol, you know. If you drink milk or eat beef, you contribute to the greenhouse gas emission from cow's derriere. Ecologists claim that average beef-eater is responsible for 0.35 tonnes of greenhouse gases (as CO2 equivalent) a year, while each litre of burned petrol releases 2.5 kg of CO2. However if you start to think this way you get the inevitable result that in order to save the planet you have to commit suicide immediately - after all, you generate greenhouse gas every time you breathe (literally!).
The moms love the SUVs coz they feel safe - problem is, when they hit a Smart even slighly, they kill the occupant.
Not necessarily. Smart is designed with safety in mind and has pretty good crash test results. Don't forget that crash tests describe only the passive safety (can you survive when bad things happen?), while Smart excels in active safety (can you avoid the bad things to happen in the first place?). I was driving a rented one on a business trip and the thing is agile like a TIE-fighter. Unless you're asleep at the wheel, you will be able to make an evasive manoeuvre avoiding getting hitted by the SUV.
On the other hand, large SUVs are hopeless in active safety (a pick-up truck with a wagon-like interior will always remain a pick-up truck in terms of agility), they prone to rollover and the frame chassis does not add to passive safety, contrary to popular belief. Yes, the chassis will remain untouched by a minor collision, but it does not mean your spine will remain untouched as well. If someone drops you in a steel cage from a steep cliff, the cage might itself remain untouched on the bottom - but your spine probably won't. Modern cars wreck so horribly precisely because the chassis takes all the energy that would otherwise release - among other things - on your spine. It's no wonder that the safest 4x4 according to NHTSA is subaru forester. It's a car-based SUV that gets totally wrecked in a crash - but that's because the driver leaves from collision in perfectly good health. Someone has to explain this to all the SUV moms...
The resources I'm talking about are things like space, electricity, and the patience of your spouse.
Marriage, sir, is an art of compromise. I have patience for my spouse - I am a "good boy" when we meet our in-laws, I go to see "chick-flicks" (tonight we're goint to see "The Notebook", oh boy, I'm already scared), I am kind to her friends, even the ones that I actually hate. My spouse has patience to me and agreably she needs a lot. But everyone in a marriage NEEDS some space on his own - you can't jettison all your hobbies or passions just because your spouse doesn't like/understand them.
You are right poiting that this guy's hobby is economically unfeasible. It's almost always better and cheaper to buy a new laptop rather than refurbish a 10-year old el crappo. But what wrong with having a HOBBY? Hobbies usually consume resources ("The resources I'm talking about are things like space, electricity, and the patience of your spouse") and I don't think that this one is particularly worse in that matter when compared to, say, golfing or slashdotting.
Don't mean to offend anyone, but is there anything actually backing up the driver's story? Personally, I wouldn't mind having a sort of cannonball run through the highway with police clearing path for me, and then explain "officer, there was something wrong with my cruise control".
Have you thought about trying good old fashioned parenting? Perhaps "being there" is the best way to monitor your child...
I wonder if anyone who modded this up has any experience in parenthood. "Being there" for 24/7 is the best way to raise a sociopath. Your kid needs to spend some time outside of the maternal/paternal umbrella. Otherwise your kid will never learn how to interact with other human beings and when you're gone, it will turn into someone like Anthony Perkins character in "Psycho". Of course, it is your parental duty to be with your kid most of the time, but you will also hurt your kid if you never leave it with other kids and other adults.
Like the old saying - you gave him an inch, he will ask for a foot, it does apply to both ways though.
I don't think this is a good explanation of why PATRIOT act is bad. I reject is because it violates the Popperian criterion of good law (not to be mistaken by the more famous Popperian criterion of what is and what isn't scientific). Popper said that it is reasonable to assume that sooner or later some rotten scoundrels will gain power. It's not important who they will be precisely, but whatever your politcal views might be you must agree that a likelihood of such event is rather high. So whatever law you want to have in you country, don't ask yourself the question "how this law can be used in good hands". Ask the question "how this law can be used when the filthiest, dirtest, stupidest bastards will rule my country (and sooner or later they probably will)". Only the law that cannot be used to anything wrong EVEN by the most vicious ruler is truly good. Now, PATRIOT act could maybe be a good idea in the hands of pure angels. Even if you think Bush and Cheney are as good as angels, you can't seriously think they will rule forever, can you? And just imagine what a malevolent ruler can do with this act...
You simply could not be more wrong in your statement. If it weren't for Linus, the OSS movement would now stick to a free OS based either on 386BSD or GNU/Hurd - or some combination of these. Everything would look pretty similar to the real world as we know it.
Bill's case is far from obvious - if it wasn't him in particular, his place would be most likely taken by Gary Kildall. The history of personal computing would look entirely different, as Kildall was far from being a monopolist egomaniac like Gates and Ballmer. Kildall's company, Digital Research, could easily be the Microsoft of the 8-bit computers.
Their system was just _the_ system for 8-bit machines, but Kildall did not try to use his advantage as a vehicle for building monopolist empire. Quite contrary, he was sticking to the principle that the company that makes OS should not take part in the application market. That's actually how Microsoft has found its niche - as a key vendor of the CP/M applications. So if it wasn't Bill, CP/M-86 would be the MS-DOS, and GEM Desktop would be Microsoft Windows - but there would be NO equivalent of Internet Explorer, Microsoft Outlook or Microsoft Office, and that would be probably good news (we would have various competing office suites instead).
The case of Steve Jobs is even more obvious - Apple with Steve and Apple without Steve (1985-1997) are just different companies. No Steve - no iPod. Period.
Because a billion tons of gravel travelling at 25,000 miles per hour is just as deadly as a billion ton chunk of rock travelling at 25,000 miles per hour. It's not the rock itself that's the problem. It's the kinetic energy from the object's mass that's the problem. Gravel - rock - it's all the same at 25,000 miles per hour...
Let's try a simple mental experiment. Imagine two guns. One is loaded with a standard lead bullet. The other is loaded with lead dust, with exactly the same mass as that of the bullet. Or let's even make it twice the same mass. Which of the guns you'd rather have firing at you?
The choices
A) smashed: solid ground absorbes energy
B) broiled: atmosphere absorbs energy
I definitely take choice B. While the hit on the solid ground will certainly have direct effect on all of us, it's not necessariliy the same with slight heating of the stratosphere (where it's freezing cold, anyway: like -50 degrees or so). We will most probably feel it somehow down here in the troposphere, and we won't like it probably (even worse weather etc.), but it won't kill us instantly as in choice A.
Why are you assuming that the material's conductive properties change when it becomes solid? Do you know something about aCD and/or 4MP that the rest of us don't?
Ummm, they also use water (to quote the article: We report a reversible liquid-solid transition upon heating of a simple solution composed of a-cyclodextrine (alpha-CD), water, and 4-methylpyridine.). It's just a sort of educated guess, but probably you could further modify this mixture using some electrolyte dissolved in water. Then the material could indeed have tremendous difference in conductivity when turning from liquid to solid.
Re:The logistics of building the Death Star
on
Star Wars Minutiae
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Randal: Well, the thing is, the first Death Star was manned by the Imperial army-storm troopers, dignitaries- the only people onboard were Imperials.
Even that is not true - we know that Death Star had lots of prison cells (we know that there are more cell blocks than just the one where Lea is kept. It's safe to assume that on Death Star there were at least dozens (if not hundreds) of prisoners of the Empire. Now, some of them could be also evil, like drunken stormtroopers or a lousy TIE-fighter pilot who scratched paint on Vader's machine while parking, but many of them were probably genuine freedom fighters - the prisoners from blocade runner, for example.
It does if you had something related to quantum physics sitting on your desk, you used it every day, couldn't live without it (e-mail), bought new things for it and yet actively refused to learn even the simplest things about it.
Everything around you has something related to quantum physics, you use it every day, definitely couldn't live without it (the whole chemistry in a nutshell is just a specific case of quantum physics, so you actively use quantum physics whenever you breathe). It's neither possible nor desirable to think of _everything_ on an expert level. Sometimes a very basic knowledge (I know this is a personal computer, when I click on this icon I can access my email) is simply enough to live and work.
Silicon.com asks its CIO Jury: Would you hire a hacker? and finds the jury split down the middle, with one IT Director saying doing so would be like hiring serial-killing doctor Harold Shipman to treat your ailing and aged mother."
Flawed analogy. It takes a thief to catch a thief - ex-cons often serve as security advisers. The most famous case is obviously that of Frank Abagnale, master of bank fraud, whose autobiography was recently filmed, but he was not the only one. There's actually nothing new in the idea of hiring hacker/cracker to improve your security - it's like hiring an experience burglar to help you design better locks.
Apple's contrbition to the "invention" of the GUI is to copy and make prettier. Show me examples of things they've invented in the GUI and I'd be shocked if there isn't prior art.
1. Pull-down menu
2. Drag'n'drop
3. Direct windows manipulation (moving & resizing)
I hope you can find now a decent posttraumatic treatment?
They think Apple invented the GUI, 64 bit computing, Unix and portable digital music.
While I understand your need to troll, sir - I'd like to point you to two famous inventors: Thomas Newcomen and James Watt. The latter is much more famous, as he is often identified (incorrectly) as the inventor of steam engine. In fact, the first practical steam engine was built by Newcomen, but it was Watt who has improved it to the point of triggering industrial revolution. I think Apple is a bit like James Watt in history of personal computing. They didn't invent GUI, but they improved it to the point of triggering revolution in UI concepts. They didn't invent UNIX, but they improved it to the point that even Joe Sixpack can use. They didn't invent portable digital music, but they improved it to trigger a revolution in how we purchase and listen to our music.
Is life on earth possible? Sure. Probable? Not really. That nasty oxidizing atmosphere must kill most of it.
Quite contrary. If I were an alien watching Solar system plantes, I would guess Earth has huge biosphere just by detecting so high concentration of pure oxygene in atmosphere. Oxygene is highly reactive and without biosphere, it would quickly return to CO2 and other oxides - that's how it is on planets with no lifeforms. "If there is Oxygene, something must produce it" - that would be my guess (of course, as an alien I'd say something like "Ghrrbrghrgzzz wzgzhzzzz wzstktsch").
"That's why AT&T had no choice but distribute early versions of UNIX at a nominal costs to universities and research centres."
I call bullshit. You, sir, have no idea of what you are talking about. Please back up your BS with references.
My primary source of information on the history of Unix is a book "A Quarter Century of UNIX", by Peter H. Salus. On slashdot, "reference" usually means a hypertext link, so if you insist, here's the one that describes it quite like Salus does in his book.
I should say that what M$ is doing is pure Capitalism
In Soviet Russia, many bad or stupid things were explained "we need this for sake of purity of our Communism" (and no, this is not a yet another "In Soviet Russia" joke). I have spent a large part of my live in that system and I took one good lesson: never accept this kind of explanation. Bad or stupid things are, well, bad or stupid things, as simple as that. It's irrelevant whether they are pure Whateverism or not.
As we all know, UNIX was also created by a monopolist corporation, namely AT&T. For decades, AT&T had a deal with Justice Department: we (the people) tolerate your monopoly, you (the corporation) give us back all the technology you develop in your labs, so at least your monopoly serves the public good. That's why AT&T had no choice but distribute early versions of UNIX at a nominal costs to universities and research centres. It looks that 30-40 years ago anyone at least considered the question of "what is good for the public interest". What has changed in America since then?
Why no one with relevant authority even tries to consider a similar deal with Microsoft? The case of AT&T proves that dealing with monopolists does not have to be necessarily a binary option, either we consider you a monopolist and forcibly split or we give you carte blanche. You can tolerate a monopolist corporation if you strike a good deal for common good - like in this case, for example, "OK, keep on your monopoly on MS Windows, but open the bloody source code so people can write their own security patches, give copies freely to education & research, do something to ensure cross-platform compatibility of data files and while we are at it, what about a good Age Of Empires sequel?".
One scene that comes to mind is where Obi Wan goes to visit an old friend who runs a diner that looks waaay too much like a typical American roadside diner.
Well, Mos Eisley canteen also looks a bit like a bikers bar somewhere along Route-66 (in the glorious days of yore). Lucas never really tried to escape from the American pop-cultural icons. Luke Skywalker's frustration on his uncle's farm reflects George's frustration in his youth in Modesto, when he was dreaming of going to study in Los Angeles, but his dad wouldn't accept that. The pod racers from "Phantom Menace" are not really far from hot-rods that Modesto youngsters were building in their garages. The Palpatines' path to power reflects that of Richard Nixon (notice: I don't judge Nixon now, just think how a young bearded liberal California filmmaker percepted Tricky Dick in early 1970's). So - yes, the galaxy Far Far Away is actually America. Hell, they even talk English!:-)
Except for with faulty brakes, you could end up killing someone. Has there been a case where faulty software killed someone?
Faulty software can make you a proud owner of a zombie PC. Zombie computers are often used to federal crimes - from DoS attacks to storing child pornography. When Al Quaeda learns to use them, your can end up killing someone (unwillingly, of course, but the same is with faulty brakes).
Slashdot Mirror
Does it strike anybody else as odd that you manage your photos on this thing using iTunes instead of iPhoto where you are presumably managing your photos?
Nothing strange in that. Even if you are an ubergeek, you can't ALWAYS carry your laptop with you, especially if it's not of the smallest and lightest in selection. iPod fits into any pocket of your choice. While on vacation, it's quite easy to run out of space on your memory card. And - while on vacation - your iPhoto-equipped computer is not neccessarily in direct vicinity. So all you need is to take the iPod from your pocket, connect it to your camera and keep on shooting.
Maybe we're supposed to just deal with it until Apple gets Tiger out the door and Sync services are built into the OS proper?
Actually, even if you don't use your iPod as photo storage medium, it is possible to have two kinds of data synchronized - you can set iSync to automatically synchronize contacts & iCal events with your iPod. iPhoto/iPod synchro will just add another task to the queue.
The iPod needs metadata. People will not suddenly start putting information along with their photos.
Most digital cameras create basic metadata as the Exif tags embedded in standard JPEG files. They provide basic informations such as camera type, shutter, aperture and original photo creation date (not necessarily the same as when the actual file was created). It's enough for iPhoto to sort pictures "by (virtual) roll", probably iPod software will work in similar way. On the musical side, iPod allows you to edit some of the metadata iTunes store in your musical library (you can alter your rating of a given file and also you automatically alter "last listening date" and "play count" just by playing a song file). Probably new iPod will also allow you to rate your photos and maybe change some of their arrangements.
I often think about what happens to the petrol that is used by my car. At the moment, I'm a fairly light user of my car. But it doesn't take long to go through 10 litres of petrol.
Thinking this way you will lure yourself into madness. It's not just petrol, you know. If you drink milk or eat beef, you contribute to the greenhouse gas emission from cow's derriere. Ecologists claim that average beef-eater is responsible for 0.35 tonnes of greenhouse gases (as CO2 equivalent) a year, while each litre of burned petrol releases 2.5 kg of CO2. However if you start to think this way you get the inevitable result that in order to save the planet you have to commit suicide immediately - after all, you generate greenhouse gas every time you breathe (literally!).
The moms love the SUVs coz they feel safe - problem is, when they hit a Smart even slighly, they kill the occupant.
Not necessarily. Smart is designed with safety in mind and has pretty good crash test results. Don't forget that crash tests describe only the passive safety (can you survive when bad things happen?), while Smart excels in active safety (can you avoid the bad things to happen in the first place?). I was driving a rented one on a business trip and the thing is agile like a TIE-fighter. Unless you're asleep at the wheel, you will be able to make an evasive manoeuvre avoiding getting hitted by the SUV.
On the other hand, large SUVs are hopeless in active safety (a pick-up truck with a wagon-like interior will always remain a pick-up truck in terms of agility), they prone to rollover and the frame chassis does not add to passive safety, contrary to popular belief. Yes, the chassis will remain untouched by a minor collision, but it does not mean your spine will remain untouched as well. If someone drops you in a steel cage from a steep cliff, the cage might itself remain untouched on the bottom - but your spine probably won't. Modern cars wreck so horribly precisely because the chassis takes all the energy that would otherwise release - among other things - on your spine. It's no wonder that the safest 4x4 according to NHTSA is subaru forester. It's a car-based SUV that gets totally wrecked in a crash - but that's because the driver leaves from collision in perfectly good health. Someone has to explain this to all the SUV moms...
The resources I'm talking about are things like space, electricity, and the patience of your spouse.
Marriage, sir, is an art of compromise. I have patience for my spouse - I am a "good boy" when we meet our in-laws, I go to see "chick-flicks" (tonight we're goint to see "The Notebook", oh boy, I'm already scared), I am kind to her friends, even the ones that I actually hate. My spouse has patience to me and agreably she needs a lot. But everyone in a marriage NEEDS some space on his own - you can't jettison all your hobbies or passions just because your spouse doesn't like/understand them.
You are right poiting that this guy's hobby is economically unfeasible. It's almost always better and cheaper to buy a new laptop rather than refurbish a 10-year old el crappo. But what wrong with having a HOBBY? Hobbies usually consume resources ("The resources I'm talking about are things like space, electricity, and the patience of your spouse") and I don't think that this one is particularly worse in that matter when compared to, say, golfing or slashdotting.
Don't mean to offend anyone, but is there anything actually backing up the driver's story? Personally, I wouldn't mind having a sort of cannonball run through the highway with police clearing path for me, and then explain "officer, there was something wrong with my cruise control".
Less than 1% of all working musicians are wealthy. The remainder barely earn a living wage.
But they still got all the chicks, so I don't think anyone here will feel sorry for them.
Have you thought about trying good old fashioned parenting? Perhaps "being there" is the best way to monitor your child...
I wonder if anyone who modded this up has any experience in parenthood. "Being there" for 24/7 is the best way to raise a sociopath. Your kid needs to spend some time outside of the maternal/paternal umbrella. Otherwise your kid will never learn how to interact with other human beings and when you're gone, it will turn into someone like Anthony Perkins character in "Psycho". Of course, it is your parental duty to be with your kid most of the time, but you will also hurt your kid if you never leave it with other kids and other adults.
Like the old saying - you gave him an inch, he will ask for a foot, it does apply to both ways though.
I don't think this is a good explanation of why PATRIOT act is bad. I reject is because it violates the Popperian criterion of good law (not to be mistaken by the more famous Popperian criterion of what is and what isn't scientific). Popper said that it is reasonable to assume that sooner or later some rotten scoundrels will gain power. It's not important who they will be precisely, but whatever your politcal views might be you must agree that a likelihood of such event is rather high. So whatever law you want to have in you country, don't ask yourself the question "how this law can be used in good hands". Ask the question "how this law can be used when the filthiest, dirtest, stupidest bastards will rule my country (and sooner or later they probably will)". Only the law that cannot be used to anything wrong EVEN by the most vicious ruler is truly good. Now, PATRIOT act could maybe be a good idea in the hands of pure angels. Even if you think Bush and Cheney are as good as angels, you can't seriously think they will rule forever, can you? And just imagine what a malevolent ruler can do with this act...
You simply could not be more wrong in your statement. If it weren't for Linus, the OSS movement would now stick to a free OS based either on 386BSD or GNU/Hurd - or some combination of these. Everything would look pretty similar to the real world as we know it.
Bill's case is far from obvious - if it wasn't him in particular, his place would be most likely taken by Gary Kildall. The history of personal computing would look entirely different, as Kildall was far from being a monopolist egomaniac like Gates and Ballmer. Kildall's company, Digital Research, could easily be the Microsoft of the 8-bit computers. Their system was just _the_ system for 8-bit machines, but Kildall did not try to use his advantage as a vehicle for building monopolist empire. Quite contrary, he was sticking to the principle that the company that makes OS should not take part in the application market. That's actually how Microsoft has found its niche - as a key vendor of the CP/M applications. So if it wasn't Bill, CP/M-86 would be the MS-DOS, and GEM Desktop would be Microsoft Windows - but there would be NO equivalent of Internet Explorer, Microsoft Outlook or Microsoft Office, and that would be probably good news (we would have various competing office suites instead).
The case of Steve Jobs is even more obvious - Apple with Steve and Apple without Steve (1985-1997) are just different companies. No Steve - no iPod. Period.
Because a billion tons of gravel travelling at 25,000 miles per hour is just as deadly as a billion ton chunk of rock travelling at 25,000 miles per hour. It's not the rock itself that's the problem. It's the kinetic energy from the object's mass that's the problem. Gravel - rock - it's all the same at 25,000 miles per hour...
Let's try a simple mental experiment. Imagine two guns. One is loaded with a standard lead bullet. The other is loaded with lead dust, with exactly the same mass as that of the bullet. Or let's even make it twice the same mass. Which of the guns you'd rather have firing at you?
The choices
A) smashed: solid ground absorbes energy
B) broiled: atmosphere absorbs energy
I definitely take choice B. While the hit on the solid ground will certainly have direct effect on all of us, it's not necessariliy the same with slight heating of the stratosphere (where it's freezing cold, anyway: like -50 degrees or so). We will most probably feel it somehow down here in the troposphere, and we won't like it probably (even worse weather etc.), but it won't kill us instantly as in choice A.
Why are you assuming that the material's conductive properties change when it becomes solid? Do you know something about aCD and/or 4MP that the rest of us don't?
Ummm, they also use water (to quote the article: We report a reversible liquid-solid transition upon heating of a simple solution composed of a-cyclodextrine (alpha-CD), water, and 4-methylpyridine.). It's just a sort of educated guess, but probably you could further modify this mixture using some electrolyte dissolved in water. Then the material could indeed have tremendous difference in conductivity when turning from liquid to solid.
Randal: Well, the thing is, the first Death Star was manned by the Imperial army-storm troopers, dignitaries- the only people onboard were Imperials.
Even that is not true - we know that Death Star had lots of prison cells (we know that there are more cell blocks than just the one where Lea is kept. It's safe to assume that on Death Star there were at least dozens (if not hundreds) of prisoners of the Empire. Now, some of them could be also evil, like drunken stormtroopers or a lousy TIE-fighter pilot who scratched paint on Vader's machine while parking, but many of them were probably genuine freedom fighters - the prisoners from blocade runner, for example.
It does if you had something related to quantum physics sitting on your desk, you used it every day, couldn't live without it (e-mail), bought new things for it and yet actively refused to learn even the simplest things about it.
Everything around you has something related to quantum physics, you use it every day, definitely couldn't live without it (the whole chemistry in a nutshell is just a specific case of quantum physics, so you actively use quantum physics whenever you breathe). It's neither possible nor desirable to think of _everything_ on an expert level. Sometimes a very basic knowledge (I know this is a personal computer, when I click on this icon I can access my email) is simply enough to live and work.
Silicon.com asks its CIO Jury: Would you hire a hacker? and finds the jury split down the middle, with one IT Director saying doing so would be like hiring serial-killing doctor Harold Shipman to treat your ailing and aged mother."
Flawed analogy. It takes a thief to catch a thief - ex-cons often serve as security advisers. The most famous case is obviously that of Frank Abagnale, master of bank fraud, whose autobiography was recently filmed, but he was not the only one. There's actually nothing new in the idea of hiring hacker/cracker to improve your security - it's like hiring an experience burglar to help you design better locks.
Apple's contrbition to the "invention" of the GUI is to copy and make prettier. Show me examples of things they've invented in the GUI and I'd be shocked if there isn't prior art.
1. Pull-down menu
2. Drag'n'drop
3. Direct windows manipulation (moving & resizing)
I hope you can find now a decent posttraumatic treatment?
They think Apple invented the GUI, 64 bit computing, Unix and portable digital music.
While I understand your need to troll, sir - I'd like to point you to two famous inventors: Thomas Newcomen and James Watt. The latter is much more famous, as he is often identified (incorrectly) as the inventor of steam engine. In fact, the first practical steam engine was built by Newcomen, but it was Watt who has improved it to the point of triggering industrial revolution. I think Apple is a bit like James Watt in history of personal computing. They didn't invent GUI, but they improved it to the point of triggering revolution in UI concepts. They didn't invent UNIX, but they improved it to the point that even Joe Sixpack can use. They didn't invent portable digital music, but they improved it to trigger a revolution in how we purchase and listen to our music.
Is life on earth possible? Sure. Probable? Not really. That nasty oxidizing atmosphere must kill most of it.
Quite contrary. If I were an alien watching Solar system plantes, I would guess Earth has huge biosphere just by detecting so high concentration of pure oxygene in atmosphere. Oxygene is highly reactive and without biosphere, it would quickly return to CO2 and other oxides - that's how it is on planets with no lifeforms. "If there is Oxygene, something must produce it" - that would be my guess (of course, as an alien I'd say something like "Ghrrbrghrgzzz wzgzhzzzz wzstktsch").
"That's why AT&T had no choice but distribute early versions of UNIX at a nominal costs to universities and research centres." I call bullshit. You, sir, have no idea of what you are talking about. Please back up your BS with references.
My primary source of information on the history of Unix is a book "A Quarter Century of UNIX", by Peter H. Salus. On slashdot, "reference" usually means a hypertext link, so if you insist, here's the one that describes it quite like Salus does in his book.
I should say that what M$ is doing is pure Capitalism
In Soviet Russia, many bad or stupid things were explained "we need this for sake of purity of our Communism" (and no, this is not a yet another "In Soviet Russia" joke). I have spent a large part of my live in that system and I took one good lesson: never accept this kind of explanation. Bad or stupid things are, well, bad or stupid things, as simple as that. It's irrelevant whether they are pure Whateverism or not.
As we all know, UNIX was also created by a monopolist corporation, namely AT&T. For decades, AT&T had a deal with Justice Department: we (the people) tolerate your monopoly, you (the corporation) give us back all the technology you develop in your labs, so at least your monopoly serves the public good. That's why AT&T had no choice but distribute early versions of UNIX at a nominal costs to universities and research centres. It looks that 30-40 years ago anyone at least considered the question of "what is good for the public interest". What has changed in America since then?
Why no one with relevant authority even tries to consider a similar deal with Microsoft? The case of AT&T proves that dealing with monopolists does not have to be necessarily a binary option, either we consider you a monopolist and forcibly split or we give you carte blanche. You can tolerate a monopolist corporation if you strike a good deal for common good - like in this case, for example, "OK, keep on your monopoly on MS Windows, but open the bloody source code so people can write their own security patches, give copies freely to education & research, do something to ensure cross-platform compatibility of data files and while we are at it, what about a good Age Of Empires sequel?".
One scene that comes to mind is where Obi Wan goes to visit an old friend who runs a diner that looks waaay too much like a typical American roadside diner.
:-)
Well, Mos Eisley canteen also looks a bit like a bikers bar somewhere along Route-66 (in the glorious days of yore). Lucas never really tried to escape from the American pop-cultural icons. Luke Skywalker's frustration on his uncle's farm reflects George's frustration in his youth in Modesto, when he was dreaming of going to study in Los Angeles, but his dad wouldn't accept that. The pod racers from "Phantom Menace" are not really far from hot-rods that Modesto youngsters were building in their garages. The Palpatines' path to power reflects that of Richard Nixon (notice: I don't judge Nixon now, just think how a young bearded liberal California filmmaker percepted Tricky Dick in early 1970's). So - yes, the galaxy Far Far Away is actually America. Hell, they even talk English!
Had no choice, try finding a portable without Windows!
I have found mine here.
Except for with faulty brakes, you could end up killing someone. Has there been a case where faulty software killed someone?
Faulty software can make you a proud owner of a zombie PC. Zombie computers are often used to federal crimes - from DoS attacks to storing child pornography. When Al Quaeda learns to use them, your can end up killing someone (unwillingly, of course, but the same is with faulty brakes).