A rumor you use as your sole support to your argument of it being easy to put a Linux port out there.
Not only do you not read very well, you've got the attention span of a hummingbird.
I have made the point that games have been ported, and the ports have not been as difficult as you're making it out to be. I specifically mentioned id games.
You argued against this point, but you seem to have forgotten. Oh well.
I'm actually typing Dvorak right now:) But I think that his study has been more-or-less discredited.
*sigh* Here we go again...
In short, no, it hasn't. I don't remember how or why I know this, but vaguely, I remember that there was some accusation that he was so directly involved in the testing procedure that he could easily affect the results. I also remember that this part was completely untrue.
I like Linux, but consistency is not its strong suit:)
Then what does it say about OS X that, in some ways, I found this feature to be less consistent?
I know, that's the opposite of what I said before -- and, in most apps, OS X is very consistent about what these mean. Even in Terminal.
What's not consistent is how the fsck you're actually supposed to go to the beginning or end of a line. Most places, that's command+left/right... except in Firefox, at least if you're not editing something, that does back/forward... or in Terminal, where it's shift+home/end, and is really up to the Unix app in question.
Except in vim, where that doesn't work at all.
Firefox is a third-party app, so maybe not worth mentioning. But Terminal is preloaded, even advertised on the Apple website. Granted, it would've been a lot of work to overhaul every Unix app they shipped, from bash to less -- but that's exactly what they did with GUI apps!
I'm sure some of my Mac friends could find plenty of other, better examples, but that was the biggest one for me. I'd have gotten used to it eventually -- thankfully, I only needed the Mac for a week or two before my new Ubuntu laptop came.
I think the main reason that Linux never catches on is the near complete lack of advertising.
IBM gave Linux a Superbowl ad. Several, if I remember.
Granted, they didn't actually say what Linux is, and they were talking more about open source. They could have been ads for free culture. But it has had advertising.
It worked for Firefox, but it hasn't (yet) worked for Linux. Maybe it can work for Ubuntu, at some point...
Agreed, though I see no problem in MENTIONING it in a list of other disadvantages.
Fair enough, but that doesn't fit the hammer analogy.
Nope. It only requires that someone is recording that data, just as GP said.
So, suppose you're pushing a new key every hour. It takes me 12 hours to crack your key.
If you're not thinking too clearly, it looks like you're safe.
But with modern wireless technologies, how much data can you really push in 12 hours? Let's say you're on a -g network -- 54 mbits -- you'll probably send at most 5 megabytes per second. Suppose you're saturating that constantly -- that means roughly 18 gigs an hour.
So, it takes me 12 hours to crack that -- which means I have to record at most 216 gigs worth of (encrypted) data.
At the end of 12 hours, I've cracked the key from hour 1. I can then go back and decrypt all traffic you sent during that time, including the key you set for hour 2. Then I can decrypt all the data from hour 2, and so on. This will probably take less than an hour.
At that point, I'm caught up, and you're kindly pushing updated keys to me.
So, in other words, your rotating key scheme only works against people who either aren't recording your data, or aren't interested in cracking it at all (for instance, it'd be great if you give a houseguest access for an hour, then the next hour, the key changes from under them)...
Well, actually, they were rumored to have a native port, which was dropped. So at least at one point, it may have been exactly as easy as flicking a switch.
Contrast this to what you claim I said:
You've been bitching about how they had a Linux port already and just had to flick a switch.
Even if that somehow counts as "bitching", I'll say again: It's a rumor. That's why I'm asking the question -- so I can get some facts.
So you are in Home Depot and they have two identical hammers. One is god-aweful looking, like all hot-pink and looks like a professional designer never touched the thing. Yeah... let's pick up that one.
You know, I would. A hot pink hammer? Hell yes!
Tastes vary. I'm not going to attempt to defend OO.org's UI, as I haven't touched it in awhile, but there are plenty of cases where I've seen a UI make the right choices -- better choices -- yet be shunned because it is different than what you're used to.
Oldest, best example I know of: How many people use the dvorak keyboard layout? Even among a generation which has never had to touch a real typewriter in their lives, and for whom qwerty is completely pointless?
I've been guilty of that myself. OS X arguably has some better consistency even with certain keyboard shortcuts (home/end), yet it was so different than what I'm used to that I'm grateful to be back on Linux again.
If OO.org was compellingly better than MS Office, then I'd be inclined to agree with you. But it has fewer features and is generally lacking in more areas than it has strengths.
And as long as that is the case, that is also the conversation we should be having -- not whether it's "pretty".
Fact: Ubuntu (via Compiz) has prettier desktop effects than Vista. Yet Vista has more users than Ubuntu. Would more eye candy "sell" more copies of Ubuntu?
Nothing does tables with the power and flexibility of Word....worse still, it follows that evil design philosophy that says spreadsheets are a way to make pretty tables.
I'm confused -- your complaint is that the word processor won't let you build pretty tables, but also that the spreadsheet does?
It just plain makes no sense to use these products in any context where someone else might need to work on them.
If you can, it absolutely makes sense.
There was a time when there were some competing products, and they had some compelling features, but it just plain made no sense to use anything other than Internet Explorer.
Firefox changed all that. And the Web is a lot more interoperable because of it.
That said:
YMMV.
Indeed. In fact, some people are still tied to IE -- even just an IETab in Firefox -- because of that one last website that won't work.
Re:So where does that place OS X?
on
Linux 2.6.27 Out
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Some of these features are genuinely interesting, though. For example:
OMFS stands for "Sonicblue Optimized MPEG File System support". It is the proprietary file system used by the Rio Karma music player and ReplayTV DVR.
In other words, it means I can open up certain embedded devices -- particularly that DVR -- and pull files off the hard drive. I suppose the OS X answer is that I should've gotten an AppleTV instead?
In this release, Ext4 is adding one of its most important planned features: Delayed allocation, also called "Allocate-on-flush". It doesn't changes the disk format in any way, but it improves the performance in a wide range of workloads.
Only way OS X is getting this is if it's an undocumented feature in HFS (unlikely), or if they port ZFS.
Kexec jump: kexec/kdump based hibernation
Reading through this, it looks like it's really nothing new, just slightly more flexible than before.
But what we had before allowed quite a lot of things not possible on OS X -- for example, diskless hibernation, or hibernation-as-snapshots, even to the network, etc.
There are, of course, a ton of them that cover problems Apple doesn't have. I would consider them nice problems to have.
Oh, and as to the original question: It changes absolutely nothing about OS X's position. People who like the UI, and can afford a mac, aren't going to complain about OS X being less efficient than Linux. Most of the more clever use cases are about as useful to an OS X user as ZFS is to a Linux user -- a curiosity, and maybe useful as a network-connected device, but no impact on what you use for a core OS.
Unless you count Xserves, but I'm not sure that was ever a good idea.
Mutants mean diversity, and diversity means a higher likely hood of some type of humans surviving hard times.
Absolutely.
Unless there are no hard times, and thus nothing in particular protecting that diversity. Meaning those mutations get diluted into the population over time.
I'm not really sure whether that's good (hybrid vigor) or bad (monoculture). I was assuming bad, for the sake of that argument.
Selection doesn't do any good for the species as a whole.
I agree with you there -- or at least, not directly, not necessarily.
Anyone else notice that Democrats hate the idea of a woman in office?
I can't speak for other Democrats, but I have no problem with a woman in office.
I have a problem with the two particular women you've mentioned. Were they male, I'd call them fuckwads, bastards, or fucking bastards.
I don't get why Democrats claim to be pro-woman and then turn around and prevent them from ever getting in the office. Instead, we're getting another choice between two men as President.
If your only concern is that they are women -- if you'd really vote for them for no other reason than that they don't (appear to) have penises -- then you're far more sexist than any of us.
I don't mind Hillary being a woman. I mind her promoting censorship to "protect" children from things that parents are perfectly equipped to do themselves. I mind her ripping off Edwards' closing speech, immediately after accusing Obama of plagiarism. And yes, I do mind her lying about being shot at -- at least Biden could have been mistaken.
I don't mind Palin being a woman. I mind that she opposes stem cell research because of her own superstition -- sorry, religion. I mind that she lists preservation of the traditional definition of "marriage" as a top priority. I mind that she seems to have no concept of what evolution is, or of what science is -- far less, in fact, than most creationists I debate with on Slashdot.
I wouldn't want any song I own placed in this movie...
It's not up to you.
I wouldn't want to set such a precedent against fair use. If a few horrible movies using 15-second clips of good songs is the price we have to pay for (slightly) saner copyright...
To be fair, if it gets really bad, there's always the chance that the stupid people will get so stupid, and the smart people will get so smart, that the smart people can easily solve the problem by herding the stupid people off a cliff (real or metaphorical).
And in a postapocalyptic world, you don't really have to worry so much about earning a wage, so it makes sense to have as many children as you want. (Plus, it's not as though condoms will be easy to come by, if it truly was apocalyptic.)
Natural Selection is interesting in that there's not really anything we can do to stop it -- by definition, it is always happening.
And it's not just about individuals. Our altruism is a selected quality, as is our technology. It means we get to survive, instead of some other species. It is apparently working, as we are still here -- and it makes sense that it should work.
After all, if you think back to a time when there was a lot more pressure from natural selection, if a person is wounded by a tiger, we could leave them to die. Then we'd evolve into uncaring fucks, who may have some advantage against tiger attacks -- or are just lucky.
Instead, we drag them off and heal their wounds. That means there's one more of us, if we decide to hunt down the tiger and kill it.
The same is just as true today -- maybe that person lying facedown in the street will develop a cure for AIDS.
If we truly do "stop evolving", and this eventually puts us in danger of dying out -- like the Asgard, from Stargate SG-1 -- then we'll be an evolutionary dead-end. We'll be selected out, just like the Dodo.
One moment he's complaining that fewer mutations are being produced, the next he's complaining that the mutants are thriving. Which is it?
It's not that the mutants survive, it's that everyone survives, so there's no basis for any one mutant having a better chance of survival. Which means we'll just have a lot of mutants.
Evolution can't work if "survival of the fittest" really means "survival of everyone". It looks like we'll either stagnate or evolve completely randomly, in all directions that don't outright kill us. Probably some combination -- all these random mutations won't get really exaggerated, because they'll just be absorbed back into the population.
Of course, that's not really the end of human evolution, it's more the end of meaningful human evolution. Idiocracy is an example of how humanity could (or already has) evolved in a direction we probably don't want, and don't think of as "progress" -- but Darwinian evolution does not necessarily equal progress.
I'm not really sure what the endgame is. I really only see three outcomes: Idiocracy (we stop caring about real science, and fall back on Darwinian evolution); MAD (we blow ourselves up (selecting ourselves out), and science dies with us); or posthumanism (science continues at roughly the pace it has, which means we'll use technology to enhance ourselves).
Had the game not had a Linux version, they would not have a seen total sales that were 7% less. People who bought on Linux would have bought on XP / OSX.
And how, exactly, do you know this?
Right -- because it's "obvious". In other words, you actually don't know at all, and you don't know how to argue the point with someone who doesn't agree with you.
Educated guesses? You've made nothing but a veiled plea for them to port WoW to Linux to get more exposure for Linux.
If true, that doesn't preclude it being an educated guess.
ALL of the market research shows it would be a stupid idea. If it were a good idea, companies would be doing it now.
And you know what? Some of them are.
Since they probably won't answer your question (statistically)
Actually, they probably will. I'm hardly the only person to ask this -- look at the rest of the thread. If going by statistics alone, the sheer number of people asking the same question means it probably will be in those passed on to Blizzard.
please give me a few reasons why they wouldn't just flick the switch and go for it, which is in fact the case, and has been for 4 years.
Maybe it's not feasible. Maybe it wasn't feasible until just now. Maybe they wanted to see how the Mac port went.
Maybe they were just waiting for enough people to ask.
Point is, neither of us will actually know until they tell us.
Alright, I'll bite. Probably sarcastic, but on the offchance it's not:
If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear.
Then you'll post a reply as a registered user, and/or with your full name and address.
What? I thought you had nothing to hide?
Terrorists are trying to destroy our freedom. We have to fight the terrorists no matter what cost!! If even one life is saved, it'll all be worth it! Can you deny it?
Pretty easily -- as Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death!"
George Bush said that if you're not with us you're against us.
George Bush is a very simple-minded person.
It was also complete BS. I suppose we're bombing Switzerland, now, because they were neutral?
Why do you hate America?
Has it occurred to you that someone may love this country as much as you -- more so, because they value the whole reason it exists -- and have a different idea of how best to protect it?
Terrorist attacks have already killed thousands of people in the last few years in USA! Everybody knows that it's worth it to spend any amount to stop it happening again! If even one life is saved, it will be worth it.
Car accidents have already killed thousands of people in the last few decades in the USA! Everybody knows it's worth it to spend any amount -- or even stop driving -- to stop it happening again! If even one life is saved, it will be worth it.
When was the last time you drove a car? Or took a car ride?
Nothing is as anywhere near as dangerous as terrorist attacks.
Except cars.
And lightning, and a million other things.
And totalitarian governments taking away your rights. If that's what you really want, I'm sure China will be happy to have you.
The Founding Fathers didn't intend that the Constitution would never get changed.
They did, however, intend that it wouldn't be changed often, and without very good reason. This isn't a very good reason.
Were the Founding Fathers getting blowed up by suicide bombers when they were writing the Constitution? (Hint: NO they weren't! DUh!
No, they were getting killed by the British.
Muslims wasn't even invented back then!
Yes they were. For hundreds of years before then, in fact.
If the Founding Fathers and the Mounding Mothers were getting suicide bombered by terrorists, they wouldn't have put that in the Constitution about not seizing laptops, would they?
Actually, there's nothing in the Constitution specifically about laptops.
It's about a much more basic right -- the right to privacy.
So, it looks like you really don't care about America. You're willing to trade the few freedoms that are actually what it's all about, why the country even exists, out of fear of terrorists. Pussy.
Slashdot Mirror
If the network goes down.... every one has to stop working.
The same thing is true if the power goes out. I suppose some people might get a few hours out of a laptop battery, but then they're down.
A rumor you use as your sole support to your argument of it being easy to put a Linux port out there.
Not only do you not read very well, you've got the attention span of a hummingbird.
I have made the point that games have been ported, and the ports have not been as difficult as you're making it out to be. I specifically mentioned id games.
You argued against this point, but you seem to have forgotten. Oh well.
I'm actually typing Dvorak right now :) But I think that his study has been more-or-less discredited.
*sigh* Here we go again...
In short, no, it hasn't. I don't remember how or why I know this, but vaguely, I remember that there was some accusation that he was so directly involved in the testing procedure that he could easily affect the results. I also remember that this part was completely untrue.
I like Linux, but consistency is not its strong suit :)
Then what does it say about OS X that, in some ways, I found this feature to be less consistent?
I know, that's the opposite of what I said before -- and, in most apps, OS X is very consistent about what these mean. Even in Terminal.
What's not consistent is how the fsck you're actually supposed to go to the beginning or end of a line. Most places, that's command+left/right... except in Firefox, at least if you're not editing something, that does back/forward... or in Terminal, where it's shift+home/end, and is really up to the Unix app in question.
Except in vim, where that doesn't work at all.
Firefox is a third-party app, so maybe not worth mentioning. But Terminal is preloaded, even advertised on the Apple website. Granted, it would've been a lot of work to overhaul every Unix app they shipped, from bash to less -- but that's exactly what they did with GUI apps!
I'm sure some of my Mac friends could find plenty of other, better examples, but that was the biggest one for me. I'd have gotten used to it eventually -- thankfully, I only needed the Mac for a week or two before my new Ubuntu laptop came.
I think the main reason that Linux never catches on is the near complete lack of advertising.
IBM gave Linux a Superbowl ad. Several, if I remember.
Granted, they didn't actually say what Linux is, and they were talking more about open source. They could have been ads for free culture. But it has had advertising.
It worked for Firefox, but it hasn't (yet) worked for Linux. Maybe it can work for Ubuntu, at some point...
Agreed, though I see no problem in MENTIONING it in a list of other disadvantages.
Fair enough, but that doesn't fit the hammer analogy.
This essentially requires that both SECRET and SALT be sufficiently large as to be secure.
The attack from TFA can be defeated by using a WPA key which is sufficiently large as to be secure.
It's a cool-sounding method, but completely unnecessary, in this case.
Nope. It only requires that someone is recording that data, just as GP said.
So, suppose you're pushing a new key every hour. It takes me 12 hours to crack your key.
If you're not thinking too clearly, it looks like you're safe.
But with modern wireless technologies, how much data can you really push in 12 hours? Let's say you're on a -g network -- 54 mbits -- you'll probably send at most 5 megabytes per second. Suppose you're saturating that constantly -- that means roughly 18 gigs an hour.
So, it takes me 12 hours to crack that -- which means I have to record at most 216 gigs worth of (encrypted) data.
At the end of 12 hours, I've cracked the key from hour 1. I can then go back and decrypt all traffic you sent during that time, including the key you set for hour 2. Then I can decrypt all the data from hour 2, and so on. This will probably take less than an hour.
At that point, I'm caught up, and you're kindly pushing updated keys to me.
So, in other words, your rotating key scheme only works against people who either aren't recording your data, or aren't interested in cracking it at all (for instance, it'd be great if you give a houseguest access for an hour, then the next hour, the key changes from under them)...
Let me help you out a bit:
Well, actually, they were rumored to have a native port, which was dropped. So at least at one point, it may have been exactly as easy as flicking a switch.
Contrast this to what you claim I said:
You've been bitching about how they had a Linux port already and just had to flick a switch.
Even if that somehow counts as "bitching", I'll say again: It's a rumor. That's why I'm asking the question -- so I can get some facts.
So you are in Home Depot and they have two identical hammers. One is god-aweful looking, like all hot-pink and looks like a professional designer never touched the thing. Yeah... let's pick up that one.
You know, I would. A hot pink hammer? Hell yes!
Tastes vary. I'm not going to attempt to defend OO.org's UI, as I haven't touched it in awhile, but there are plenty of cases where I've seen a UI make the right choices -- better choices -- yet be shunned because it is different than what you're used to.
Oldest, best example I know of: How many people use the dvorak keyboard layout? Even among a generation which has never had to touch a real typewriter in their lives, and for whom qwerty is completely pointless?
I've been guilty of that myself. OS X arguably has some better consistency even with certain keyboard shortcuts (home/end), yet it was so different than what I'm used to that I'm grateful to be back on Linux again.
If OO.org was compellingly better than MS Office, then I'd be inclined to agree with you. But it has fewer features and is generally lacking in more areas than it has strengths.
And as long as that is the case, that is also the conversation we should be having -- not whether it's "pretty".
Fact: Ubuntu (via Compiz) has prettier desktop effects than Vista. Yet Vista has more users than Ubuntu. Would more eye candy "sell" more copies of Ubuntu?
Nothing does tables with the power and flexibility of Word....worse still, it follows that evil design philosophy that says spreadsheets are a way to make pretty tables.
I'm confused -- your complaint is that the word processor won't let you build pretty tables, but also that the spreadsheet does?
It just plain makes no sense to use these products in any context where someone else might need to work on them.
If you can, it absolutely makes sense.
There was a time when there were some competing products, and they had some compelling features, but it just plain made no sense to use anything other than Internet Explorer.
Firefox changed all that. And the Web is a lot more interoperable because of it.
That said:
YMMV.
Indeed. In fact, some people are still tied to IE -- even just an IETab in Firefox -- because of that one last website that won't work.
Some of these features are genuinely interesting, though. For example:
OMFS stands for "Sonicblue Optimized MPEG File System support". It is the proprietary file system used by the Rio Karma music player and ReplayTV DVR.
In other words, it means I can open up certain embedded devices -- particularly that DVR -- and pull files off the hard drive. I suppose the OS X answer is that I should've gotten an AppleTV instead?
In this release, Ext4 is adding one of its most important planned features: Delayed allocation, also called "Allocate-on-flush". It doesn't changes the disk format in any way, but it improves the performance in a wide range of workloads.
Only way OS X is getting this is if it's an undocumented feature in HFS (unlikely), or if they port ZFS.
Kexec jump: kexec/kdump based hibernation
Reading through this, it looks like it's really nothing new, just slightly more flexible than before.
But what we had before allowed quite a lot of things not possible on OS X -- for example, diskless hibernation, or hibernation-as-snapshots, even to the network, etc.
There are, of course, a ton of them that cover problems Apple doesn't have. I would consider them nice problems to have.
Oh, and as to the original question: It changes absolutely nothing about OS X's position. People who like the UI, and can afford a mac, aren't going to complain about OS X being less efficient than Linux. Most of the more clever use cases are about as useful to an OS X user as ZFS is to a Linux user -- a curiosity, and maybe useful as a network-connected device, but no impact on what you use for a core OS.
Unless you count Xserves, but I'm not sure that was ever a good idea.
All fair use of this music is allowed, except in the context of Expelled and gay porn. Thanks.
I'm sure I'd entertain the notion for a moment... and then dismiss it.
I mean, think of the precedent. And imagine if someone else got to choose what those exemptions are.
That was exactly what I was thinking of.
Unfortunately, I can't find a free Internet copy of it, so I haven't actually read it.
I call my model the final solution.
Well played, sir, well played.
Mutants mean diversity, and diversity means a higher likely hood of some type of humans surviving hard times.
Absolutely.
Unless there are no hard times, and thus nothing in particular protecting that diversity. Meaning those mutations get diluted into the population over time.
I'm not really sure whether that's good (hybrid vigor) or bad (monoculture). I was assuming bad, for the sake of that argument.
Selection doesn't do any good for the species as a whole.
I agree with you there -- or at least, not directly, not necessarily.
Anyone else notice that Democrats hate the idea of a woman in office?
I can't speak for other Democrats, but I have no problem with a woman in office.
I have a problem with the two particular women you've mentioned. Were they male, I'd call them fuckwads, bastards, or fucking bastards.
I don't get why Democrats claim to be pro-woman and then turn around and prevent them from ever getting in the office. Instead, we're getting another choice between two men as President.
If your only concern is that they are women -- if you'd really vote for them for no other reason than that they don't (appear to) have penises -- then you're far more sexist than any of us.
I don't mind Hillary being a woman. I mind her promoting censorship to "protect" children from things that parents are perfectly equipped to do themselves. I mind her ripping off Edwards' closing speech, immediately after accusing Obama of plagiarism. And yes, I do mind her lying about being shot at -- at least Biden could have been mistaken.
I don't mind Palin being a woman. I mind that she opposes stem cell research because of her own superstition -- sorry, religion. I mind that she lists preservation of the traditional definition of "marriage" as a top priority. I mind that she seems to have no concept of what evolution is, or of what science is -- far less, in fact, than most creationists I debate with on Slashdot.
None of these have anything to do with gender.
You can't understand the difference between platform preference distributions and sales due to platform compatibility.
You've yet to show which has actually happened here, only which you assume has happened.
You've been bitching about how they had a Linux port already and just had to flick a switch.
Show me where I said that.
You may not know, but I sure as hell do.
You don't understand the difference between "knowing" and "guessing wildly".
That, or you work for Blizzard -- in some department which doesn't require critical thinking skills.
To call the comments we're talking about "communication" is an insult to everyone reading this. (I mean, at least you guys can read.)
I wouldn't want any song I own placed in this movie...
It's not up to you.
I wouldn't want to set such a precedent against fair use. If a few horrible movies using 15-second clips of good songs is the price we have to pay for (slightly) saner copyright...
Same with an ecosystem. Extinction of humans wouldn't be the end of evolution, it'd be a part of evolution.
Nope. We just define "fittest" differently. It still very much applies.
To be fair, if it gets really bad, there's always the chance that the stupid people will get so stupid, and the smart people will get so smart, that the smart people can easily solve the problem by herding the stupid people off a cliff (real or metaphorical).
And in a postapocalyptic world, you don't really have to worry so much about earning a wage, so it makes sense to have as many children as you want. (Plus, it's not as though condoms will be easy to come by, if it truly was apocalyptic.)
Natural Selection is interesting in that there's not really anything we can do to stop it -- by definition, it is always happening.
And it's not just about individuals. Our altruism is a selected quality, as is our technology. It means we get to survive, instead of some other species. It is apparently working, as we are still here -- and it makes sense that it should work.
After all, if you think back to a time when there was a lot more pressure from natural selection, if a person is wounded by a tiger, we could leave them to die. Then we'd evolve into uncaring fucks, who may have some advantage against tiger attacks -- or are just lucky.
Instead, we drag them off and heal their wounds. That means there's one more of us, if we decide to hunt down the tiger and kill it.
The same is just as true today -- maybe that person lying facedown in the street will develop a cure for AIDS.
If we truly do "stop evolving", and this eventually puts us in danger of dying out -- like the Asgard, from Stargate SG-1 -- then we'll be an evolutionary dead-end. We'll be selected out, just like the Dodo.
One moment he's complaining that fewer mutations are being produced, the next he's complaining that the mutants are thriving. Which is it?
It's not that the mutants survive, it's that everyone survives, so there's no basis for any one mutant having a better chance of survival. Which means we'll just have a lot of mutants.
Evolution can't work if "survival of the fittest" really means "survival of everyone". It looks like we'll either stagnate or evolve completely randomly, in all directions that don't outright kill us. Probably some combination -- all these random mutations won't get really exaggerated, because they'll just be absorbed back into the population.
Of course, that's not really the end of human evolution, it's more the end of meaningful human evolution. Idiocracy is an example of how humanity could (or already has) evolved in a direction we probably don't want, and don't think of as "progress" -- but Darwinian evolution does not necessarily equal progress.
I'm not really sure what the endgame is. I really only see three outcomes: Idiocracy (we stop caring about real science, and fall back on Darwinian evolution); MAD (we blow ourselves up (selecting ourselves out), and science dies with us); or posthumanism (science continues at roughly the pace it has, which means we'll use technology to enhance ourselves).
Yeah, like a young woman could be an overlord... (not counting if McCain wins and has a heart attack)
No, we're not counting a 44-year-old bit^H^H^H as a "young woman".
Had the game not had a Linux version, they would not have a seen total sales that were 7% less. People who bought on Linux would have bought on XP / OSX.
And how, exactly, do you know this?
Right -- because it's "obvious". In other words, you actually don't know at all, and you don't know how to argue the point with someone who doesn't agree with you.
Educated guesses? You've made nothing but a veiled plea for them to port WoW to Linux to get more exposure for Linux.
If true, that doesn't preclude it being an educated guess.
ALL of the market research shows it would be a stupid idea. If it were a good idea, companies would be doing it now.
And you know what? Some of them are.
Since they probably won't answer your question (statistically)
Actually, they probably will. I'm hardly the only person to ask this -- look at the rest of the thread. If going by statistics alone, the sheer number of people asking the same question means it probably will be in those passed on to Blizzard.
please give me a few reasons why they wouldn't just flick the switch and go for it, which is in fact the case, and has been for 4 years.
Maybe it's not feasible. Maybe it wasn't feasible until just now. Maybe they wanted to see how the Mac port went.
Maybe they were just waiting for enough people to ask.
Point is, neither of us will actually know until they tell us.
Alright, I'll bite. Probably sarcastic, but on the offchance it's not:
If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear.
Then you'll post a reply as a registered user, and/or with your full name and address.
What? I thought you had nothing to hide?
Terrorists are trying to destroy our freedom. We have to fight the terrorists no matter what cost!! If even one life is saved, it'll all be worth it! Can you deny it?
Pretty easily -- as Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death!"
George Bush said that if you're not with us you're against us.
George Bush is a very simple-minded person.
It was also complete BS. I suppose we're bombing Switzerland, now, because they were neutral?
Why do you hate America?
Has it occurred to you that someone may love this country as much as you -- more so, because they value the whole reason it exists -- and have a different idea of how best to protect it?
Terrorist attacks have already killed thousands of people in the last few years in USA! Everybody knows that it's worth it to spend any amount to stop it happening again! If even one life is saved, it will be worth it.
Car accidents have already killed thousands of people in the last few decades in the USA! Everybody knows it's worth it to spend any amount -- or even stop driving -- to stop it happening again! If even one life is saved, it will be worth it.
When was the last time you drove a car? Or took a car ride?
Nothing is as anywhere near as dangerous as terrorist attacks.
Except cars.
And lightning, and a million other things.
And totalitarian governments taking away your rights. If that's what you really want, I'm sure China will be happy to have you.
The Founding Fathers didn't intend that the Constitution would never get changed.
They did, however, intend that it wouldn't be changed often, and without very good reason. This isn't a very good reason.
Were the Founding Fathers getting blowed up by suicide bombers when they were writing the Constitution? (Hint: NO they weren't! DUh!
No, they were getting killed by the British.
Muslims wasn't even invented back then!
Yes they were. For hundreds of years before then, in fact.
If the Founding Fathers and the Mounding Mothers were getting suicide bombered by terrorists, they wouldn't have put that in the Constitution about not seizing laptops, would they?
Actually, there's nothing in the Constitution specifically about laptops.
It's about a much more basic right -- the right to privacy.
So, it looks like you really don't care about America. You're willing to trade the few freedoms that are actually what it's all about, why the country even exists, out of fear of terrorists. Pussy.
That, or I've been trolled, hard.