MS is developing a product that uses multitouch, among other things, that offers an entirely new means of user interaction. Apple, on the other hand, is using multitouch as a buzzword to create the image of revolutionary technology, despite the fact that it's barely multitouch (two inputs rather than one) and it does nothing new for the user. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether the MS gestures are copied or not, Apple's are too, because MS's device performs an entirely new function. I don't see how this can possibly be seen as "FUD'ing Apple" except in the eyes of a hopeless cheerleader. You did watch the video, didn't you?
How do you know all the gestures are copied? Where are all the gestures documented?
"What is interesting is the application (implementation, and that anyone could write apps for it (as opposed to iPhone, for example)."...and for the multitouch implementation to track more than two inputs (as opposed to the iPhone, for example) and use a screen larger than a postage stamp (as opposed to the iPhone, for example).
Apple is using multitouch as a gimmick to create buzz. It doesn't actually do anything useful.
"Show me how you build a Raid 50 of 32 sata or ide drives."
Is that a trick question? Since when does a specific RAID configuration matter anyway?
"also show me a SINGLE sata or ide drive that can touch the data io rates of a u320 scsi drive with 15K spindle speeds."
yep, the fastest single spindles are generally not offered in IDE. Of course, that's what RAID is for...to replace a single, fast, expensive disk with multiple, less expensive ones.
"Low end consumer drive cant do the high end stuff. Dont even try to convince anyone of this."
Of course they can. You've been sold a bill of goods from the drive manufacturers.
"witha giant SQL db you want... no you NEED the fastest drives you can get your hands on and that is SCSI or Fiberchannel."
The fastest drives are determined by the HDA, not the interface, and drive manufacturers insist on using alternative interfaces for their server drives in order to charge substantially higher margins. The attitude that somehow SCSI is better than IDE is what enables them to continue this charade and is responsible for the creation of SAS, a SCSI standard that runs an alternate software stack over the SATA physical layer. There can be no more substantial proof that SCSI is no better for disks than SAS/SATA itself. The best disks use SAS and the controllers can support either interface because, in reality, SAS and SATA are physically the same.
"Jobs is saying Apple is changing the policy of communicating its environmental policy in response to Greenpeace and others, not changing it's environmental policies."
Wrong. From Apple's statement:
"Unfortunately this policy has left our customers, shareholders, employees and the industry in the dark about Apple's desires and plans to become greener...So today we're changing our policy....
Today is the first time we have openly discussed our plans to become a greener Apple."
Yes, Apple is saying that it is changing its policy regarding communication, but it is also promising to become greener. There is nothing in the document that supports your claim that all their current and future environmental plans are unchanged. We don't know, but we should expect Apple to spin to story to their maximum advantage and we should expect Greenpeace to do the same. Both clearly have.
"If Greenpeace wants to stay credible, they should not be taking quotes out of context."
"It would be an undue compliment to call Greenpeace's report even barely researched. It was presumptive, snide, misleading, and obviously flawed. FUD seems a fair description."
Same thing could, and certainly should, be said for the comment you just made. Whether you agree with Greenpeace's metrics or not, they documented them completely and, unlike you, they didn't resort to insulting language.
"This is a case of "Greenpeace assumed, without any facts, that Apple doesn't care about the environment, and told everyone that this is the objective truth"."
Where are you quoting this from? Greenpeace never said any such thing about Apple or anyone else.
"Greenpeace went on to waste probably quite a bit of money on a campaign and website to "change" Apple, all based on their flawed report."
Who says the money was wasted? Who says the report was flawed? You clearly don't agree with the report. So what?
"Currently the Green My Apple campaign site is posting a headline suggesting that Jobs's explanation of Apple's actually-quite-greenness is some sort of policy change, rather than what it is: the good news Greenpeace had previously assumed was bad."
Considering that Apple is describing "Apple's desires and plans to become greener..." I would say, and Steve would agree, that you are wrong. The fact is that Apple claims to be talking about how it will become greener without saying much about it. Instead, they bitch and moan about how they really aren't worse than the other guys.
It seems clear to me that Greenpeace has had the effect that they desired to have. Apple is now making an effort to cast itself in a favorable environmental light and promises to become greener. From Greenpeace's perspective it is money well spent. Jobs should have made the same hollow promises that Greenpeace extracted from all the other manufacturers. Now he has.
"I have just not seen laptop offerings competitive with Apple's."
Depends on what you mean by "competitive". Of course, anyone making a comment like this always uses Apple products as the standard for comparison. Such fanboyism is tiring.
There is no Apple notebook capable of holding two disk drives or offering a WUXGA screen. In that respect, Macbooks and MBPs are not competitive. Likewise, there are no mac notebooks with screens smaller than 13". I could go on and on. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on useful systems.
A couple weeks ago I dropped my MBP about two feet from the ground and bent the chassis. The quote to replace one chassis piece is $660 and I was warned it may go up to nearly $1000 even though the machine is still 100% functional. Any plastic-cased notebook I would have expected to survive undamaged. So much for being "competitive". Apple's parts cost on the bottom chassis piece is over $500. I suspect there's more margin in that than in the original MBP itself. Apple isn't above screwing its customers.
That could not be more wrong. Dell has always sold direct. It dabbled in retail on a few occasions but not until it was well established as the leading direct sales company.
"...you need to watch normal people use computers....Don't tell me that telling a left-handed user to "right-click" on something isn't confusing. Come work with me for a day."
Anyone who thinks that a left-handed person can't tell left from right is an idiot. I consider all your opinions suspect if you can't figure this out. "normal people" indeed!
"Sorry to address the same post a second time, but I have to correct more misinformation. Again, the 1-button mouse argument hasn't been relevant since the mid 90s."
It most certainly is relevant. Just because Apple has belatedly, reluctantly recognized the superiority of multibutton mice does not mean they have caught up in that department. Apple's contextual menus suck compared to Windows.
"For that, you can either click and hold for a moment..."
Since when does that work universally in OS X? The fact is that it doesn't and it should. Just an inconvenient example of how Apple doesn't "just work".
"I would just ask if you are going to criticize something, please get the easy facts straight first."
I would say the same to you. What's scary is thinking that you actually train teachers. Pay must not be too good.
The actors learned their instruments and performed their own music. In order to do that they performed as a actual band quite a bit before the making of the movie and continue to do that from time to time.
The advent of multicore CPUs HAS hurt single-threaded app performance. You must compare today's multicore CPUs with what would otherwise exist if development efforts were invested, instead, on accelerating single core performance like had always been done in the past. In that light it's clear that today's single threaded apps would be running faster had technology not changed direction.
I'm not arguing that multicore isn't the right thing to do but your assertion is not correct. Who knows what reality would be today if multicore wasn't pursued, but odds are it would be faster than a single Core2 core.
The law in Texas does. Photoradar and stoplight cameras have not existed in Texas for that reason. The most surprising thing to me is that Dallas thinks they can get away with that. Of course, the law also says that radar can only be used to confirm a suspicion of speeding yet policemen run around with radar traps and guns constantly on. So much for respecting the law. In Texas, the DPS is the only police agency that actually requires its officers to pass tests on the laws that they are entrusted to enforce. Sadly, though DPS officers are the most competent, they are also the biggest assholes and have at least as much disregard for law as the rest.
Funny thing that the author of the article thinks that stoplight cameras are "unbiased". Far from it. What operators of stoplight cams do is deliberately shorten the yellow light in order to increase their hit rates. They get paid by the ticket after all. "Unbiased" my ass.
"It is running OS X Leopard one would assume, not Tiger."
iPhone doesn't run Leopard or Tiger. It runs its own unique software that uses components shared with mac OS X.
"You could more easily make the case that the Intel switch caused the Leopard delay."
I'm anxious to hear you make that case. The Intel switch came and went.
"Didn't releasing an entirely separate clone of Tiger on Intel architecture tax their Mac OS X team and QA resources more than building software for the iPhone?"
Who knows. You certainly don't. It can't possibly matter though.
"It may double the user base in five years leading to more development money and also greater compatibility."
It *may* do that, but it most certainly won't do that. It's more likely that iPhone customers, if there are any, are already OS X users and that the impact on the OS X "user base" will be small.
"...so if CEO's are demanding iPhone compatibility from their corporate Web sites..."...like that will ever happen. The odds of the iPhone having any material impact of the quality of Safari support are 0.
"Right now they want to see it run in Explorer that is not good for anyone."
Wanting a website to work in the most popular browser is a natural thing so saying that it is "not good for anyone" is absurd. The concern is whether a site supports browsers *other* than IE. Failing to work in IE would be inexcusable.
"It is only half a Mac at best."
Yes, and yet it is more of a mac than many G4s.;-)
"Any Power Mac G4 is a faster Mac with many other features also, like Gigabit Ethernet, FireWire 400/800, multiple USB busses, PCI, optical drive, 2 GB or more RAM capacity, space for four hard disks."
Clock for clock, a Pentium M destroys a G4. In fact, saying "Power Mac G4" is like saying "jumbo shrimp". USB is point to point. It has no "busses".
I don't think buyers of a miniature mac are after a tower system with large expandability. Why anyone wants an appleTV I have no idea but I doubt an old plastic PowerMac is an appealing alternative.
"First, unless you're some sort of a Mac-ophobe, there isn't a real reason why you can't buy a Mac if you want to run OSX."
Sure there is. For desktops, Apple offers three macs: one that is too big, one that is too small, and one that has an integrated monitor. There are a thousand reasons why one might not want to purchase a desktop from Apple---all the form factors that Apple chooses not to offer. The argument for notebooks is similar with the addition that Apple chooses not to offer displays with >115 dpi. Anyone who wants a high resolution notebook has to look elsewhere as well. I would like a small desktop mac with a 3.5" drive, single processor and dual DVI. Where am I gonna get that?
What is the viewing distance of the screen? Desktops, TVs, notebooks, and handhelds all have different viewing distances. TVs have no set viewing distance.
With 20/20 vision and a typical desktop viewing distance, the eye can distinguish 150+ dpi. Closer viewing distances can tolerate even higher densities. 100 dpi is appropriate for a 36" viewing distance which no one uses for any device. Sorry, but your logic doesn't hold. 72dpi was the original size. Then it was bumped to 96 and 100. These were strictly limits of the devices of the day. 100 dpi is meaningless except that Steve Jobs insists that it's the end-all-be-all of screen resolutions.
Now, 1024x600 is also completely arbitrary but it at least has some merit.
Cell phones typically have 160-180 dpi displays and no one is complaining that the resolution is too high.
"Brilliant. Utterly Brilliant. This is similar to having a problem with your kitchen floor being wet due to a leaking roof & building a floor-mopping robot as a solution."
No, it's not. The key sequence had long since lost any need to avoid inadvertently pressing it and subsequent keyboard layouts made it one-handed anyway. There is no penalty whatsoever in making it a single key. The damage was already done.
"The development team originally went for their old Apple key, but Steve Jobs found it frustrating when "apples" filled up the Mac's menus next to the key commands. Since Jobs felt that this was an over-use of the company logo, he opted for a different key symbol. With only a few days left before deadline, the team's bitmap artist Susan Kare started researching for the Apple logo's successor. She was browsing through a symbol dictionary when she came across the cloverleaf-like symbol, used in Sweden for "attractions on a campground". When she showed it to the rest of the team, everyone liked it, and so it became the symbol of the 1984 Macintosh command key."
That is true, but IBM broke that with their idiotic 101 key layout that we're all stuck with now. Prior to that, you HAD to to use two hands. With the 101 key, you could slap your hand on the keyboard and reset the machine.
None of that matters since Windows has redefined the key sequence anyway. Now it might has well be a single key since nothing bad happens if you hit it by accident.
"Now they want to put it on a single button, surrounded by other tiny buttons? Someone had a real winner of an idea there..."
All your observations were right, but your conclusion was exactly wrong.
Why does any of this concern you? Why do you feel you're owed an explanation?
Could it be that an equal opportunity to respond is desired? It was, after all, a reply to someone else who felt the need to express heterosexuality.
Perhaps it was just intended to amuse.
"no one" is not hyphenated.
"By building separating people into communities instead of just being who you are in any community, aren't you effectively reversing the work that brave homosexuals did decades ago?"
No. Participating in a separate community doesn't mean they won't participate in the greater one. Gays are keenly aware of their position in society. They don't need you to help them understand.
...not to mention that the appeal of a "real woman" is somewhat selective. In fact, the penalties associated with one drive some to seek alternatives;-)
Not that I consider OS X to be a "real woman", but at least a pig will love you regardless of how much money you have.
Funny that all the examples you offer start out with someone making a mistake or using poor judgement, then you would have us believe that the liability for the resultant damage doesn't lie with them but rather an indexing site. Yes, you made your point. Sadly, it isn't a good one.
The internet is about broadcasting information, yet you would have us believe that it's important that no one listen.
Slashdot Mirror
MS is developing a product that uses multitouch, among other things, that offers an entirely new means of user interaction. Apple, on the other hand, is using multitouch as a buzzword to create the image of revolutionary technology, despite the fact that it's barely multitouch (two inputs rather than one) and it does nothing new for the user. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether the MS gestures are copied or not, Apple's are too, because MS's device performs an entirely new function. I don't see how this can possibly be seen as "FUD'ing Apple" except in the eyes of a hopeless cheerleader. You did watch the video, didn't you?
How do you know all the gestures are copied? Where are all the gestures documented?
"What is interesting is the application (implementation, and that anyone could write apps for it (as opposed to iPhone, for example)." ...and for the multitouch implementation to track more than two inputs (as opposed to the iPhone, for example) and use a screen larger than a postage stamp (as opposed to the iPhone, for example).
Apple is using multitouch as a gimmick to create buzz. It doesn't actually do anything useful.
"Show me how you build a Raid 50 of 32 sata or ide drives."
Is that a trick question? Since when does a specific RAID configuration matter anyway?
"also show me a SINGLE sata or ide drive that can touch the data io rates of a u320 scsi drive with 15K spindle speeds."
yep, the fastest single spindles are generally not offered in IDE. Of course, that's what RAID is for...to replace a single, fast, expensive disk with multiple, less expensive ones.
"Low end consumer drive cant do the high end stuff. Dont even try to convince anyone of this."
Of course they can. You've been sold a bill of goods from the drive manufacturers.
"witha giant SQL db you want... no you NEED the fastest drives you can get your hands on and that is SCSI or Fiberchannel."
The fastest drives are determined by the HDA, not the interface, and drive manufacturers insist on using alternative interfaces for their server drives in order to charge substantially higher margins. The attitude that somehow SCSI is better than IDE is what enables them to continue this charade and is responsible for the creation of SAS, a SCSI standard that runs an alternate software stack over the SATA physical layer. There can be no more substantial proof that SCSI is no better for disks than SAS/SATA itself. The best disks use SAS and the controllers can support either interface because, in reality, SAS and SATA are physically the same.
The backlighting on the 17 is so bad no one can really notice. Otherwise, the 6 bit panel on the 17 is no different.
In what way do the new instructions require new chipset support? That is what he asked after all.
"Jobs is saying Apple is changing the policy of communicating its environmental policy in response to Greenpeace and others, not changing it's environmental policies."
...
Wrong. From Apple's statement:
"Unfortunately this policy has left our customers, shareholders, employees and the industry in the dark about Apple's desires and plans to become greener...So today we're changing our policy.
Today is the first time we have openly discussed our plans to become a greener Apple."
Yes, Apple is saying that it is changing its policy regarding communication, but it is also promising to become greener. There is nothing in the document that supports your claim that all their current and future environmental plans are unchanged. We don't know, but we should expect Apple to spin to story to their maximum advantage and we should expect Greenpeace to do the same. Both clearly have.
"If Greenpeace wants to stay credible, they should not be taking quotes out of context."
And you should read and think more critically.
"It would be an undue compliment to call Greenpeace's report even barely researched. It was presumptive, snide, misleading, and obviously flawed. FUD seems a fair description."
Same thing could, and certainly should, be said for the comment you just made. Whether you agree with Greenpeace's metrics or not, they documented them completely and, unlike you, they didn't resort to insulting language.
"This is a case of "Greenpeace assumed, without any facts, that Apple doesn't care about the environment, and told everyone that this is the objective truth"."
Where are you quoting this from? Greenpeace never said any such thing about Apple or anyone else.
"Greenpeace went on to waste probably quite a bit of money on a campaign and website to "change" Apple, all based on their flawed report."
Who says the money was wasted? Who says the report was flawed? You clearly don't agree with the report. So what?
"Currently the Green My Apple campaign site is posting a headline suggesting that Jobs's explanation of Apple's actually-quite-greenness is some sort of policy change, rather than what it is: the good news Greenpeace had previously assumed was bad."
Considering that Apple is describing "Apple's desires and plans to become greener..." I would say, and Steve would agree, that you are wrong. The fact is that Apple claims to be talking about how it will become greener without saying much about it. Instead, they bitch and moan about how they really aren't worse than the other guys.
It seems clear to me that Greenpeace has had the effect that they desired to have. Apple is now making an effort to cast itself in a favorable environmental light and promises to become greener. From Greenpeace's perspective it is money well spent. Jobs should have made the same hollow promises that Greenpeace extracted from all the other manufacturers. Now he has.
"I have just not seen laptop offerings competitive with Apple's."
Depends on what you mean by "competitive". Of course, anyone making a comment like this always uses Apple products as the standard for comparison. Such fanboyism is tiring.
There is no Apple notebook capable of holding two disk drives or offering a WUXGA screen. In that respect, Macbooks and MBPs are not competitive. Likewise, there are no mac notebooks with screens smaller than 13". I could go on and on. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on useful systems.
A couple weeks ago I dropped my MBP about two feet from the ground and bent the chassis. The quote to replace one chassis piece is $660 and I was warned it may go up to nearly $1000 even though the machine is still 100% functional. Any plastic-cased notebook I would have expected to survive undamaged. So much for being "competitive". Apple's parts cost on the bottom chassis piece is over $500. I suspect there's more margin in that than in the original MBP itself. Apple isn't above screwing its customers.
That could not be more wrong. Dell has always sold direct. It dabbled in retail on a few occasions but not until it was well established as the leading direct sales company.
"...you need to watch normal people use computers....Don't tell me that telling a left-handed user to "right-click" on something isn't confusing. Come work with me for a day."
Anyone who thinks that a left-handed person can't tell left from right is an idiot. I consider all your opinions suspect if you can't figure this out. "normal people" indeed!
"Sorry to address the same post a second time, but I have to correct more misinformation. Again, the 1-button mouse argument hasn't been relevant since the mid 90s."
It most certainly is relevant. Just because Apple has belatedly, reluctantly recognized the superiority of multibutton mice does not mean they have caught up in that department. Apple's contextual menus suck compared to Windows.
"For that, you can either click and hold for a moment..."
Since when does that work universally in OS X? The fact is that it doesn't and it should. Just an inconvenient example of how Apple doesn't "just work".
"I would just ask if you are going to criticize something, please get the easy facts straight first."
I would say the same to you. What's scary is thinking that you actually train teachers. Pay must not be too good.
You're sweet but you're just four feet
And you still got your baby teeth
The actors learned their instruments and performed their own music. In order to do that they performed as a actual band quite a bit before the making of the movie and continue to do that from time to time.
"We already know AMD at 4-cores beats Intel."
Who is "we" that already "know"s that? What 4-core AMD processor beats its Intel competition?
The advent of multicore CPUs HAS hurt single-threaded app performance. You must compare today's multicore CPUs with what would otherwise exist if development efforts were invested, instead, on accelerating single core performance like had always been done in the past. In that light it's clear that today's single threaded apps would be running faster had technology not changed direction.
I'm not arguing that multicore isn't the right thing to do but your assertion is not correct. Who knows what reality would be today if multicore wasn't pursued, but odds are it would be faster than a single Core2 core.
You've apparently never owned a BMW.
The law in Texas does. Photoradar and stoplight cameras have not existed in Texas for that reason. The most surprising thing to me is that Dallas thinks they can get away with that. Of course, the law also says that radar can only be used to confirm a suspicion of speeding yet policemen run around with radar traps and guns constantly on. So much for respecting the law. In Texas, the DPS is the only police agency that actually requires its officers to pass tests on the laws that they are entrusted to enforce. Sadly, though DPS officers are the most competent, they are also the biggest assholes and have at least as much disregard for law as the rest.
Funny thing that the author of the article thinks that stoplight cameras are "unbiased". Far from it. What operators of stoplight cams do is deliberately shorten the yellow light in order to increase their hit rates. They get paid by the ticket after all. "Unbiased" my ass.
"It is running OS X Leopard one would assume, not Tiger."
...like that will ever happen. The odds of the iPhone having any material impact of the quality of Safari support are 0.
;-)
iPhone doesn't run Leopard or Tiger. It runs its own unique software that uses components shared with mac OS X.
"You could more easily make the case that the Intel switch caused the Leopard delay."
I'm anxious to hear you make that case. The Intel switch came and went.
"Didn't releasing an entirely separate clone of Tiger on Intel architecture tax their Mac OS X team and QA resources more than building software for the iPhone?"
Who knows. You certainly don't. It can't possibly matter though.
"It may double the user base in five years leading to more development money and also greater compatibility."
It *may* do that, but it most certainly won't do that. It's more likely that iPhone customers, if there are any, are already OS X users and that the impact on the OS X "user base" will be small.
"...so if CEO's are demanding iPhone compatibility from their corporate Web sites..."
"Right now they want to see it run in Explorer that is not good for anyone."
Wanting a website to work in the most popular browser is a natural thing so saying that it is "not good for anyone" is absurd. The concern is whether a site supports browsers *other* than IE. Failing to work in IE would be inexcusable.
"It is only half a Mac at best."
Yes, and yet it is more of a mac than many G4s.
"Any Power Mac G4 is a faster Mac with many other features also, like Gigabit Ethernet, FireWire 400/800, multiple USB busses, PCI, optical drive, 2 GB or more RAM capacity, space for four hard disks."
Clock for clock, a Pentium M destroys a G4. In fact, saying "Power Mac G4" is like saying "jumbo shrimp". USB is point to point. It has no "busses".
I don't think buyers of a miniature mac are after a tower system with large expandability. Why anyone wants an appleTV I have no idea but I doubt an old plastic PowerMac is an appealing alternative.
"First, unless you're some sort of a Mac-ophobe, there isn't a real reason why you can't buy a Mac if you want to run OSX."
Sure there is. For desktops, Apple offers three macs: one that is too big, one that is too small, and one that has an integrated monitor. There are a thousand reasons why one might not want to purchase a desktop from Apple---all the form factors that Apple chooses not to offer. The argument for notebooks is similar with the addition that Apple chooses not to offer displays with >115 dpi. Anyone who wants a high resolution notebook has to look elsewhere as well. I would like a small desktop mac with a 3.5" drive, single processor and dual DVI. Where am I gonna get that?
What is average eyesight? 20/20?
What is the viewing distance of the screen? Desktops, TVs, notebooks, and handhelds all have different viewing distances. TVs have no set viewing distance.
With 20/20 vision and a typical desktop viewing distance, the eye can distinguish 150+ dpi. Closer viewing distances can tolerate even higher densities. 100 dpi is appropriate for a 36" viewing distance which no one uses for any device. Sorry, but your logic doesn't hold. 72dpi was the original size. Then it was bumped to 96 and 100. These were strictly limits of the devices of the day. 100 dpi is meaningless except that Steve Jobs insists that it's the end-all-be-all of screen resolutions.
Now, 1024x600 is also completely arbitrary but it at least has some merit.
Cell phones typically have 160-180 dpi displays and no one is complaining that the resolution is too high.
"Brilliant. Utterly Brilliant. This is similar to having a problem with your kitchen floor being wet due to a leaking roof & building a floor-mopping robot as a solution."
No, it's not. The key sequence had long since lost any need to avoid inadvertently pressing it and subsequent keyboard layouts made it one-handed anyway. There is no penalty whatsoever in making it a single key. The damage was already done.
It's about as silly as labelling a meta key with a font graphic that had utterly no meaning but looked pretty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_key
From the article:
"The development team originally went for their old Apple key, but Steve Jobs found it frustrating when "apples" filled up the Mac's menus next to the key commands. Since Jobs felt that this was an over-use of the company logo, he opted for a different key symbol. With only a few days left before deadline, the team's bitmap artist Susan Kare started researching for the Apple logo's successor. She was browsing through a symbol dictionary when she came across the cloverleaf-like symbol, used in Sweden for "attractions on a campground". When she showed it to the rest of the team, everyone liked it, and so it became the symbol of the 1984 Macintosh command key."
Now that is "Brilliant. Utterly Brilliant."
That is true, but IBM broke that with their idiotic 101 key layout that we're all stuck with now. Prior to that, you HAD to to use two hands. With the 101 key, you could slap your hand on the keyboard and reset the machine.
None of that matters since Windows has redefined the key sequence anyway. Now it might has well be a single key since nothing bad happens if you hit it by accident.
"Now they want to put it on a single button, surrounded by other tiny buttons? Someone had a real winner of an idea there..."
All your observations were right, but your conclusion was exactly wrong.
Why does any of this concern you? Why do you feel you're owed an explanation?
Could it be that an equal opportunity to respond is desired? It was, after all, a reply to someone else who felt the need to express heterosexuality.
Perhaps it was just intended to amuse.
"no one" is not hyphenated.
"By building separating people into communities instead of just being who you are in any community, aren't you effectively reversing the work that brave homosexuals did decades ago?"
No. Participating in a separate community doesn't mean they won't participate in the greater one. Gays are keenly aware of their position in society. They don't need you to help them understand.
...not to mention that the appeal of a "real woman" is somewhat selective. In fact, the penalties associated with one drive some to seek alternatives ;-)
Not that I consider OS X to be a "real woman", but at least a pig will love you regardless of how much money you have.
"They just require more effort and time..." ...and stuff. There's a reason her closet is a lot bigger than his.
Funny that all the examples you offer start out with someone making a mistake or using poor judgement, then you would have us believe that the liability for the resultant damage doesn't lie with them but rather an indexing site. Yes, you made your point. Sadly, it isn't a good one.
The internet is about broadcasting information, yet you would have us believe that it's important that no one listen.