Microsoft supported Windows 2000 up until 2010. A 10 year support life cycle. The LONGEST Apple has EVER officially supported a release of OS-X was 4 years, and it's generally 3 or less (n-2).
So I'm about to loose support for my Mac running 10.6? Why would Apple do that when they still offer 10.02 downloads? 10.2 was replaced with 10.3 almost 10 years ago. There goes your "4 years".
"Downloads" != "support". If, on a 10.2 machine, you fire up Software Update, as far as I know it'll inform you that there are no updates for your OS. If there's a security issue or serious bug in 10.2, you're stuck with it (unless it's in the open-source part and you can fix it yourself).
Below my desk is an MS Windows NT 4.0 Workstation PC I bought brand new in 1997. I was shocked in 2000 when I ran Windows Update and was told MS stopped releasing new updates for it. There were no more updates available. The last tyme I checked, maybe a couple of years ago, MS still offered update downloads, but they are all old updates. And as you say "Downloads" != "support".
You may be able to get it, but no security patches will go in. My mac is a B&W G3 upgraded to a G4/600 and it hasn't been patched by Apple in at least 6 years (when X.4 support ended). I have manually patched quite a bit of it, but usually I run Yellow Dog Linux on it.
The Apple Power Macintosh G3 450 (Blue & White) was discontinued in 1999. That was 14 years ago and even if Apple discontinued support 6 years ago that leaves 7 years the Mac was supported.
On the other hand in December 1997 I bought a brand new PC with MS Windows NT 4.0 Workstation. In 2000 MS stopped updating NT4 for it. Last I checked, maybe 2 years ago MS still provided the downloads that were available for it but stopped updating the system. I realize now I was a fool in getting it as it's a DEC Alpha based PC. I believed all the hype about it being able to run all the software that ran in NT4, but of all the programs I bought for it I was only able to install Borland C++ Power Builder. What I thought was weird though is that I downloaded and was able to install freeware and shareware on it. For the price I could have bought a PPC Mac and ran the Mac OS, MS Windows, and Linux.
Oh, and I still have the DEC Alpha. When it ran programs it was fast. And it's setup to dual-boot Redhat 7 Linux.
Of course the government is likely to be "bigger and better armed than any individual" but I guess you missed where I said "heavily armed military" and the military "used biological and chemical weapons". An AK47 is nothing compared to a chemical weapon dropped on a village. If lucky the shooter may cripple or down an aircraft otherwise people are not going to stop the aircraft from dropping said chemical bomb. An armed populace both protects and has to use free speech, they have to work together. Without arms free speech isn't good enough, Syria practically shut down the press opposed to the regime. A few brave reporters sneaked into Syria, putting their lives in jeopardy.
My point was that free speech alone is not enough against a regime that will do whatever it takes to win. Peace loving Gandhi advocated violence for self-defense. Between Cowardice And Violence he said " I WOULD risk violence a thousand times rather than risk the emasculation of a whole race." Speech alone is unlikely to stop violence. Between speech and being armed, I'd rather be armed as speech may be neutralized, but an armed populace can not be stopped without massive interventions, such as the chemical weapons Saddam dropped on Iraqi villages.
I've been using OS X for quite awhile (10.3 I think) laptop wise, and linux on my desktop forever. But I've developed the same sense of not really wanting to go from Snow Leopard to Lion or get new Apple hardware even. I've recently been running Fedora 17 on my Desktop and I have to say, I've come to like Gnome 3 quite a bit. I was at first totally skeptical about it, but not as skeptical as Unity, and after a relatively short period of time, came to prefer it over Gnome 2.
My MacBook Pro came new with 10.4 Tiger. Now it runs Snow Leopard 10.6 and Ubuntu 12.04. My desktop runs 12.04 too. I also build PCs and install Xubuntu 12.04 on them. I am preparing to install Linux Mint 13 and Arch Linux in VMs, on a USB Flash I can move it from laptop to desktop. As for desktop environments, so far all I have on my Mac is Unity but on my desktop PC I also installed KDE. And for Linux Mint I want to try Cinnamon, KDE, and MATE.
My desktop doesn't have wifi though, so it isn't a complete test.
Having installed Xubuntu 12.04 on a number of laptops, the hardest problem I've had is getting WiFi to work. WiFi worked right away on two laptops but that's the only ones I got WiFi to work on.
I have a Mini right here that will do fine with the latest Ubuntu and will do fine with Win7 (and probably Win8) too. Yet it is now officially unsupported by Apple.
I have a MacBook Pro r3.1 and can walk into an Apple store and get support at the Genius Bar for it. I have Snow Leopard 10.6 on it, along with Ubuntu 12.04, and I can upgrade the OS to Mountain Lion if I wanted.
The single biggest problem with being a MacOS user is putting up with Macs. They have been overpriced and under spec'ed since the 68K days.
1996 calling, it wants its mime back. For many years Mac prices have been comparable to similarly configured MS Windows PCs. I bought my MBP almost 6 years ago and before I bought it I compared its price to similarly configured Windows laptops. the cheapest was $150 less, one was about the same price, but the rest cost more. The problem with Macs, other than the Mac Pro, is that to compare prices people have to start with a Mac as Apple does not offer most of the configuration options Windows OEMs offer. The problem with Mac Pros is that they have not been updated, other than minor speed bumps, since June 2010. Today's consumer Macs offer just as much processing power as Mac Pros do, if not more.
Microsoft supported Windows 2000 up until 2010. A 10 year support life cycle. The LONGEST Apple has EVER officially supported a release of OS-X was 4 years, and it's generally 3 or less (n-2).
So I'm about to loose support for my Mac running 10.6? Why would Apple do that when they still offer 10.02 downloads? 10.2 was replaced with 10.3 almost 10 years ago. There goes your "4 years".
Then insist you should buy a new computer. OS X is like leasing a car vs. owning one.
I'm using Snow Leopard, 10.6 and if I don't want to I don't have to install Lion or Mountain Lion and I can still use my Mac. Ubuntu stops supporting 10.04 desktop in April, and 12.04 server in 2015. And 10.04 is a Long Term Support edition. Canonical increased LTS to 5 years now for both version starting with 12.04. That is shorter than Apple's, and Microsoft's support.
I think however that I bought my last PC (personal computer) and OS from Apple. I may buy another Macbook Pro but I'm not sure. I don't think so but I may also try to build a Hachintosh.
@ submittor: if you don't like OSX 10.8 (Mountain Lion), why not just go back to snow leopard? It's stable as a rock. My personal opinion is I like the additional usability in mountain lion, but obv ymmv.
I'm typing this on a MaBook Pro running Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6). Actually I dual-boot it, with Ubuntu 12.04. I switched from MS Windows to Linux and OS X because I don't like how MS treats it's customers, like criminals. Which is what Activation is all about. However now Apple is acting in a similar way. Mountain Lion has to be downloaded and installed via the app store. Snow Leopard was the last OS X that came on an optical disc. After that Lion came on a USB Flash drive but Mountain Lion has to be downloaded. Seeing as this MBP is getting old, approaching 6 years I may replace it with the last MBP version that's 17", or maybe a 15" running Lion. But after that I think I've replace my laptop with one running Linux.
As for a desktop, I have a Quad Core also running Ubuntu 12.04. I have installed KDE along with Unity to try on the desktop. Using Virtualbox I'm preparing to install Linux Mint and Arch Linux in VMs to try out. I'll install both on a USB Flash drive which I can use on both my desktop and my laptop. On Mint I plan to try MATE, Cinnamon, and KDE to see what I prefer. For Arch I haven't decided yet what desktop environment(s) I'll use. I only plan to use it because it comes with CinePaint, it does deep color editing which I want to do with my photography while GIMP does not. I'll try Krita for the same reason, though not as deep as CinePaint.
I'm aware of the circumstances leading up to the Gulf War, but I'm not sure how that makes your point.
You're not sure how a heavily armed military can defeat rebels with AK47s? Especially one that had and used biological and chemical weapons, ie Weapons of Mass Destruction?
My point was unlike on Earth whether on mars or in space you still need to build structures to enclose your farm. You can't get away with a cheap fence. You may even need to process the Martian soil first before you can use it. Whereas in space you just do hydroponics/aeroponics or whatever and it works (NASA's plans for Mars involve aeroponics anyway - so they're not even going to use the martian soil for growing food).
Why can't techniques be used on Mars that can be used on asteroids? Actually though I didn't say it I thinking of using hydroponics though aeroponics should be feasible. Also what I was thinking was that samples of living soil, which would include ants and worms along with micro-organisms would be taken too. This initial soil can be mixed with Martian "dirt" to increase growing media.
There's no proof that 0.38g is good enough for humans long term. Nobody has done any experiments on that. Best way to do test is to put a centrifuge in space. But if you can put a centrifuge in space or spin the space station (or swing it with tethers and counterweights), then you no longer have that weightlessness problem.
And a centrifuge can't be built on Mars? We can build one on Earth but not Mars?
As for the radiation problem you need to solve that before sending people to Mars anyway. Otherwise they'd just get fried on the trip there.
Do you have scientific evidence humans can not survive the trip to Mars? Or is this just a guess? Valeri Polyakov lived on the International Space Station more than 430 days, a total of 437 days from lift-off to landing back on Earth. That's more than twice as long as the trip to Mars. The ISS may get a little protection from radiation but I doubt it's that much. Sergei Avdeyev also spent more than a year in space. The ISS itself has been occupied for more than 12 years solid.
All your objection I see to a Mars colony also applies to colonies in space and on asteroids.
Therefore as I've said in other posts - it makes more sense to build that 1g radiation shielded space station _first_ then you can test out a lot of things (develop space colony tech or even growing stuff in mars-like soil and 0.38g). Not do stupid crazy Mars projects where there are so many things you don't know will work yet but have to get solved or it becomes a very expensive very short nasty one way trip to Mars.
To you maybe, but to those more qualified you're wrong. And by "more qualified" I mean having the scientific expertise and or the money to fund such a project. Personally as long as government does not pay for it I don't care, I actually support all those who want to use corporate, NGO, and or private money to fund any such project. I say let the best ideas win, with competition encouraging improvements.
I think you're being overly optimistic - you want to get a moon colony with a mining operation, a refinery, and a factory all established in order to save a few bucks on a Mars mission?
In my post you replied to where did I say anything about saving money? In any post where did I say anything about saving money by establishing a lunar operation or colony to save money to go to Mars? Nowhere, that's where. Where I did say something about saving money was where it came to heavy lift rockets. I specifically stated SpaceX and Falcon9 proved commercial operations could lower the costs of launch over what NASA paid.
Since you don't understand that, or are intentionally misstating I did say I see no reason to answer the rest of your post.
What's the point of colonies on Mars and Venus when you can't actually use all that land surface without building structures that practically cover the entire land surface in use (to keep people, livestock, plants etc alive)?
A lot of land is not needed to grow food. The majority of the land used in agriculture now is used to grow food for animals such as cows. Reduce, not eliminate just reduce, the amount of meat people eat and a lot less land would have to be used for food.
It's not like surrounding a large area with fencing/walls and letting the cows/crops just grow. You have to cover all those areas or your crops/livestock will die.
I don't know, and I doubt anyone else does either, how much crops can be grown on the surface of Mars. However say 10 people make the trip, they can bring enough food with them for 13 months. With the trip lasting 7 months, if a resupply ship with 6 months of supplies were sent 3 months after they left they would have 4 months supply still left when the resupply arrived. After they did arrive they could plant different crops to see how they grew. Keeping a margin of 4 months of supplies, colonizers should get an idea if they can grow enough food of their own after a year. During that tyme though they can also be mining for more raw building materials. Underground caverns left from mining can be converted to more gardening along with living space. These can be ready made for newly arriving colonizers who arrive with every resupply ship in not every other one.
For that same cost you might as well have colonies in space, and mine asteroids. Then you don't have the inconvenience and expense of being stuck in an inhospitable gravity well.
No, then you have the ill effects of weightlessness and radiation. It's not nearly as much as earth's but Mars does have some gravity. And those caverns left from mining provide shelter from radiation.
I suspect very bad weather damaging your buildings in Mars/Venus is more likely than your space colony being damaged by very bad solar weather or asteroid strikes.
There's little to no weather underground. Bad solar weather is actually going to be worse in space and on asteroids than on Mars. I'm not sure but I heard and believe asteroid collisions are actually worse on asteroids than they are on Mars too.
SpaceX and Falcon9 has proven it does not have to cost nearly as much. Privately and commercially financed projects typically cost much less than government projects. NASA and the rest of the International Space Station partners are using Falcon9 rockets to supply the ISS because it is cheaper. However even if a lot of the cost can't be shaved off I have no problem with with projects like this trying. As long as taxpayer money is not spent let them go for it.
Why build at the lagrange point rather than LEO? Even if you plan to launch from there for some reason it takes the same amount of energy to move the ship in pieces as it does whole, and a LEO is a lot more convenient to get to. The Moon is even worse since you're dropping Earth-originating stuff into a new gravity well (which takes fuel since you can't aerobrake) and then lifting it back out again when you're done. Unless we're using local materials of course, but that would likely require an extremely mature Moonbase to be possible.
Lagrange because they're "between earth and moon" and if the raw materials are mined from the moon it would be easier because there's less gravity to overcome. Yes that would require a moon station but building and operating it would allow training on how to do it on Mars. It would be practical experience. Build a station on the moon as an exercise in training which can then be directly transferred to Mars. Having people live on the Moon would also be training for how to live on Mars once the 7 month journey is compleated. Of course that may take longer to get to Mars.
And yet all those millions of Iraqis with AK-47s didn't change anything in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Maybe your analysis is a little lacking?
But did Iraqis have AK-47s under Saddam? And how effective were they against US aid to Saddam? Reagan and Bush Sr allowed Saddam to use biological and chemical weapons against not just Iran but Iraqis too. And Saddam used them to great effect against his opponents. US support for Saddam Hussein only ended after Saddam invaded Kuwait, a non-democratic Sheikdom like much of the rest of the Arab world. What's really bad is that Bush, or at least his admin, knew Saddam was going to invade Kuwait but did nothing to stop it.
And why did he invade Kuwait? Because Kuwait was Slant drilling into Iraq stealing Iraqi oil. Of course once Iraq was evicted from Kuwait the oil field was given to Kuwait, the Kuwaiti border was moved by the UN to encompass "11 oil wells, some farms and an old naval base that used to be in Iraq on the Kuwaiti side."
The mining module stuck to the asteroid does not have to spin. The space station 1g part does not have to be a wheel shape nor does it have to be attached to the asteroid. It can be a "bucket" + tethers + docking hub + counter weights (supplies etc).
Without spin I don't know how there will be weightiness and it's been shown that weightlessness has ill health effects.
Why would Mars have greater potential to grow into a true (and thriving) colony or nation, than a collection of space stations? On Mars the atmosphere will remain 1/100th that of Earth, the "gravity" will remain 38% that of Earth. That isn't going to change for a long time. So all your living areas are still going to be like space stations. So where's that greater potential going to come from?
Living chambers can be dug into the ground, the deeper it's dug the more radiation shielding there is. The video linked to shows shelter being setup on the surface, with a roving robot assembling it with delivered supplies, before the first humans arrive. Those first humans can then tunnel and mine into Mars to get the raw materials to build underground shelter. which they would be carving out of Mars.
Then there's transportation. Are your mines and living areas all going to conveniently be in the same spot? If they aren't how are you going to transport stuff/people from one place to another? Flying is difficult in 1/100th air. Building roads in Mars isn't going to be that cheap. Shoot stuff from a gun?
Mine first then convert empty chambers into living quarters. For transport, use the same sort of, if not the same, rovers to explore Mars before the first humans arrive. Of course the first settlers won't be getting very far very fast but as the settlements expand they can be tied together via railroad trains, on or under the ground. It can't be much more difficult to build tracks on Mars as it's been on earth. We might even be able to use robot rovers for that. If they can build shelter I'd think they can build railroad tracks too.
Why would having a colony in Mars actually be better than having a colony in space instead?
A colony on Mars would have access to planetary resources, such as ice, to provide water, oxygen, and hydrogen. The settlement could also theoretically be excavated below the surface and covered with "soil" to provide better radiation shielding. The presence of an atmosphere, even if it's a lot less than Earth's, gives at least a little bit of safety and time to respond to life support emergencies than a space station would. It would act as the first stage for longer term, higher population, colonization than could be supported on a space station.
Watch the video, it shows a settlement on the surface. I agree though building underground may provide adequate protection against radiation. At least for shorter stays, however those going are planned to live there permanently.
Having space stations, in orbit and on the moon, can give people a chance to see if they can handle a trip to Mars. Where they will spend the rest of their life. The trip to Mars is supposed to take 7 months, so if the people going can live in a space station for 7 months they can have a better idea of whether they can live well on the trip to Mars.
- Longer trip times (most plans I've seen call for at least 1-6 months, one-way) means we need much better life support systems. A lot of that has been developed for the ISS,
The video says the trip will take 7 months.
- Extended stay on Mars: this is a serious endeavor. Maybe we can just drop an ISS-equivalent system and have it function well enough for a while, but more likely we'll need a more self-sufficient ecosystem, and there's still very limited research as to how to actually pull that one off.
It also says the first people going will be living there the rest of their lives.
- Return trip
See above.
- Takeoff could be a problem.
Same there.
I'd like to see studies compare going straight to Mars versus establishing a Moon base first and using that as the departure point for Mars. Of course we could also study whether using a Lagrange point between the earth and moon may be more practical. A factory there could build a rocket with a life support system for the trip to Mars, with building supplies sent to the factory.
What good is a gun without ammunition? (what if instead of controlling guns, the US govt would switch to ban ammunition and/or gun powder and/or primers? It'd be just as simple as to make "illegal to possess or handle explosives in any shape, form or packaging without a license"... this in the name of "the war on terror")
Banning ammo would be even harder. Although few do it some people make their own ammo. Making gunpowder is and isn't easy. Ammo shells can repeatedly be reused. And it's easy to form new slugs by melting old ones.
Don't think judges care about freedom and happiness, they are there to legitimize the government by insuring its regulations are consistent, even they are written by Satan himself.
Except a number of Supreme Court rulings have found what the federal government does unconstitutional. Regarding FDR's New Deal the Supreme Court ruled the National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the first version of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) unconstitutional. After they did this FDR tried to add more Justices to the Supreme Court as well as force current Justices to retire when they reached 70 years old. Opponents accused him of Court Packing for this attempt.
Then again the Justices rubber stamped some the then current administration positions too, and came up with outrageous theories to back it up. In 2005 they ruled in Gonzales v. Raich that the federal government could stop states from legalizing medical marijuana. Although California making it legal had nothing to do with it the court ruled the feds could use the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution of the USA to bar states from legalizing marijuana.
The problem with Free Speech is that most people have nothing important to say, so they need a gun to make you listen.
No, the problem is a demonstrator with a sign using free speech can not stop a tank as happened in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Free speech didn't help the 2009–2010 Iranian election protests. And it's not helping much in Syria today. Without firearms to back up free speech free speech means little, is practically useless, and may get demonstrators killed.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft supported Windows 2000 up until 2010. A 10 year support life cycle. The LONGEST Apple has EVER officially supported a release of OS-X was 4 years, and it's generally 3 or less (n-2).
So I'm about to loose support for my Mac running 10.6? Why would Apple do that when they still offer 10.02 downloads? 10.2 was replaced with 10.3 almost 10 years ago. There goes your "4 years".
"Downloads" != "support". If, on a 10.2 machine, you fire up Software Update, as far as I know it'll inform you that there are no updates for your OS. If there's a security issue or serious bug in 10.2, you're stuck with it (unless it's in the open-source part and you can fix it yourself).
Below my desk is an MS Windows NT 4.0 Workstation PC I bought brand new in 1997. I was shocked in 2000 when I ran Windows Update and was told MS stopped releasing new updates for it. There were no more updates available. The last tyme I checked, maybe a couple of years ago, MS still offered update downloads, but they are all old updates. And as you say "Downloads" != "support".
Falcon
You may be able to get it, but no security patches will go in. My mac is a B&W G3 upgraded to a G4/600 and it hasn't been patched by Apple in at least 6 years (when X.4 support ended). I have manually patched quite a bit of it, but usually I run Yellow Dog Linux on it.
The Apple Power Macintosh G3 450 (Blue & White) was discontinued in 1999. That was 14 years ago and even if Apple discontinued support 6 years ago that leaves 7 years the Mac was supported.
On the other hand in December 1997 I bought a brand new PC with MS Windows NT 4.0 Workstation. In 2000 MS stopped updating NT4 for it. Last I checked, maybe 2 years ago MS still provided the downloads that were available for it but stopped updating the system. I realize now I was a fool in getting it as it's a DEC Alpha based PC. I believed all the hype about it being able to run all the software that ran in NT4, but of all the programs I bought for it I was only able to install Borland C++ Power Builder. What I thought was weird though is that I downloaded and was able to install freeware and shareware on it. For the price I could have bought a PPC Mac and ran the Mac OS, MS Windows, and Linux.
Oh, and I still have the DEC Alpha. When it ran programs it was fast. And it's setup to dual-boot Redhat 7 Linux.
Falcon
Of course the government is likely to be "bigger and better armed than any individual" but I guess you missed where I said "heavily armed military" and the military "used biological and chemical weapons". An AK47 is nothing compared to a chemical weapon dropped on a village. If lucky the shooter may cripple or down an aircraft otherwise people are not going to stop the aircraft from dropping said chemical bomb. An armed populace both protects and has to use free speech, they have to work together. Without arms free speech isn't good enough, Syria practically shut down the press opposed to the regime. A few brave reporters sneaked into Syria, putting their lives in jeopardy.
My point was that free speech alone is not enough against a regime that will do whatever it takes to win. Peace loving Gandhi advocated violence for self-defense. Between Cowardice And Violence he said " I WOULD risk violence a thousand times rather than risk the emasculation of a whole race." Speech alone is unlikely to stop violence. Between speech and being armed, I'd rather be armed as speech may be neutralized, but an armed populace can not be stopped without massive interventions, such as the chemical weapons Saddam dropped on Iraqi villages.
Falcon
I've been using OS X for quite awhile (10.3 I think) laptop wise, and linux on my desktop forever. But I've developed the same sense of not really wanting to go from Snow Leopard to Lion or get new Apple hardware even. I've recently been running Fedora 17 on my Desktop and I have to say, I've come to like Gnome 3 quite a bit. I was at first totally skeptical about it, but not as skeptical as Unity, and after a relatively short period of time, came to prefer it over Gnome 2.
My MacBook Pro came new with 10.4 Tiger. Now it runs Snow Leopard 10.6 and Ubuntu 12.04. My desktop runs 12.04 too. I also build PCs and install Xubuntu 12.04 on them. I am preparing to install Linux Mint 13 and Arch Linux in VMs, on a USB Flash I can move it from laptop to desktop. As for desktop environments, so far all I have on my Mac is Unity but on my desktop PC I also installed KDE. And for Linux Mint I want to try Cinnamon, KDE, and MATE.
My desktop doesn't have wifi though, so it isn't a complete test.
Having installed Xubuntu 12.04 on a number of laptops, the hardest problem I've had is getting WiFi to work. WiFi worked right away on two laptops but that's the only ones I got WiFi to work on.
Falcon
One good reason to purchase a mac with Mountain Lion is to be authorized to develop for iOS
I can, but won't, develop for iOS on my Mac running Snow Leopard. I don't like the crippled iOS or the hardware it runs on.
Ron Paul
What do you think of Rand Paul?
Falcon
My next Macpro will almost certainly be a used one from EBay; something I know I can install 10.6.8 on and keep all my stuff solid.
I may buy another MacBook Pro but I'm not sure. However I'm running 10.6.8 right now.
I like the machines I own, I even like OSX at the 10.6 level, but Apple annoys the heck out of me.
Same here.
And yes, Linux powers my servers.
OS X Snow Leopard, and Ubuntu 12.04, run my MacBook Pro. And Ubuntu 12.04 runs my desktop, which I hope to set up soon as a server.
Falcon
I have a Mini right here that will do fine with the latest Ubuntu and will do fine with Win7 (and probably Win8) too. Yet it is now officially unsupported by Apple.
I have a MacBook Pro r3.1 and can walk into an Apple store and get support at the Genius Bar for it. I have Snow Leopard 10.6 on it, along with Ubuntu 12.04, and I can upgrade the OS to Mountain Lion if I wanted.
The single biggest problem with being a MacOS user is putting up with Macs. They have been overpriced and under spec'ed since the 68K days.
1996 calling, it wants its mime back. For many years Mac prices have been comparable to similarly configured MS Windows PCs. I bought my MBP almost 6 years ago and before I bought it I compared its price to similarly configured Windows laptops. the cheapest was $150 less, one was about the same price, but the rest cost more. The problem with Macs, other than the Mac Pro, is that to compare prices people have to start with a Mac as Apple does not offer most of the configuration options Windows OEMs offer. The problem with Mac Pros is that they have not been updated, other than minor speed bumps, since June 2010. Today's consumer Macs offer just as much processing power as Mac Pros do, if not more.
Oh, and I'm a Mac and Ubuntu user.
Falcon
Microsoft supported Windows 2000 up until 2010. A 10 year support life cycle. The LONGEST Apple has EVER officially supported a release of OS-X was 4 years, and it's generally 3 or less (n-2).
So I'm about to loose support for my Mac running 10.6? Why would Apple do that when they still offer 10.02 downloads? 10.2 was replaced with 10.3 almost 10 years ago. There goes your "4 years".
Falcon
away from you
Apple still offers PPC Mac and 10.2 downloads.
Then insist you should buy a new computer. OS X is like leasing a car vs. owning one.
I'm using Snow Leopard, 10.6 and if I don't want to I don't have to install Lion or Mountain Lion and I can still use my Mac. Ubuntu stops supporting 10.04 desktop in April, and 12.04 server in 2015. And 10.04 is a Long Term Support edition. Canonical increased LTS to 5 years now for both version starting with 12.04. That is shorter than Apple's, and Microsoft's support.
I think however that I bought my last PC (personal computer) and OS from Apple. I may buy another Macbook Pro but I'm not sure. I don't think so but I may also try to build a Hachintosh.
Falcon
@ submittor: if you don't like OSX 10.8 (Mountain Lion), why not just go back to snow leopard? It's stable as a rock. My personal opinion is I like the additional usability in mountain lion, but obv ymmv.
I'm typing this on a MaBook Pro running Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6). Actually I dual-boot it, with Ubuntu 12.04. I switched from MS Windows to Linux and OS X because I don't like how MS treats it's customers, like criminals. Which is what Activation is all about. However now Apple is acting in a similar way. Mountain Lion has to be downloaded and installed via the app store. Snow Leopard was the last OS X that came on an optical disc. After that Lion came on a USB Flash drive but Mountain Lion has to be downloaded. Seeing as this MBP is getting old, approaching 6 years I may replace it with the last MBP version that's 17", or maybe a 15" running Lion. But after that I think I've replace my laptop with one running Linux.
As for a desktop, I have a Quad Core also running Ubuntu 12.04. I have installed KDE along with Unity to try on the desktop. Using Virtualbox I'm preparing to install Linux Mint and Arch Linux in VMs to try out. I'll install both on a USB Flash drive which I can use on both my desktop and my laptop. On Mint I plan to try MATE, Cinnamon, and KDE to see what I prefer. For Arch I haven't decided yet what desktop environment(s) I'll use. I only plan to use it because it comes with CinePaint, it does deep color editing which I want to do with my photography while GIMP does not. I'll try Krita for the same reason, though not as deep as CinePaint.
Falcon
I'm aware of the circumstances leading up to the Gulf War, but I'm not sure how that makes your point.
You're not sure how a heavily armed military can defeat rebels with AK47s? Especially one that had and used biological and chemical weapons, ie Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Falcon
My point was unlike on Earth whether on mars or in space you still need to build structures to enclose your farm. You can't get away with a cheap fence. You may even need to process the Martian soil first before you can use it. Whereas in space you just do hydroponics/aeroponics or whatever and it works (NASA's plans for Mars involve aeroponics anyway - so they're not even going to use the martian soil for growing food).
Why can't techniques be used on Mars that can be used on asteroids? Actually though I didn't say it I thinking of using hydroponics though aeroponics should be feasible. Also what I was thinking was that samples of living soil, which would include ants and worms along with micro-organisms would be taken too. This initial soil can be mixed with Martian "dirt" to increase growing media.
There's no proof that 0.38g is good enough for humans long term. Nobody has done any experiments on that. Best way to do test is to put a centrifuge in space. But if you can put a centrifuge in space or spin the space station (or swing it with tethers and counterweights), then you no longer have that weightlessness problem.
And a centrifuge can't be built on Mars? We can build one on Earth but not Mars?
As for the radiation problem you need to solve that before sending people to Mars anyway. Otherwise they'd just get fried on the trip there.
Do you have scientific evidence humans can not survive the trip to Mars? Or is this just a guess? Valeri Polyakov lived on the International Space Station more than 430 days, a total of 437 days from lift-off to landing back on Earth. That's more than twice as long as the trip to Mars. The ISS may get a little protection from radiation but I doubt it's that much. Sergei Avdeyev also spent more than a year in space. The ISS itself has been occupied for more than 12 years solid.
All your objection I see to a Mars colony also applies to colonies in space and on asteroids.
Therefore as I've said in other posts - it makes more sense to build that 1g radiation shielded space station _first_ then you can test out a lot of things (develop space colony tech or even growing stuff in mars-like soil and 0.38g). Not do stupid crazy Mars projects where there are so many things you don't know will work yet but have to get solved or it becomes a very expensive very short nasty one way trip to Mars.
To you maybe, but to those more qualified you're wrong. And by "more qualified" I mean having the scientific expertise and or the money to fund such a project. Personally as long as government does not pay for it I don't care, I actually support all those who want to use corporate, NGO, and or private money to fund any such project. I say let the best ideas win, with competition encouraging improvements.
Falcon
I think you're being overly optimistic - you want to get a moon colony with a mining operation, a refinery, and a factory all established in order to save a few bucks on a Mars mission?
In my post you replied to where did I say anything about saving money? In any post where did I say anything about saving money by establishing a lunar operation or colony to save money to go to Mars? Nowhere, that's where. Where I did say something about saving money was where it came to heavy lift rockets. I specifically stated SpaceX and Falcon9 proved commercial operations could lower the costs of launch over what NASA paid.
Since you don't understand that, or are intentionally misstating I did say I see no reason to answer the rest of your post.
Falcon
What's the point of colonies on Mars and Venus when you can't actually use all that land surface without building structures that practically cover the entire land surface in use (to keep people, livestock, plants etc alive)?
A lot of land is not needed to grow food. The majority of the land used in agriculture now is used to grow food for animals such as cows. Reduce, not eliminate just reduce, the amount of meat people eat and a lot less land would have to be used for food.
It's not like surrounding a large area with fencing/walls and letting the cows/crops just grow. You have to cover all those areas or your crops/livestock will die.
I don't know, and I doubt anyone else does either, how much crops can be grown on the surface of Mars. However say 10 people make the trip, they can bring enough food with them for 13 months. With the trip lasting 7 months, if a resupply ship with 6 months of supplies were sent 3 months after they left they would have 4 months supply still left when the resupply arrived. After they did arrive they could plant different crops to see how they grew. Keeping a margin of 4 months of supplies, colonizers should get an idea if they can grow enough food of their own after a year. During that tyme though they can also be mining for more raw building materials. Underground caverns left from mining can be converted to more gardening along with living space. These can be ready made for newly arriving colonizers who arrive with every resupply ship in not every other one.
For that same cost you might as well have colonies in space, and mine asteroids. Then you don't have the inconvenience and expense of being stuck in an inhospitable gravity well.
No, then you have the ill effects of weightlessness and radiation. It's not nearly as much as earth's but Mars does have some gravity. And those caverns left from mining provide shelter from radiation.
I suspect very bad weather damaging your buildings in Mars/Venus is more likely than your space colony being damaged by very bad solar weather or asteroid strikes.
There's little to no weather underground. Bad solar weather is actually going to be worse in space and on asteroids than on Mars. I'm not sure but I heard and believe asteroid collisions are actually worse on asteroids than they are on Mars too.
Falcon
SpaceX and Falcon9 has proven it does not have to cost nearly as much. Privately and commercially financed projects typically cost much less than government projects. NASA and the rest of the International Space Station partners are using Falcon9 rockets to supply the ISS because it is cheaper. However even if a lot of the cost can't be shaved off I have no problem with with projects like this trying. As long as taxpayer money is not spent let them go for it.
Falcon
Why build at the lagrange point rather than LEO? Even if you plan to launch from there for some reason it takes the same amount of energy to move the ship in pieces as it does whole, and a LEO is a lot more convenient to get to. The Moon is even worse since you're dropping Earth-originating stuff into a new gravity well (which takes fuel since you can't aerobrake) and then lifting it back out again when you're done. Unless we're using local materials of course, but that would likely require an extremely mature Moonbase to be possible.
Lagrange because they're "between earth and moon" and if the raw materials are mined from the moon it would be easier because there's less gravity to overcome. Yes that would require a moon station but building and operating it would allow training on how to do it on Mars. It would be practical experience. Build a station on the moon as an exercise in training which can then be directly transferred to Mars. Having people live on the Moon would also be training for how to live on Mars once the 7 month journey is compleated. Of course that may take longer to get to Mars.
Falcon
And yet all those millions of Iraqis with AK-47s didn't change anything in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Maybe your analysis is a little lacking?
But did Iraqis have AK-47s under Saddam? And how effective were they against US aid to Saddam? Reagan and Bush Sr allowed Saddam to use biological and chemical weapons against not just Iran but Iraqis too. And Saddam used them to great effect against his opponents. US support for Saddam Hussein only ended after Saddam invaded Kuwait, a non-democratic Sheikdom like much of the rest of the Arab world. What's really bad is that Bush, or at least his admin, knew Saddam was going to invade Kuwait but did nothing to stop it.
And why did he invade Kuwait? Because Kuwait was Slant drilling into Iraq stealing Iraqi oil. Of course once Iraq was evicted from Kuwait the oil field was given to Kuwait, the Kuwaiti border was moved by the UN to encompass "11 oil wells, some farms and an old naval base that used to be in Iraq on the Kuwaiti side."
Falcon
The mining module stuck to the asteroid does not have to spin. The space station 1g part does not have to be a wheel shape nor does it have to be attached to the asteroid. It can be a "bucket" + tethers + docking hub + counter weights (supplies etc).
Without spin I don't know how there will be weightiness and it's been shown that weightlessness has ill health effects.
Why would Mars have greater potential to grow into a true (and thriving) colony or nation, than a collection of space stations? On Mars the atmosphere will remain 1/100th that of Earth, the "gravity" will remain 38% that of Earth. That isn't going to change for a long time. So all your living areas are still going to be like space stations. So where's that greater potential going to come from?
Living chambers can be dug into the ground, the deeper it's dug the more radiation shielding there is. The video linked to shows shelter being setup on the surface, with a roving robot assembling it with delivered supplies, before the first humans arrive. Those first humans can then tunnel and mine into Mars to get the raw materials to build underground shelter. which they would be carving out of Mars.
Then there's transportation. Are your mines and living areas all going to conveniently be in the same spot? If they aren't how are you going to transport stuff/people from one place to another? Flying is difficult in 1/100th air. Building roads in Mars isn't going to be that cheap. Shoot stuff from a gun?
Mine first then convert empty chambers into living quarters. For transport, use the same sort of, if not the same, rovers to explore Mars before the first humans arrive. Of course the first settlers won't be getting very far very fast but as the settlements expand they can be tied together via railroad trains, on or under the ground. It can't be much more difficult to build tracks on Mars as it's been on earth. We might even be able to use robot rovers for that. If they can build shelter I'd think they can build railroad tracks too.
Falcon
Why would having a colony in Mars actually be better than having a colony in space instead?
A colony on Mars would have access to planetary resources, such as ice, to provide water, oxygen, and hydrogen. The settlement could also theoretically be excavated below the surface and covered with "soil" to provide better radiation shielding. The presence of an atmosphere, even if it's a lot less than Earth's, gives at least a little bit of safety and time to respond to life support emergencies than a space station would. It would act as the first stage for longer term, higher population, colonization than could be supported on a space station.
Watch the video, it shows a settlement on the surface. I agree though building underground may provide adequate protection against radiation. At least for shorter stays, however those going are planned to live there permanently.
Having space stations, in orbit and on the moon, can give people a chance to see if they can handle a trip to Mars. Where they will spend the rest of their life. The trip to Mars is supposed to take 7 months, so if the people going can live in a space station for 7 months they can have a better idea of whether they can live well on the trip to Mars.
Falcon
- Longer trip times (most plans I've seen call for at least 1-6 months, one-way) means we need much better life support systems. A lot of that has been developed for the ISS,
The video says the trip will take 7 months.
- Extended stay on Mars: this is a serious endeavor. Maybe we can just drop an ISS-equivalent system and have it function well enough for a while, but more likely we'll need a more self-sufficient ecosystem, and there's still very limited research as to how to actually pull that one off.
It also says the first people going will be living there the rest of their lives.
- Return trip
See above.
- Takeoff could be a problem.
Same there.
I'd like to see studies compare going straight to Mars versus establishing a Moon base first and using that as the departure point for Mars. Of course we could also study whether using a Lagrange point between the earth and moon may be more practical. A factory there could build a rocket with a life support system for the trip to Mars, with building supplies sent to the factory.
Falcon
The law is outdated and should regulate the parts that are hardest to produce.
BS. The law needs to be pulled out from the law books by it's roots and left to shrivel and die.
Falcon
What good is a gun without ammunition? (what if instead of controlling guns, the US govt would switch to ban ammunition and/or gun powder and/or primers? It'd be just as simple as to make "illegal to possess or handle explosives in any shape, form or packaging without a license"... this in the name of "the war on terror")
Banning ammo would be even harder. Although few do it some people make their own ammo. Making gunpowder is and isn't easy. Ammo shells can repeatedly be reused. And it's easy to form new slugs by melting old ones.
Falcon
Don't think judges care about freedom and happiness, they are there to legitimize the government by insuring its regulations are consistent, even they are written by Satan himself.
Except a number of Supreme Court rulings have found what the federal government does unconstitutional. Regarding FDR's New Deal the Supreme Court ruled the National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the first version of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) unconstitutional. After they did this FDR tried to add more Justices to the Supreme Court as well as force current Justices to retire when they reached 70 years old. Opponents accused him of Court Packing for this attempt.
Then again the Justices rubber stamped some the then current administration positions too, and came up with outrageous theories to back it up. In 2005 they ruled in Gonzales v. Raich that the federal government could stop states from legalizing medical marijuana. Although California making it legal had nothing to do with it the court ruled the feds could use the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution of the USA to bar states from legalizing marijuana.
Falcon
The problem with Free Speech is that most people have nothing important to say, so they need a gun to make you listen.
No, the problem is a demonstrator with a sign using free speech can not stop a tank as happened in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Free speech didn't help the 2009–2010 Iranian election protests. And it's not helping much in Syria today. Without firearms to back up free speech free speech means little, is practically useless, and may get demonstrators killed.
Falcon
is who would name their kid "Code". My second thought is "duh, I'm on Slashdot".
Rock star Frank Zappa named his daughter Moon Zappa.
Falcon