Right now, the only government assigned ID system (in the US) is the Social Security Card, which is just a number and a name (which is not enough to validate the true identity of the person)
Social Security cars are not supposed to be used as id cards period. And have never been. When they are used this way they are improperly being used.
Hell right now we could get most of that with your SSN, a picture of you, and a thumbprint stored centrally that had to be verified against.
If fingerprint verification is required what of the person who's hand is burned then? Do they become a nonperson?
Weighed against that is the fact that we will never be able to secure our borders unless we have a national ID. And the risks of having non-citizens here are growing. When the likelyhood strangers will kill a couple million of us grows high enough-- we'll either give up the kinky sex or just say "to hell with it- I like kinky sex".
What Native American Indian Tribe are you a member of? The only reason there are "illegal" aliens or immigrants is because a government of illegal immigrants (Europeans) or their descendents who massacred those already here made stupid laws. And most immigration laws were specifically to bar some "undesirable" ethnic or national groups from settling in the US. For instance Benjamen Franklin wanted a law barring Germans from the US. Since then throughout history there has been more or more groups spouting how bad immigrant X is, one after another. For instance in the 1850s the Know Nothing movement wanted to prevent Irish Catholics from immigrating to the USA. The USA is supposed to be the land of the free and the only reason an immigrant should be barred from the US is when it can be shown they are a threat to the US or people living here.
Right--referring to my original post here, you want to singletask and not multitask. Depending on what apps you use, this may be a reason Windows is better for you--although apps like Final Cut and Xcode can take up the entire screen on Mac OS X without much effort, other apps like Safari and TextEdit are harder to maximize. (This is because of two concerns--need for real estate, and likelihood of multitasking. If I'm in an IM, text editor, or terminal window, I probably want to multitask pretty often--if I'm in Final Cut or Xcode, I'm more focused on what I'm doing then and there).
Ooh I can multitask, er run more than one app and still have a window maximized. I do it frequently. I may have a text editor open in one window, another window open with Firefox, and a third with IE. I type code in the text editor, save, then refresh each browser. I easily switch between each window by using "alt" + "tab" on Windows or, if I recall right, "option" (or whatever the key next to the space bar is) + "tab" on Macs. For things like moving something from one window to another all I need do is select it, click and drag it to the taskbar where I hover it over the window I want to copy it to, then that window pops up and I release the button where I want it pasted. No problems.
If it was a rational world, the drinking age would be the same as the age at which you can sign up for the army to fight and die for your country. It seems pretty ridiculous that you could drive a tank at 19, but not have a beer afterwards. That said, you have brought up a good point: the negative consequences of accurate, reliable ID.
That is STUPID! I recall after I turned 18 I was legally able to drink 1 month before the legal age was raised to 19. Then in the army I still wasn't able to legally drink until a few months after I joined. It's absolutely stupid you can join the military and possibly dye in combat but you're not allowed to drink. I also think it's stupid that a parent can't order an alcoholic drink for their child(ren). While stationed in Germany I liked how they did it, while dining out parents could order a glass of wine to drink for children with the meal.
There are positives, too. I'll classify them as follows:
1 + Personal benefits of an ideal ID system.
2 + Benefits to companies from an ideal ID system.
What benefits are those? Businesses benefit being able to track people and their spending habits? Or benefits for a police state?
what do I mean by an ideal system? One in which you can prove... eligibility to work
Why shoud anyone have to prove they are elgible to work? As long as they show up on tyme, have any needed skills, and have the right temperment for the job they should be able to work.
Maybe what we need is an internal passport like the Soviets had? Forget that!!! As long as I'm not breaking any law no authority should have any control over me, and if I am a suspect then charge me with a crime, let me have my day in court, and prove I'm guilty.
If there is no white space space isn't being wasted.
I could design 50 UI's this afternoon alone to disprove that assertion.
Oops, I too quickly mispoke. You're right, just because there's no white space doesn't mean there's no wasted space. Afterall I set my browsers to display only text and not icons for the different commands and buttons on the various bars. However I think that has more to do with individual apps and not the OS. Even with the OS though I've set it up to increase my desktop, I use Auto Hide for my taskbar in Windows.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what rights are violated by having to show ID.
Privacy for one. Some will say "but there is no right tp privacy in the Bill of Rights." According to a Supreme Court ruling in the early 1800s the right to privacy is encompassed in the First Admendment's right to Free Speech are free assembly, and the Founding Fathers believed in privacy as well. If there is no privacy then speech can not be free as what you say can be used against you. And if there weren't any right to privacy then those tracts written during the Revolutionary War, War of Independencem would not of been written anonymously. Image being dragged off by the gestapo, er FBI, because you spoke or wrote something Emperor George didn't like?
True, but as far as I know not having the ID on your person at any given time is not sufficient reason to arrest you under what's been proposed. Am I wrong on this?
What good does having a national ID mean if you're not required to carry it? And who's to say it won't become illegal not to carry id later? Just because something looks reasonable now doesn't mean it can't become sinister later. And paraphrasing Benjamen Franklin, "Any one who gives up a little liberty now for safety will neither get nor deserve either."
Wanting to see another window is considerably more common for me than wanting to give the entire screen to one program, so I find it to be perfectly appropriate behaviour. Having programs default to full screen would be a massive step backwards.
Having windows default to only part of the screen is a step backwards to me. I rarely need to see anything other than what I am currently working on and if I need to check on something else I can quickly toggle between apps or windows. While some like you may prefer not to have apps maximize by default some like me prefer app to maximize by default, so there should be a choice as to how the user wants things.
Then, you need some new apps because I've got apps maximized on all three of my monitors right now, and not one is showing whitespace.
Yes--either because you're using Windows, and the Windows GUI wastes space, or because you're using the sort of apps that would maximize themselves on Mac OS X anyway.
If there is no white space space isn't being wasted. As for apps maximizing in OSX, it's been a few years since I've used OSX so I don't recall if apps do maximize without having to put the top left corner of the app in the top left corner of the screen then dragging the lower right corner of the app to the lower right corner of the screen, but as I'm switching from Windows to Macs rsn I'll be finding out.
Now you are mostly spouting nonsense. Stability, ease of use, security are assets of the Mac.
Depends on who you talk to. I work with a team of 12 Windows engineers who find disparagements of the OS like that to be not only laughable, but a little sad. We'll all tell you the same thing: we chose this OS as our primary base because we didn't want to work so hard. We hate being called in the middle of the night because something went down or got hacked. The Unix guys are not so lucky. They actually take the week off when they're on call they get called so often. Us, one call a week is excessive when on call. And, more often than not it's because some supportie dialed the wrong group. When a distributed app goes down, 999 times out of a 1000 it was the Unix side...unless the Windows box was running on a Dell, of course.:)
Windows PCs are more stable than Macs? Funny, Not! I've used both Macs and Windows PCs and by far I've had more trouble with Windows PC than I have ever had with Macs. I've bought two used Macs, the first one's a Mac SE/30 I bought in 1992. I used it until 2000 when the floppy drive died. The second is a Power Mac 7300/200 I got a few months later. Until early this year, January 2006, it died though I don't know why. I went to turn it on and boot up but nothing.
Windows PCs though are a different matter. I've bought 3 brand new and one reconditioned PCs running Windows. The first two I ordered in 1996 around the same tyme. One was a laptop from Gateway running Win 95. I had it a few months before the harddisk drive died and needed to be replace. Then two weeks before a year passed the motherboard died as well, Gateway arranged to have the laptop shipped to their repair facility. A week later I called the check the status and was told they were out of a part they needed so I had to wait longer. The following week I called again and they said they had shipped it the day before so I shoud of gotten it. After exchanging calls between them and the shipping company Gateway decided to send me a new laptop which took another couple of days. The third PC was a remanufactured laptop from Gateway I got in 2000. I had it for a few months before the lcd cracked. Sorry they don't cover lcds.
The fourth PC is an HP PCI got in 2001. Like the first Gateway it's hd and motherboard had to be replaced within a year. And in the following year the RAM had to be replaced. Also like the Gateway I've had to reinstall Windows a number of tymes because the OS kept crashing. Now, I haven't said any yet about the second PC. It's an Alpha based PC from Microway I ordered as a dualboot PC running both Redhat Linux and Windows NT4. It is the only Windows machine I've had that I have not had hardware fail on me. However because the CPU is an Alpha I wasn't able to get many apps installed in Windows and I didn't have a modem installed when ordered so I haven't used it much.
I know it's only ancedotes but from my personal experience Macs are much better than Windows PCs. And the next computer I get will be a Mac, I'm hoping to order a Macbook Pro by the end of the year at the latest.
Because in Windows, maximizing is a useful (necessary) task that you always have to do, so putting it in a button makes sense there. This is not true of Mac OS X.
I want to maximize windows in Mac OS X as much as I do in Windows. I want what I'm looking at and, or working on, to use the maximum amount of screen real estate.
This is not a right-wrong thing. It is a how-does-it-work-for-you thing. I am primarily Mac user and get very frustrated with the windows behavior because it wastes too much space. I am used to having a lot of windows open, and find that it is difficult to multitask in Windows because the predominant assumption there is that you are using one application at a time.
I used to be primarily a Mac user but since about ten years ago I've primarily been a Windows user, but I hope to switch back to Macs as I plan on getting a Macbook Pro rsn. I have no trouble multitasking in Windows while a window display fullscreen. I have no trouble using "alt" + "tab" to switch between apps or windows, and the Mac has the same ability though it's "option" + "tab" if I recall right. When I'm working on a doc I want to concentrate on the doc and not have a bunch of other stuff (windows) taking up valuable screen real estate or being a distraction.
I use drag-and-drop as my main way of moving things around (as opposed cut-and-paste which is the main model on Windows), and I find myself constantly frustrated on Windows because it is just less setup with this in mind.
I can do the same in Windows. I can make a selection in one window, drag it to the taskbar over the icon for the app or doc I want to copy it to, then paste it in the doc. No problem and no having to "copy and paste", though it doesn't really make much difference which way it's done, copying and pasting doesn't take me much tyme.
For those reasons, I kinda hope they do coast on their reputation for a while longer and not keep messing with the winning formula (think Coke Classic if anyone reading this is old enough to remember that fiasco).
Do you mean Coke before the "New Coke" in the '70s? They, both Coke and Pepsi but mostly Pepsi, used to have those tasting demo setups in malls and such. I'd go to one of Pepsi's tables, try a cup of both them say something like "this is Pepsi and this is Coke, I prefer the Coke". But when Coke released the "New Coke" and I tried it I told the Coke workers if I wanted to drink Pepsi I'd buy Pepsi not the New Coke. Eventually they finally got the idea, somewhat that is, and came out with "Coke Classic" that was supposed to be the old formula. I tried it though and it wasn't the same.
BTW, does anyone know what was originally in Coke? Cocaine. Coke was made with coca leaves which is what coacine is made from, and cocaine was used in medicine as a treatment.
I prefer to be able to see all my open windows at a glance and fullscreen mode blocks that. I can see how it might useful on a small screen (like on small laptop screens or older displays) but on larger screens it just hogs up all the screen space.
That's why I prefer dual monitors. On the smaller one I can have all the tools and such but have the main document take the whole screen on the larger monitor. Or have one document open on the smaller one so I can drag a selection to place in another document on the larger monitor. Likewise using just one monitor I prefer using the full screen to display a given document. If I want to switch to another doc or app I just "alt" + "tab", no muss no fuss.
What is a likely scenerio where there is damage to enough casks to significantly raise the levels of radiation in the surrouding area?
I'm having trouble thinking of a likely scenerio where an earthquake or lava flow could do so. So what am I missing?
Easy, the casks used could be crushed in an earthquake. Then with the migration of water, it has been shown water can flow many miles from there, the water will carry radioactive particles with it. In the case of lava flow, the lava would melt the casks then carry off radioactivity as well. Something I just thought of though is that if lava did flow it may dilute the waste and, or neutralize it. I once read about how encasing radioactive material in a glass like substance is an effective method of rendering waste safe, er relatively safe.
I'm not against nuclear power per se, but I am concerned about dealing with long term disposal of the waste that's left over. And I don't believe using Yucca is an appropriate method. Neither is using the Western Shoshone's Skull Valley as a temperary storage area. And by the way Yucca Mountain is in the area given by the Treaty of Ruby Valley (1862) to the Western Shoshone. Like many other treaties the US had broken this treaty.
Same here which is why I started calling myself an ecologist. While I support some of the goals of some of these people, I don't support some of the tactics used by them.
Falcon... sorry to say it but that is pretty chickenshit. You let these NeoCons scare you away from proud traditions.
I don't just call myself an ecologist because of the bad name some give to environmentalists.. Afterall I call myself a liberal, with the "classical" modifier, Classical Liberal ala Thomas Jefferson. No, I also call myself ecologist because I took science classes in ecology.
I think there's more to the declining sale than just a release of iTunes 7.0.
Are iTunes sales collapsing? Yesterday Reuters reported they are, and quoted a Forrester Research. Forrester denied it ever said it, and blamed the media for inaccurately reporting.
If you haven't noticed, it is possible to build structures that survive severe earthquakes. It is just a matter of making sure the structure can survive the forces involved in an earthquake
Even in California buildings get damaged because of earthquakes, there is no way to prevent damage from earthquakes. And it's absolutely crazy to site nuclear waste in a place where there are earthquakes, especially for the millions of year of the half life of some of the waste never mind the 10,000 years arbitrarily picked by politicans so it could be said Yucca can safely store waste.
As for a volcano, what are your concerns? Do you believe that the repository is in the middle of a potential lava flow? Do you worry about debris from a disruption damaging the repository?
My concern is the possible dispersal of nuclear waste throughout the southwest by whatever means. And if government subsidies were ended nuclear power plants would not be economically feasible, and I believe in the freemarket, as well as small government, liberty, and a strong court system. Let the builders and owners of these plants get their own insurance and get rid of the laws that protect the industry. I bet no one would be willing to build or operate nuclear power stations in a freemarket.
Again, wind power should be viable, out in the countryside. But not here, in town. It's just not realistic, even though it's windy here. Of course, if you're off-grid in the countryside, then you need to deal with batteries...
Ok, I didn't pick up earlier that you were in the city. That changes a lot, especially as how cities have all those building regulations. In cases like this wind gennies don't make sense. They do in some rural settings though. I live in Minneasota and along with the Dakotas it produces megawatts of electricity. Wind genies also can help farmers, for every wind genie they're paid. As for living off the grid, for many who build homes where there isn't any powerlines near installing thier own system is the most financially viable exercise economically. It can cost 10,000s of thousands of dollars to have powerlines put in. For more than 20 years that's what I've wanted to do, build my home in the wildness.
As for a wind genie
I wasn't speaking of specific models, "wind genie" is short for "wind generator". I picked it up in "Home Power" if I recall right, another renewable or selfsefficient magazine if wrong.
Get nuclear fusion right, and just 'mine' the ocean for tritium and deuterium. Possibly very little environmental impact, unless we are thinking of the white dolphins again.
Nuclear fuel might be mined from the oceans but how vast would such an enterprize be to mine enough fuel? Then what of the waste of such mining? For instance the lead or mercury that would be left. And what about the location as well as marine life? There may or may not be much environmental impact, I don't know.
Well, some of them actually do. The "greenies" who are constantly saying things that aren't quite true, or who exaggerate facts in order to push an agenda, are responsible for the less-than-serious face that the public puts on the environmental movement in general.
Oh, like all environmentalists and only environmentalists "exaggerate facts"? Bush evoked a mushroom cloud hanging over a US city to justify his Iraqi invasion, well I'm still waiting to see all of those stockpiles of WMDs. People of all stripes and not just environmentalists "exaggerate facts".
They damage the cause they claim to be supporting, in the same way that the ELF/PETA folks damage the credibility of the mainstream animal rights movement,
Agreed.
I am a person who is concerned with environmental issues, but I'd never call myself an 'environmentalist' because it's practically a dirty word, at least in my social circle.
Same here which is why I started calling myself an ecologist. While I support some of the goals of some of these people, I don't support some of the tactics used by them.
Minimum cost occurs at about 80 feet, with windspeeds of 12.26 mph, producing an average 162.8 kWh/month worth $11.40. The tower at that height costs $2000. Payback time, ignoring interest, is 27.79 years. That's not economical.
A couple of things were left out. One is inflation, excepting maintainance, all of the costs are upfront and once paid for it doesn't need to be paid for again. Power from the grid though always raises. Say you pay $.10 pe kwh now, in ten years you may be paying $1. Okay ten tyme as much may be radical but the point is that if you gemerate your own electricity your energy was paid in the beginning and you don't pay more later but if you get your power from the grid you'll always be paying even when prices rise. The second think overlooked are rebates or tax credits. Governments, both federal and many states offer tax credits. DSIRE lists what is offered in each state in the US.
The biggest thing a person that's thinking of generating the power they use can do though is replacing the things that use power with energy effiecent replacements. Those 75 watt bulbs replace them with 15 watt cfls, compact florescent lights. The old washing machine and dryer or frig, replace them with a new one that has a good Energy Star rating. The idea being you want negawatts, energy conserved and not produced, rather than "new" methods to produce more megawatts of energy.
You're interested in installing a wind genie? Have you checked into Home Power magazine? Also, though "Solar" is in the name, Solar Today also has some articles on wind genies.
So basically, you're suggesting taking the energy that the sun currently transfers into the oceans? Because.... the ocean doesn't really need that heat energy anyway, and it couldn't possibly be environmentally catastrophic if done on a massive scale? No thanks. Let's stick to nuclear.
And nuclear isn't environmentally catastrophic? Nuclear power is very much bad environmentally. don't believe me? Check with Indigenous communities that have to deal with uranium mining. Forget about where the waste will be stored, mining for fissible materials is frought with environmentally distructive perils.
Slashdot Mirror
Without a photo ID, what means do you have to prove that you are who you say you are? Why should someone take your word over someone else's?
In day to day life why should you have to prove who you are? The only thing I see maybe is driving on public roads and for financial transactions.
FalconRight now, the only government assigned ID system (in the US) is the Social Security Card, which is just a number and a name (which is not enough to validate the true identity of the person)
Social Security cars are not supposed to be used as id cards period. And have never been. When they are used this way they are improperly being used.
FalconHell right now we could get most of that with your SSN, a picture of you, and a thumbprint stored centrally that had to be verified against.
If fingerprint verification is required what of the person who's hand is burned then? Do they become a nonperson?
Weighed against that is the fact that we will never be able to secure our borders unless we have a national ID. And the risks of having non-citizens here are growing. When the likelyhood strangers will kill a couple million of us grows high enough-- we'll either give up the kinky sex or just say "to hell with it- I like kinky sex".
What Native American Indian Tribe are you a member of? The only reason there are "illegal" aliens or immigrants is because a government of illegal immigrants (Europeans) or their descendents who massacred those already here made stupid laws. And most immigration laws were specifically to bar some "undesirable" ethnic or national groups from settling in the US. For instance Benjamen Franklin wanted a law barring Germans from the US. Since then throughout history there has been more or more groups spouting how bad immigrant X is, one after another. For instance in the 1850s the Know Nothing movement wanted to prevent Irish Catholics from immigrating to the USA. The USA is supposed to be the land of the free and the only reason an immigrant should be barred from the US is when it can be shown they are a threat to the US or people living here.
FalconRight--referring to my original post here, you want to singletask and not multitask. Depending on what apps you use, this may be a reason Windows is better for you--although apps like Final Cut and Xcode can take up the entire screen on Mac OS X without much effort, other apps like Safari and TextEdit are harder to maximize. (This is because of two concerns--need for real estate, and likelihood of multitasking. If I'm in an IM, text editor, or terminal window, I probably want to multitask pretty often--if I'm in Final Cut or Xcode, I'm more focused on what I'm doing then and there).
Ooh I can multitask, er run more than one app and still have a window maximized. I do it frequently. I may have a text editor open in one window, another window open with Firefox, and a third with IE. I type code in the text editor, save, then refresh each browser. I easily switch between each window by using "alt" + "tab" on Windows or, if I recall right, "option" (or whatever the key next to the space bar is) + "tab" on Macs. For things like moving something from one window to another all I need do is select it, click and drag it to the taskbar where I hover it over the window I want to copy it to, then that window pops up and I release the button where I want it pasted. No problems.
FalconIf it was a rational world, the drinking age would be the same as the age at which you can sign up for the army to fight and die for your country. It seems pretty ridiculous that you could drive a tank at 19, but not have a beer afterwards. That said, you have brought up a good point: the negative consequences of accurate, reliable ID.
That is STUPID! I recall after I turned 18 I was legally able to drink 1 month before the legal age was raised to 19. Then in the army I still wasn't able to legally drink until a few months after I joined. It's absolutely stupid you can join the military and possibly dye in combat but you're not allowed to drink. I also think it's stupid that a parent can't order an alcoholic drink for their child(ren). While stationed in Germany I liked how they did it, while dining out parents could order a glass of wine to drink for children with the meal.
There are positives, too. I'll classify them as follows:
1 + Personal benefits of an ideal ID system.
2 + Benefits to companies from an ideal ID system.
What benefits are those? Businesses benefit being able to track people and their spending habits? Or benefits for a police state?
what do I mean by an ideal system? One in which you can prove... eligibility to work
Why shoud anyone have to prove they are elgible to work? As long as they show up on tyme, have any needed skills, and have the right temperment for the job they should be able to work.
Maybe what we need is an internal passport like the Soviets had? Forget that!!! As long as I'm not breaking any law no authority should have any control over me, and if I am a suspect then charge me with a crime, let me have my day in court, and prove I'm guilty.
FalconIf there is no white space space isn't being wasted.
I could design 50 UI's this afternoon alone to disprove that assertion.
Oops, I too quickly mispoke. You're right, just because there's no white space doesn't mean there's no wasted space. Afterall I set my browsers to display only text and not icons for the different commands and buttons on the various bars. However I think that has more to do with individual apps and not the OS. Even with the OS though I've set it up to increase my desktop, I use Auto Hide for my taskbar in Windows.
FalconI'm sorry, but I don't understand what rights are violated by having to show ID.
Privacy for one. Some will say "but there is no right tp privacy in the Bill of Rights." According to a Supreme Court ruling in the early 1800s the right to privacy is encompassed in the First Admendment's right to Free Speech are free assembly, and the Founding Fathers believed in privacy as well. If there is no privacy then speech can not be free as what you say can be used against you. And if there weren't any right to privacy then those tracts written during the Revolutionary War, War of Independencem would not of been written anonymously. Image being dragged off by the gestapo, er FBI, because you spoke or wrote something Emperor George didn't like?
Privacy is a fundamental part of free speech.
FalconTrue, but as far as I know not having the ID on your person at any given time is not sufficient reason to arrest you under what's been proposed. Am I wrong on this?
What good does having a national ID mean if you're not required to carry it? And who's to say it won't become illegal not to carry id later? Just because something looks reasonable now doesn't mean it can't become sinister later. And paraphrasing Benjamen Franklin, "Any one who gives up a little liberty now for safety will neither get nor deserve either."
FalconWanting to see another window is considerably more common for me than wanting to give the entire screen to one program, so I find it to be perfectly appropriate behaviour. Having programs default to full screen would be a massive step backwards.
Having windows default to only part of the screen is a step backwards to me. I rarely need to see anything other than what I am currently working on and if I need to check on something else I can quickly toggle between apps or windows. While some like you may prefer not to have apps maximize by default some like me prefer app to maximize by default, so there should be a choice as to how the user wants things.
FalconThen, you need some new apps because I've got apps maximized on all three of my monitors right now, and not one is showing whitespace.
Yes--either because you're using Windows, and the Windows GUI wastes space, or because you're using the sort of apps that would maximize themselves on Mac OS X anyway.
If there is no white space space isn't being wasted. As for apps maximizing in OSX, it's been a few years since I've used OSX so I don't recall if apps do maximize without having to put the top left corner of the app in the top left corner of the screen then dragging the lower right corner of the app to the lower right corner of the screen, but as I'm switching from Windows to Macs rsn I'll be finding out.
FalconNow you are mostly spouting nonsense. Stability, ease of use, security are assets of the Mac.
Depends on who you talk to. I work with a team of 12 Windows engineers who find disparagements of the OS like that to be not only laughable, but a little sad. We'll all tell you the same thing: we chose this OS as our primary base because we didn't want to work so hard. We hate being called in the middle of the night because something went down or got hacked. The Unix guys are not so lucky. They actually take the week off when they're on call they get called so often. Us, one call a week is excessive when on call. And, more often than not it's because some supportie dialed the wrong group. When a distributed app goes down, 999 times out of a 1000 it was the Unix side...unless the Windows box was running on a Dell, of course. :)
Windows PCs are more stable than Macs? Funny, Not! I've used both Macs and Windows PCs and by far I've had more trouble with Windows PC than I have ever had with Macs. I've bought two used Macs, the first one's a Mac SE/30 I bought in 1992. I used it until 2000 when the floppy drive died. The second is a Power Mac 7300/200 I got a few months later. Until early this year, January 2006, it died though I don't know why. I went to turn it on and boot up but nothing.
Windows PCs though are a different matter. I've bought 3 brand new and one reconditioned PCs running Windows. The first two I ordered in 1996 around the same tyme. One was a laptop from Gateway running Win 95. I had it a few months before the harddisk drive died and needed to be replace. Then two weeks before a year passed the motherboard died as well, Gateway arranged to have the laptop shipped to their repair facility. A week later I called the check the status and was told they were out of a part they needed so I had to wait longer. The following week I called again and they said they had shipped it the day before so I shoud of gotten it. After exchanging calls between them and the shipping company Gateway decided to send me a new laptop which took another couple of days. The third PC was a remanufactured laptop from Gateway I got in 2000. I had it for a few months before the lcd cracked. Sorry they don't cover lcds.
The fourth PC is an HP PCI got in 2001. Like the first Gateway it's hd and motherboard had to be replaced within a year. And in the following year the RAM had to be replaced. Also like the Gateway I've had to reinstall Windows a number of tymes because the OS kept crashing. Now, I haven't said any yet about the second PC. It's an Alpha based PC from Microway I ordered as a dualboot PC running both Redhat Linux and Windows NT4. It is the only Windows machine I've had that I have not had hardware fail on me. However because the CPU is an Alpha I wasn't able to get many apps installed in Windows and I didn't have a modem installed when ordered so I haven't used it much.
I know it's only ancedotes but from my personal experience Macs are much better than Windows PCs. And the next computer I get will be a Mac, I'm hoping to order a Macbook Pro by the end of the year at the latest.
FalconBecause in Windows, maximizing is a useful (necessary) task that you always have to do, so putting it in a button makes sense there. This is not true of Mac OS X.
I want to maximize windows in Mac OS X as much as I do in Windows. I want what I'm looking at and, or working on, to use the maximum amount of screen real estate.
FalconThis is not a right-wrong thing. It is a how-does-it-work-for-you thing. I am primarily Mac user and get very frustrated with the windows behavior because it wastes too much space. I am used to having a lot of windows open, and find that it is difficult to multitask in Windows because the predominant assumption there is that you are using one application at a time.
I used to be primarily a Mac user but since about ten years ago I've primarily been a Windows user, but I hope to switch back to Macs as I plan on getting a Macbook Pro rsn. I have no trouble multitasking in Windows while a window display fullscreen. I have no trouble using "alt" + "tab" to switch between apps or windows, and the Mac has the same ability though it's "option" + "tab" if I recall right. When I'm working on a doc I want to concentrate on the doc and not have a bunch of other stuff (windows) taking up valuable screen real estate or being a distraction.
I use drag-and-drop as my main way of moving things around (as opposed cut-and-paste which is the main model on Windows), and I find myself constantly frustrated on Windows because it is just less setup with this in mind.
I can do the same in Windows. I can make a selection in one window, drag it to the taskbar over the icon for the app or doc I want to copy it to, then paste it in the doc. No problem and no having to "copy and paste", though it doesn't really make much difference which way it's done, copying and pasting doesn't take me much tyme.
FalconFor those reasons, I kinda hope they do coast on their reputation for a while longer and not keep messing with the winning formula (think Coke Classic if anyone reading this is old enough to remember that fiasco).
Do you mean Coke before the "New Coke" in the '70s? They, both Coke and Pepsi but mostly Pepsi, used to have those tasting demo setups in malls and such. I'd go to one of Pepsi's tables, try a cup of both them say something like "this is Pepsi and this is Coke, I prefer the Coke". But when Coke released the "New Coke" and I tried it I told the Coke workers if I wanted to drink Pepsi I'd buy Pepsi not the New Coke. Eventually they finally got the idea, somewhat that is, and came out with "Coke Classic" that was supposed to be the old formula. I tried it though and it wasn't the same.
BTW, does anyone know what was originally in Coke? Cocaine. Coke was made with coca leaves which is what coacine is made from, and cocaine was used in medicine as a treatment.
FalconI prefer to be able to see all my open windows at a glance and fullscreen mode blocks that. I can see how it might useful on a small screen (like on small laptop screens or older displays) but on larger screens it just hogs up all the screen space.
That's why I prefer dual monitors. On the smaller one I can have all the tools and such but have the main document take the whole screen on the larger monitor. Or have one document open on the smaller one so I can drag a selection to place in another document on the larger monitor. Likewise using just one monitor I prefer using the full screen to display a given document. If I want to switch to another doc or app I just "alt" + "tab", no muss no fuss.
FalconWhat is a likely scenerio where there is damage to enough casks to significantly raise the levels of radiation in the surrouding area?
I'm having trouble thinking of a likely scenerio where an earthquake or lava flow could do so. So what am I missing?
Easy, the casks used could be crushed in an earthquake. Then with the migration of water, it has been shown water can flow many miles from there, the water will carry radioactive particles with it. In the case of lava flow, the lava would melt the casks then carry off radioactivity as well. Something I just thought of though is that if lava did flow it may dilute the waste and, or neutralize it. I once read about how encasing radioactive material in a glass like substance is an effective method of rendering waste safe, er relatively safe.
I'm not against nuclear power per se, but I am concerned about dealing with long term disposal of the waste that's left over. And I don't believe using Yucca is an appropriate method. Neither is using the Western Shoshone's Skull Valley as a temperary storage area. And by the way Yucca Mountain is in the area given by the Treaty of Ruby Valley (1862) to the Western Shoshone. Like many other treaties the US had broken this treaty.
FalconSame here which is why I started calling myself an ecologist. While I support some of the goals of some of these people, I don't support some of the tactics used by them. ... sorry to say it but that is pretty chickenshit. You let these NeoCons scare you away from proud traditions.
Falcon
I don't just call myself an ecologist because of the bad name some give to environmentalists.. Afterall I call myself a liberal, with the "classical" modifier, Classical Liberal ala Thomas Jefferson. No, I also call myself ecologist because I took science classes in ecology.
FalconI think there's more to the declining sale than just a release of iTunes 7.0.
Are iTunes sales collapsing? Yesterday Reuters reported they are, and quoted a Forrester Research. Forrester denied it ever said it, and blamed the media for inaccurately reporting.
FalconIf you haven't noticed, it is possible to build structures that survive severe earthquakes. It is just a matter of making sure the structure can survive the forces involved in an earthquake
Even in California buildings get damaged because of earthquakes, there is no way to prevent damage from earthquakes. And it's absolutely crazy to site nuclear waste in a place where there are earthquakes, especially for the millions of year of the half life of some of the waste never mind the 10,000 years arbitrarily picked by politicans so it could be said Yucca can safely store waste.
As for a volcano, what are your concerns? Do you believe that the repository is in the middle of a potential lava flow? Do you worry about debris from a disruption damaging the repository?
My concern is the possible dispersal of nuclear waste throughout the southwest by whatever means. And if government subsidies were ended nuclear power plants would not be economically feasible, and I believe in the freemarket, as well as small government, liberty, and a strong court system. Let the builders and owners of these plants get their own insurance and get rid of the laws that protect the industry. I bet no one would be willing to build or operate nuclear power stations in a freemarket.
FalconAgain, wind power should be viable, out in the countryside. But not here, in town. It's just not realistic, even though it's windy here. Of course, if you're off-grid in the countryside, then you need to deal with batteries...
Ok, I didn't pick up earlier that you were in the city. That changes a lot, especially as how cities have all those building regulations. In cases like this wind gennies don't make sense. They do in some rural settings though. I live in Minneasota and along with the Dakotas it produces megawatts of electricity. Wind genies also can help farmers, for every wind genie they're paid. As for living off the grid, for many who build homes where there isn't any powerlines near installing thier own system is the most financially viable exercise economically. It can cost 10,000s of thousands of dollars to have powerlines put in. For more than 20 years that's what I've wanted to do, build my home in the wildness.
As for a wind genie
I wasn't speaking of specific models, "wind genie" is short for "wind generator". I picked it up in "Home Power" if I recall right, another renewable or selfsefficient magazine if wrong.
FalconGet nuclear fusion right, and just 'mine' the ocean for tritium and deuterium. Possibly very little environmental impact, unless we are thinking of the white dolphins again.
Nuclear fuel might be mined from the oceans but how vast would such an enterprize be to mine enough fuel? Then what of the waste of such mining? For instance the lead or mercury that would be left. And what about the location as well as marine life? There may or may not be much environmental impact, I don't know.
FalconAre you one of those who wants to site nuclear waste in an area that is siesmically active, that has suffered earthquakes, and that is near a volcano?
FalconWell, some of them actually do. The "greenies" who are constantly saying things that aren't quite true, or who exaggerate facts in order to push an agenda, are responsible for the less-than-serious face that the public puts on the environmental movement in general.
Oh, like all environmentalists and only environmentalists "exaggerate facts"? Bush evoked a mushroom cloud hanging over a US city to justify his Iraqi invasion, well I'm still waiting to see all of those stockpiles of WMDs. People of all stripes and not just environmentalists "exaggerate facts".
They damage the cause they claim to be supporting, in the same way that the ELF/PETA folks damage the credibility of the mainstream animal rights movement,
Agreed.
I am a person who is concerned with environmental issues, but I'd never call myself an 'environmentalist' because it's practically a dirty word, at least in my social circle.
Same here which is why I started calling myself an ecologist. While I support some of the goals of some of these people, I don't support some of the tactics used by them.
FalconMinimum cost occurs at about 80 feet, with windspeeds of 12.26 mph, producing an average 162.8 kWh/month worth $11.40. The tower at that height costs $2000. Payback time, ignoring interest, is 27.79 years. That's not economical.
A couple of things were left out. One is inflation, excepting maintainance, all of the costs are upfront and once paid for it doesn't need to be paid for again. Power from the grid though always raises. Say you pay $.10 pe kwh now, in ten years you may be paying $1. Okay ten tyme as much may be radical but the point is that if you gemerate your own electricity your energy was paid in the beginning and you don't pay more later but if you get your power from the grid you'll always be paying even when prices rise. The second think overlooked are rebates or tax credits. Governments, both federal and many states offer tax credits. DSIRE lists what is offered in each state in the US.
The biggest thing a person that's thinking of generating the power they use can do though is replacing the things that use power with energy effiecent replacements. Those 75 watt bulbs replace them with 15 watt cfls, compact florescent lights. The old washing machine and dryer or frig, replace them with a new one that has a good Energy Star rating. The idea being you want negawatts, energy conserved and not produced, rather than "new" methods to produce more megawatts of energy.
You're interested in installing a wind genie? Have you checked into Home Power magazine ? Also, though "Solar" is in the name, Solar Today also has some articles on wind genies.
FalconSo basically, you're suggesting taking the energy that the sun currently transfers into the oceans? Because.... the ocean doesn't really need that heat energy anyway, and it couldn't possibly be environmentally catastrophic if done on a massive scale? No thanks. Let's stick to nuclear.
And nuclear isn't environmentally catastrophic? Nuclear power is very much bad environmentally. don't believe me? Check with Indigenous communities that have to deal with uranium mining. Forget about where the waste will be stored, mining for fissible materials is frought with environmentally distructive perils.
Falcon