This is really so simple, I can't believe I don't see any posts directly mentioning it. Apple doesn't release Mac OS X for other machines because doing so opens them up to unknown performance and stability. People who see Mac OS X running nicely on a Mac love it, and may want to buy a Mac later. People who see it running on a random PC box, with driver issues and performance problems-- even kernel panics-- aren't going to be left with a good impression. It doesn't matter if you say "Supported on Apple hardware only", the impression is still made.
Maybe Google is including some spoofed information in their packets, to test what Comcast is filtering for (and/or to sabotage the filtering system with false positives). There was a time when it wouldn't have surprised us to see their "Don't be evil" policy extended to this kind of jab at an evil policy elsewhere.
You don't have to protect yourself from fair use. Allowing anything covered under fair use is required by the law. They would have been all set, with no risk to their trademark. This was clearly parody/satire, which falls comfortably within Fair Use.
I think you're half right. That is probably how the brick got in there-- but not put there by the person who reported the problem. Probably by a previous customer, who returned it "still wrapped" claiming they just didn't want it. How likely are Best Buy to check shrinkwrapped returns to make sure the product is present? How likely would the scammer be to tell Best Buy about the brick?
I don't think this is entirely a coincidence. The two parties do tend to position themselves opposite each other-- but is it really any surprise that the liberal/progressive party would have more trouble taking positions that fly in the face of scientific fact? I'd argue that the ideals of Democrats value intelligence, truth, and science over gut instincts, religion, and tradition.
Yeah, I left that out of the Democrat column for that reason. I'm not convinced either party is interested in supporting NASA anymore. A debate like this could help remind the politicians of the importance of pure science (especially the headling-grabbing kind).
I think you're perhaps missing the point of a specialized debate. Of course specialized issues relate to general concerns. The hope is that by doing a topical debate, it will rein the discussion in somewhat, so that people who especially care about scientific issues can better judge the candidates.
I disagree. Their policy on the issues surrounding the science is exactly what they should speak about, and why I for one would love to see a debate like this. They needn't discuss the science itself directly, but rather its policy implications.
For instance, some questions could be asked on subjects like...
- The place of Evolution in public education
- The responsibility of a President not to distort scientific truths
- The impact and possible solutions to global warming
- The benefits and moral implications of stem cell research
- The importance of spending money on pure science
- The direction for institutions such as NASA
The basic problem would be that the Rebublican candidates would never want to try to compete in a debate like this. It practically seems like a matter of party idealogy to ignore science, and respond with appealing to the public's feelings, or religious alternatives, rather than admitting the value of science, and the facts it delivers to us. When it comes to global warming, evolution, and stem cell research-- the biggest science-related issues up for discussion this cycle-- the Democrats clearly side with the science.
Flying past a star? Stars are too far apart for us to see anything flying between them. Even at the speed of light, it takes years to go between even the closest of star systems. Comets are small hunks of ice and dirt, orbiting our star in unusual orbits originating in a cloud of cold gunk way beyond the planets. More likely, it's physical composition was disrupted somehow, causing it to be more volatile.
Here's a crazy thought. You know what all of these trends have in common? They are tied to a general increase in liberal thought in America. Allowing abortions (personal freedom), forbidding lead additives (corporate regulation). So maybe it's other liberal policies that have helped with the decrease in violent crime.
Interestingly, Dartmouth College is structurally a University-- it consists of multiple distinct schools or colleges. (Dartmouth College, Dartmouth Medical School, Thayer School of Engineering, and Tuck School of Business.) I always wondered why it was still called "Dartmouth College", and perhaps the Dartmouth University in Canada explains that.
This just seems to fail a basic test of logic. Even if a Black Hole really can't start out above a certain size, clearly a gravity well can *grow*. Anything that comes near it becomes part of it. How could there be an upper limit on the size of something that by its nature can only grow?
++?????++ Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start. Mr. Jelly! Mr. Jelly! Error at Address Number 6, Treacle Mine Road. Melon melon melon +++Wahhhhhhh! Mine!+++ +++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++ +++Whoops! Here comes the cheese! +++
Our current Administration is making a pattern of this. Instead of making us more secure, they make us feel inconvenienced, so we will assume that it is all being done to make us more secure. The intention is to keep us in terror, so we feel that we need them, and to make us feel like they are doing everything they can, so we will vote for them again next time.
That seems odd. A linux client, but not a Mac client? Less than 1% of the desktop market versus around 6% (and much higher outside of business), and they go for the smaller of the two? Or does the summary just leave out the Mac release?
No. I'm saying it's not on balance a better idea if your primary motivator is utility. For the cost, hassle, higher specs, etc. involved in upgrading, you don't gain enough utility for it to be a great idea.
Take a machine that runs Mac OS X "Leopard" and upgrade it to OS X "Panther". Painless. Take a machine that runs "Panther" and upgrade it to Mac OS X "Tiger"-- also painless. It doesn't have to be this way. I am assuming that most major linux distros can say the same thing, probably even more so.
Slashdot Mirror
This is really so simple, I can't believe I don't see any posts directly mentioning it. Apple doesn't release Mac OS X for other machines because doing so opens them up to unknown performance and stability. People who see Mac OS X running nicely on a Mac love it, and may want to buy a Mac later. People who see it running on a random PC box, with driver issues and performance problems-- even kernel panics-- aren't going to be left with a good impression. It doesn't matter if you say "Supported on Apple hardware only", the impression is still made.
Maybe Google is including some spoofed information in their packets, to test what Comcast is filtering for (and/or to sabotage the filtering system with false positives). There was a time when it wouldn't have surprised us to see their "Don't be evil" policy extended to this kind of jab at an evil policy elsewhere.
You don't have to protect yourself from fair use. Allowing anything covered under fair use is required by the law. They would have been all set, with no risk to their trademark. This was clearly parody/satire, which falls comfortably within Fair Use.
I think you're half right. That is probably how the brick got in there-- but not put there by the person who reported the problem. Probably by a previous customer, who returned it "still wrapped" claiming they just didn't want it. How likely are Best Buy to check shrinkwrapped returns to make sure the product is present? How likely would the scammer be to tell Best Buy about the brick?
I don't think this is entirely a coincidence. The two parties do tend to position themselves opposite each other-- but is it really any surprise that the liberal/progressive party would have more trouble taking positions that fly in the face of scientific fact? I'd argue that the ideals of Democrats value intelligence, truth, and science over gut instincts, religion, and tradition.
Yeah, I left that out of the Democrat column for that reason. I'm not convinced either party is interested in supporting NASA anymore. A debate like this could help remind the politicians of the importance of pure science (especially the headling-grabbing kind).
I think you're perhaps missing the point of a specialized debate. Of course specialized issues relate to general concerns. The hope is that by doing a topical debate, it will rein the discussion in somewhat, so that people who especially care about scientific issues can better judge the candidates.
For instance, some questions could be asked on subjects like...
- The place of Evolution in public education
- The responsibility of a President not to distort scientific truths
- The impact and possible solutions to global warming
- The benefits and moral implications of stem cell research
- The importance of spending money on pure science
- The direction for institutions such as NASA
The basic problem would be that the Rebublican candidates would never want to try to compete in a debate like this. It practically seems like a matter of party idealogy to ignore science, and respond with appealing to the public's feelings, or religious alternatives, rather than admitting the value of science, and the facts it delivers to us. When it comes to global warming, evolution, and stem cell research-- the biggest science-related issues up for discussion this cycle-- the Democrats clearly side with the science.
Slashdot User "njfuzzy" Hopes to Experience Threesome with Milla Jovovich, Angelina Jolie
How it is news that someone wants to do something extremely unlikely?
Flying past a star? Stars are too far apart for us to see anything flying between them. Even at the speed of light, it takes years to go between even the closest of star systems. Comets are small hunks of ice and dirt, orbiting our star in unusual orbits originating in a cloud of cold gunk way beyond the planets. More likely, it's physical composition was disrupted somehow, causing it to be more volatile.
Everyone is saying how Radd it was when the comet was Heralded. The danger will be Fantastic, but hopefully Ultimately it will be Nullified.
Perfect for *my* Birthday. Which just goes to show that it all works out in the end.
Here's a crazy thought. You know what all of these trends have in common? They are tied to a general increase in liberal thought in America. Allowing abortions (personal freedom), forbidding lead additives (corporate regulation). So maybe it's other liberal policies that have helped with the decrease in violent crime.
Just another SAPO.
Interestingly, Dartmouth College is structurally a University-- it consists of multiple distinct schools or colleges. (Dartmouth College, Dartmouth Medical School, Thayer School of Engineering, and Tuck School of Business.) I always wondered why it was still called "Dartmouth College", and perhaps the Dartmouth University in Canada explains that.
This just seems to fail a basic test of logic. Even if a Black Hole really can't start out above a certain size, clearly a gravity well can *grow*. Anything that comes near it becomes part of it. How could there be an upper limit on the size of something that by its nature can only grow?
"Or if you really want to embarrass them send them to the local church after midnight."
Yeah. I get pretty embarrassed watching goth kids have sex too.
Conclusive proof that MS Engineers code in HEX.
++?????++ Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start.
Mr. Jelly! Mr. Jelly! Error at Address Number 6, Treacle Mine Road.
Melon melon melon
+++Wahhhhhhh! Mine!+++
+++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++
+++Whoops! Here comes the cheese! +++
"We're not unreasonable. Nobody wants to read your eyes."
Great program.
Our current Administration is making a pattern of this. Instead of making us more secure, they make us feel inconvenienced, so we will assume that it is all being done to make us more secure. The intention is to keep us in terror, so we feel that we need them, and to make us feel like they are doing everything they can, so we will vote for them again next time.
Details have been revealed about how the process works. I don't think anyone is pretending to be stating this fact to us for the first time.
That seems odd. A linux client, but not a Mac client? Less than 1% of the desktop market versus around 6% (and much higher outside of business), and they go for the smaller of the two? Or does the summary just leave out the Mac release?
No. I'm saying it's not on balance a better idea if your primary motivator is utility. For the cost, hassle, higher specs, etc. involved in upgrading, you don't gain enough utility for it to be a great idea.
Take a machine that runs Mac OS X "Leopard" and upgrade it to OS X "Panther". Painless. Take a machine that runs "Panther" and upgrade it to Mac OS X "Tiger"-- also painless. It doesn't have to be this way. I am assuming that most major linux distros can say the same thing, probably even more so.