You are making an odd comparison here. The gen of dotcom grads werent necessarily computer people. They were people who saw a wave and tried to ride it. Back in those days the suits were grabbing anyone who was even remotely connected to technology and making them admins for code and networks. Some of these people fooled administration and stayed on as IT people, graduated to management before anyone noticed that they had no skill whatsoever.
As for female programmers, I was a CS tutor at my university growing up and I can state from experience that any female that was able to make it through CS 101 was a much better programmer than their male counterparts on average. Unfortunately these females were all on the education path so they didn't go into dev work.
Interesting sidenote; the females that didn't make it did cry a lot more but would forge on, the guys just threw hissy fits when they couldn't get concepts and drop the class. Maybe there is a bit to the female capacity to persevere and the male stubbornness:)
Honestly I think that when it comes to path finding algorithms, if the algorithm were in control of the other planes, collisions would be easily avoidable if not impossible. hell look at the collission detection algorithms we have been using for decades in TCP protocols.
That is more of along the lines of my thoughts. However, with all the unmanned aircraft that the Military uses, why not just make commercial aircraft unmanned, with one pilot on board in case of emergency. Of course the roumors I hear are that, that is pretty much how it is right now but you get that warm fuzzy by having someone sitting up front drinking coffee.
Go figure the govt using a sledgehammer to polish a window. IT pros are used to these situations, rather than explain the problem and ask experts to find a solution they tell you the solution that their pea sized short sided brains can conceive.
Why not get a group of engineers together and say, come up with a contingent plan for hijackings. This would open the door to creative solutions other than kill switches.
Well is there a way to use the heat to our advantage? How big would something have to be that we could create to dissipate so it lasts long enough to get by the corona possibly using the energy as fuel. The remaining question is, even if we could get close to the sun, would transmission be possible with all the radiation?
Depends on the game, Last time I checked RTS games from blizzard were still $20+ I did find Warcraft III for $13 used though once on amazon. Those games are at least 6 years old. Console games used on the other hand....pack of 30 for nothing on e-bay.
Thanks for the excellent reply, all well founded arguments and would be a joy to debate further but alas this thread is long enough, at least now I know you are educated in the matter rather than someone simply dismissing the idea of a historical Christ completely; thus this discussion has probably been more for my edification than yours. It would be fun to run across more people like you in coffee shops;)
Well for me it helps that my wife was a biology staff instructor, very enlightening:)
My goal personally is to bring some enlightenment to the Christian group as a whole. I am planning (when my wife gets out of her 11th year of college, to develop a nice bioethics course, with the review of a group of PHDs in each area). Lutherans are nice to work with in this area since they are the most academic of the denominations.
An interesting perspective though is this; Christians are woefully ignorant of science as a whole. Scientists are the same way to theology. Here and there, you find someone who can cross over, a scientist who is sound with their theology, or a Christian who is sound with their science. But on each side they are overshadowed by zealots. It is an uphill battle, good luck with your side;)
Well put, I tried to smash too much information into a quick couple paragraphs and it got convoluted. Now whereas you understand these jumps are a necessity, it is practically impossible to explain how great odds like one in a billion are pretty good odds on a cosmic scale to people who have a hard time with the lottery;)
You are also running into issues with a group of people who do not understand that evolution is a measurement tool, but rather see it as a method of talking about positive progress. The words mutation are always viewed negatively, and cannot distinguish between adaptation and micro evolution. (I side from the debate within evolution that adaptation and micro evolution are different in that adaptation occurs within a lifetime and micro evolution is a trait passed on from a generation. I don't think good definition has been made here).
Yes I come as a Christian to the table but that does 2 things, it makes me ashamed of my ignorant loud brethren, and does not excuse me from seeing scientific enlightenment or the pursuit of it.
ick, dont know how I got into this conversation but ick, I cant take it anymore so I will give you, mr silentbob an rational response of the debate here that went very very south. I am assuming your opponent here is a word of faith christian, rahter irrational thought on how things come into being by speaking and thought.
The scientific argument here that is being poorly made to you is that entropy and evolution seem to be at odds with each other on a cosmic scale. Luckily here on earth we have a gigantic source of energy right next door sustaining micro-evolution. However, this would require very very rare stable circumstances to sustain. Also it is very very difficult to prove/disprove that punctuated equilibrium/macro evolution works as by their nature there is a giant gap.
theistic evolution can be intelligently discussed in one of two ways. 1. Lasse Faire - God started the universe with a bang and has been a spectator since, having created it in such a way that it will sustain itself acording to his plan. This scenario is Generally unacceptable to conservative Christians but works very well with loose interp of scripture and violates no scientific principles while solving a serious issue. The other theistic evolution that can be intelligently discussed is God created the Universe, everything in it, then created the world as it is, allowing for microevolution to correct the flaw of sin in nature, this method is generally discussed among conservative Christians and Jews. Either argument is edifying, and can be debated rigourously.
I hope this is a bit better argument for you to consider than the aforementioned thought governs creation train. Which is just a bunch of hocus pocus for wiccans and word of faith christians.
50/50 isnt too shabby for historical accuracy;) Consider the works of Plato and Aristotle;) Also consider that there are implications either way on Christ's authenticity because that would mean people would have to admit that Christ is real, then possibly actually have to think about the subject. Easier to just say he didn't exist at all. Of course there are also people who want to believe it really bad.
1) I didn't say he didn't exist, so that's a straw man.
Not a straw man, I think you misuse that term here. the OP stated "could you show me some actual evidence that he is an actual historic person and not just a mythical figure?" Which I did show evidence, which was quickly refuted by yourself. The problem is, the eyewitness's of Jesus were largely turned Christian and their writings Canonized if they had any legitimacy to them. Unfortunately today that means they are discredited.
2) I'm not an atheist.
Sorry didn't mean to imply that, I was speaking of Atheists as an example of a group that try to discredit religion at every chance, not you personally.
I did not say this. Note though that unless you are willing to claim there was a factual basis for Thor, Apollo, Baal, and and various other pagan gods, you must also accept the fact that many religions have existed which appear to have sprung either from nothing, or very little.Most of those religions were brought up over time as stories of events were embellished. Pagan gods usually granted some kind of power that people were trying to get. Also, no other religion has the documentation Christians/Jews/Muslims have. Thus why it is so fun to debate the subject. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, are singularly different from every other religion in this area.
Many pagans also died for their beliefs, often in horrific circumstances and in very large numbers for no apparent gain.
Citation needed.
It is part of religion, not history. Note that I'm not claiming this proves he didn't exist, but rather that there isn't much proof that he did.
Sorry there bud, he is definitely a part of history. He just happens to be a religious figure as well. You will be hard pressed to find historians who say otherwise. Considering the loss of information of the day, there is a lot of information on him. If this is not enough, then the historical figures I mention above might as well be mythological.
Who has made a ferocious effort to wipe out his existence? There might be a few of the more rabid atheists who do this, but my position is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and most of the claimed evidence has turned out to be mediocre rather than extraordinary.
It does not require faith or a extraordinary circumstance to consider the extra biblical writings to be enough that Christ existed. Now I will be with you in that evidence of his divine nature outside of the bible is always less than mediocre. But his divine nature is not what we are arguing here, simply the evidence of existence of a man named Jesus walking the earth. Not to mention that even now we are contesting his authenticity yet don't apply the same level of scrutiny to other historical figures. If there were not a religion tied to him no one would debate historical documents. Yes, there is an unusual push to eradicate Jesus from any public setting, no push to rid us of the greek gods prevalent in society, talking of buddah and Muhammed is encouraged. However, any Christ figure is quickly ridiculed and torn down, why such hatred singularly toward this one Figure of peace and humanitarianism? Read your news, people re-writing history about Christ's teachings involvement in our constitution or equal rights movements. People tearing down monuments, slaughtering his followers in the millions, and on and on.
For that matter I will let you check out the other references to christ's existance, here is a better listing rather than the
Actually if you would read more regarding Josephus you would find that the second passage mentioned there, the one that is (in my opinion doctored), you will find that the contestation is that one has been doctored which is documented in the link I gave you. This is an issue with many historical references, however even tossing out the doctored one you still have his other section of text which IS actually widely accepted.
Even thus, the situation you are describing, that Christ did not exist (as a man or god) is a stretch even for atheists. Because the alternative is you are saying that a religion jumped out of nowhere, from a man no one ever saw, that people were willing to die in the most horrific methods of the day, be ostracized from their families and culture, for no gain. Yes there was a Christ, who he was is contestable, but the fact that he walked and breathed is just a part of history. Some people are just religios about the idea of wiping his existence out...another interesting debate for another day; if he was just a man then why is there such a ferocious need to wipe out his existence, you don't see that from many other historical figures.
I just got to the bottom of the +5 comments. This article is relatively old by/. standards, what is amusing to me is that only 1 comment was made regarding the movie in a positive light. Given the number of comments in this forum I would say we have a decent sample of academic individuals...the question we should be asking now is what does this mean in light of the debate. I don't think the/. editors will read this comment but I would be very very interested in seeing some statistics of comments that are pro religion being moderated up or down, versus comments being made anti religion being moderated up or down. Me being a/. reader since '02 I would say that pro religious comments are severely discriminated against on/. I have even had people mod me down then go through my comment list modding down comments I made weeks before.
So Whereas I dont agree with the film in its entirety, I do agree with the point that once the keywords, Jesus, or God are mentioned, immediately the minds close to ideas and gauntlets are put on.
Let's not tolerate creationism but at least consider intelligent design
They are the same thing - both suggest the hand of an all-powerful imaginary magic super being with a sick sense of humor.
Actually they are the same thing but not in the way you said it. There is nothing saying that a race similar to ours didnt plant us here as a genetic experiment, don't you watch/read sci-fi? They may have evolved and decided to see how things would work with a genetically engineered crop. hmmm has the makings of a great movie....Or at least a good cheeseball one starring Bruce Campbell.
Your wasting your time, people will believe what they choose to believe and that is just an aspect of humanity that we have to deal with. You can logically lay out any side of an argument; what it comes down to is the sheer fact that people believe what they want to. It is not a matter of intelligence because intelligence just makes it all that much easier to justify something. You are asking that people be rational and that has never been the case with any group of people. Ever.
Personally, I am a Christian and I hate movies like this because they make, what I call 'rational Christians' look bad. But movies like this just go to prove how obsessive people can get about what they choose to believe. Yes, "The Truth is Out There" and truth is not relative. However, I have seen insanely intelligent people argue debates from multitudes of beliefs and they cannot all be right. Which just means that there are a lot of really smart people out there who have duped themselves into a lie and you cannot rationalize them out of a belief. Everyone is guilty of this, Religious people, Scientists, Politicians, Agnostics, Rapists, Murderers, Atheists, Vegans, Abortionists, Humanitarians, and pretty much every other group out there.
To sum up, Religious people do not have a corner on this bigotry, rather humanity does.
Because it comes down to what the majority of the consumers want. If there was a great enough demand for tall monitors, you bet there would be some dedicated ones come out for the small sector of laptop coders who dont do the majority of their work at a desk. But when it comes down to it, It costs money to make 2 different kinds of monitors. When 99% of your customers (I don't know what the actual data is just speaking figuratively) order widescreen laptops, you go where the buck is.
Contrary to your belief; Widescreen is wonderful for viewing webpages, spreadsheets, Pictures, Slideshow creation, using a tool dock with any app, and many many other uses. Largely because now you have toolbars on the side for editing your photo and histories that are always open in web browsing. Not to mention that most web pages I know of are built for a wider resolution. I dont know about you but when I use tall monitors that just means I have to scroll in 2 directions instead of just one. Also where you IS people may be taller, but standard photo size is still wider than tall. And human vision....what kind of funny glasses do you wear that are 4:3 ratio?
Besides what are you all bitching about? Do you not remember the days when all you had was a 8" screen to use? The viewable area on many widescreen's height is better than past laptops anyway.
Oh well people will always bitch about monitor size. I remember giving people 17" CRT's because they NEEDED the extra space that their 15" didn't give them, they still ran 800x600. Then they NEEDED the 19" CRTs, which they ran at a whopping 1024x768 (If I made them break from 800x600). But as soon as they saw someone with a 17" LCD, they suddenly NEEDED the desk space. Then the 17"WFP came out and suddenly people NEEDED the extra wide space. Oh it never ends.
Yes Parallels does the same thing as fusion Unity. Haven't played much with parallels coherence, fusion makes the Windows desktop disappear as well. Since it is considerably newer on the mac market I haven't gotten much feedback on it.
I guess if you turn aero off you should be fine. Now that we are on a more edifying topic; Being a VM mac user have you had much success with Fusion helping run your windows app? I used it with my clients and Outlook cause we all know the Mac users feelings on Entourage:)
THEORETICAL flaws jaw drops... Excuse me these are very real flaws, just not highly exploited ones. But your inability to distinguish between Theory and Reality is forgivable.
no practical computer vermin for Macs out in the wild taking advantage of the many supposed flaws.
As your knowledge of technology matures you will find that different situations call for different OS's.
Yes virtualization is the future, but not in the way you think, already the next release of windows server is implementing near to full VM environments. Apple will continue to push OSX but hopefully they will not open it up to multiple hardware environments, or we are going to say goodbye to our beloved stable Mac.
Broad sweeping statements, inability to distinguish between BSD and Linux, I see now that I am talking to a fanboy.
And for cryin out loud, dont run vista in a VM, what are you? A glutton for punishment?
Take it from a guy who has implemented Macs, *n*x, and Windows in many many many different environments. Been there done that, they are pretty much all equal. I am just as comfortable giving someone a windows box as long as it is behind a firewall and Firefox, as I am giving them a MAC. My reluctance on macs is generally pointed to the difficulty in supporting them, increasing downtime when a failure does happen. What I do like is that MAC users tend to be considerably more tech savvy than Windows users. Of course I have good money that OS.5 is going to kick ass as it gets tested in the real world. I think we will se great market share increases for OSX here in the next 5 years, especially with the disappointment of vista.
Oh I am definately not a do-it-yourselfer in cars:) I am very good at Network Engineering, but I have a mechanic for a reason;) I was just pointing out the bad comparison you made with honda.
For a eye opening experience for you read this article, I think it may have been linked on/. or roundabouts not too long ago.Hard numbers for you, not theory or personal bias. http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=758
As for the botnets, well that is another debate for another day, but suffice to say, the same thing that makes windows wonderful for networking is why worms slide in so easily.
Personally I run most major platforms at home, not to mention the 100+ networks I support. My parents run a Cheesegrater G5 and a windows Inspiron laptop. I personally run BSD, XP, Vista, FC5 (up to about a week ago), and one lonely mac computer at home. I have contemplated purchasing an up to date mac for a while. While I believe OSX to be a work of art for an OS, it is still just an OS and is flawed.
Each PC has its issues, linux is not user friendly to non-tinkers (Ubuntu has made great gains in this area though). Windows leaves to many services unguarded. Macs are difficult to support, also now that they are x86 their hardware is just as flawed as Windows architecture. In fact I have a HD coming in today to fix where windows will boot on the HD but OSX wont and cant be repaired. (Not a fault of OSX just happened to be on the part of the platter that got destroyed). Windows with all its flaws, has a lot of exposure and doesn't install on proprietary hardware which makes it more versatile but less stable, something like 29% of Vista crashes were due to NVIDIA.
But Mac and windows in the long run are about even security wise. Ease of use? OSX hands down. Supportability, WIndows. Stability? Linux by far.
No I am not bigoted towards anything, maybe I hate windows a bit more cause I have no choice but to work with it:) Each OS has its niche that makes wonderful sense.
You are either young or new to the debate. Macs are no longer safer than MS products sorry to say. Linux fan here, I use Windows corporately because it, and it hurts me to say this, is just the best enterprise OS out there. Home user? Definately would be a much better world if linux and its various flavors would take over the home environment where people are much more careless with their security.
Problem with Macs are,when they break your support options are limited, tinkering is out of the question, upgrading will cost you an arm and a leg. Unlike my good ol honda which anyone can work on, parts are readily available, and if I want to, can swap things out myself with no penalty.
Slashdot Mirror
As for female programmers, I was a CS tutor at my university growing up and I can state from experience that any female that was able to make it through CS 101 was a much better programmer than their male counterparts on average. Unfortunately these females were all on the education path so they didn't go into dev work.
Interesting sidenote; the females that didn't make it did cry a lot more but would forge on, the guys just threw hissy fits when they couldn't get concepts and drop the class. Maybe there is a bit to the female capacity to persevere and the male stubbornness :)
Honestly I think that when it comes to path finding algorithms, if the algorithm were in control of the other planes, collisions would be easily avoidable if not impossible. hell look at the collission detection algorithms we have been using for decades in TCP protocols.
That is more of along the lines of my thoughts. However, with all the unmanned aircraft that the Military uses, why not just make commercial aircraft unmanned, with one pilot on board in case of emergency. Of course the roumors I hear are that, that is pretty much how it is right now but you get that warm fuzzy by having someone sitting up front drinking coffee.
Why not get a group of engineers together and say, come up with a contingent plan for hijackings. This would open the door to creative solutions other than kill switches.
Well is there a way to use the heat to our advantage? How big would something have to be that we could create to dissipate so it lasts long enough to get by the corona possibly using the energy as fuel. The remaining question is, even if we could get close to the sun, would transmission be possible with all the radiation?
Depends on the game, Last time I checked RTS games from blizzard were still $20+ I did find Warcraft III for $13 used though once on amazon. Those games are at least 6 years old. Console games used on the other hand....pack of 30 for nothing on e-bay.
Thanks for the excellent reply, all well founded arguments and would be a joy to debate further but alas this thread is long enough, at least now I know you are educated in the matter rather than someone simply dismissing the idea of a historical Christ completely; thus this discussion has probably been more for my edification than yours. It would be fun to run across more people like you in coffee shops ;)
My goal personally is to bring some enlightenment to the Christian group as a whole. I am planning (when my wife gets out of her 11th year of college, to develop a nice bioethics course, with the review of a group of PHDs in each area). Lutherans are nice to work with in this area since they are the most academic of the denominations.
An interesting perspective though is this; Christians are woefully ignorant of science as a whole. Scientists are the same way to theology. Here and there, you find someone who can cross over, a scientist who is sound with their theology, or a Christian who is sound with their science. But on each side they are overshadowed by zealots. It is an uphill battle, good luck with your side ;)
You are also running into issues with a group of people who do not understand that evolution is a measurement tool, but rather see it as a method of talking about positive progress. The words mutation are always viewed negatively, and cannot distinguish between adaptation and micro evolution. (I side from the debate within evolution that adaptation and micro evolution are different in that adaptation occurs within a lifetime and micro evolution is a trait passed on from a generation. I don't think good definition has been made here).
Yes I come as a Christian to the table but that does 2 things, it makes me ashamed of my ignorant loud brethren, and does not excuse me from seeing scientific enlightenment or the pursuit of it.
The scientific argument here that is being poorly made to you is that entropy and evolution seem to be at odds with each other on a cosmic scale. Luckily here on earth we have a gigantic source of energy right next door sustaining micro-evolution. However, this would require very very rare stable circumstances to sustain. Also it is very very difficult to prove/disprove that punctuated equilibrium/macro evolution works as by their nature there is a giant gap.
theistic evolution can be intelligently discussed in one of two ways. 1. Lasse Faire - God started the universe with a bang and has been a spectator since, having created it in such a way that it will sustain itself acording to his plan. This scenario is Generally unacceptable to conservative Christians but works very well with loose interp of scripture and violates no scientific principles while solving a serious issue. The other theistic evolution that can be intelligently discussed is God created the Universe, everything in it, then created the world as it is, allowing for microevolution to correct the flaw of sin in nature, this method is generally discussed among conservative Christians and Jews. Either argument is edifying, and can be debated rigourously.
I hope this is a bit better argument for you to consider than the aforementioned thought governs creation train. Which is just a bunch of hocus pocus for wiccans and word of faith christians.
1) I didn't say he didn't exist, so that's a straw man.
Not a straw man, I think you misuse that term here. the OP stated "could you show me some actual evidence that he is an actual historic person and not just a mythical figure?" Which I did show evidence, which was quickly refuted by yourself. The problem is, the eyewitness's of Jesus were largely turned Christian and their writings Canonized if they had any legitimacy to them. Unfortunately today that means they are discredited.
2) I'm not an atheist.
Sorry didn't mean to imply that, I was speaking of Atheists as an example of a group that try to discredit religion at every chance, not you personally.
I did not say this. Note though that unless you are willing to claim there was a factual basis for Thor, Apollo, Baal, and and various other pagan gods, you must also accept the fact that many religions have existed which appear to have sprung either from nothing, or very little.Most of those religions were brought up over time as stories of events were embellished. Pagan gods usually granted some kind of power that people were trying to get. Also, no other religion has the documentation Christians/Jews/Muslims have. Thus why it is so fun to debate the subject. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, are singularly different from every other religion in this area.
Many pagans also died for their beliefs, often in horrific circumstances and in very large numbers for no apparent gain.
Citation needed.
It is part of religion, not history. Note that I'm not claiming this proves he didn't exist, but rather that there isn't much proof that he did.
Sorry there bud, he is definitely a part of history. He just happens to be a religious figure as well. You will be hard pressed to find historians who say otherwise. Considering the loss of information of the day, there is a lot of information on him. If this is not enough, then the historical figures I mention above might as well be mythological.
Who has made a ferocious effort to wipe out his existence? There might be a few of the more rabid atheists who do this, but my position is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and most of the claimed evidence has turned out to be mediocre rather than extraordinary.
It does not require faith or a extraordinary circumstance to consider the extra biblical writings to be enough that Christ existed. Now I will be with you in that evidence of his divine nature outside of the bible is always less than mediocre. But his divine nature is not what we are arguing here, simply the evidence of existence of a man named Jesus walking the earth. Not to mention that even now we are contesting his authenticity yet don't apply the same level of scrutiny to other historical figures. If there were not a religion tied to him no one would debate historical documents. Yes, there is an unusual push to eradicate Jesus from any public setting, no push to rid us of the greek gods prevalent in society, talking of buddah and Muhammed is encouraged. However, any Christ figure is quickly ridiculed and torn down, why such hatred singularly toward this one Figure of peace and humanitarianism? Read your news, people re-writing history about Christ's teachings involvement in our constitution or equal rights movements. People tearing down monuments, slaughtering his followers in the millions, and on and on.
For that matter I will let you check out the other references to christ's existance, here is a better listing rather than the
Even thus, the situation you are describing, that Christ did not exist (as a man or god) is a stretch even for atheists. Because the alternative is you are saying that a religion jumped out of nowhere, from a man no one ever saw, that people were willing to die in the most horrific methods of the day, be ostracized from their families and culture, for no gain. Yes there was a Christ, who he was is contestable, but the fact that he walked and breathed is just a part of history. Some people are just religios about the idea of wiping his existence out...another interesting debate for another day; if he was just a man then why is there such a ferocious need to wipe out his existence, you don't see that from many other historical figures.
touché
So Whereas I dont agree with the film in its entirety, I do agree with the point that once the keywords, Jesus, or God are mentioned, immediately the minds close to ideas and gauntlets are put on.
Oh come on now you KNOW that isn't true, there are some string theorists and dead patent clerks that got/get a good amount of heckling.
Let's not tolerate creationism but at least consider intelligent design They are the same thing - both suggest the hand of an all-powerful imaginary magic super being with a sick sense of humor. Actually they are the same thing but not in the way you said it. There is nothing saying that a race similar to ours didnt plant us here as a genetic experiment, don't you watch/read sci-fi? They may have evolved and decided to see how things would work with a genetically engineered crop. hmmm has the makings of a great movie....Or at least a good cheeseball one starring Bruce Campbell.
Personally, I am a Christian and I hate movies like this because they make, what I call 'rational Christians' look bad. But movies like this just go to prove how obsessive people can get about what they choose to believe. Yes, "The Truth is Out There" and truth is not relative. However, I have seen insanely intelligent people argue debates from multitudes of beliefs and they cannot all be right. Which just means that there are a lot of really smart people out there who have duped themselves into a lie and you cannot rationalize them out of a belief. Everyone is guilty of this, Religious people, Scientists, Politicians, Agnostics, Rapists, Murderers, Atheists, Vegans, Abortionists, Humanitarians, and pretty much every other group out there.
To sum up, Religious people do not have a corner on this bigotry, rather humanity does.
It is well established that Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth. What is up to debate is whether or not he was the only begotten son of God.
You sound like a rather angry person when it comes to Christianity so I am sure this will mean nothing to you closed minded people.
Contrary to your belief; Widescreen is wonderful for viewing webpages, spreadsheets, Pictures, Slideshow creation, using a tool dock with any app, and many many other uses. Largely because now you have toolbars on the side for editing your photo and histories that are always open in web browsing. Not to mention that most web pages I know of are built for a wider resolution. I dont know about you but when I use tall monitors that just means I have to scroll in 2 directions instead of just one. Also where you IS people may be taller, but standard photo size is still wider than tall. And human vision....what kind of funny glasses do you wear that are 4:3 ratio?
Besides what are you all bitching about? Do you not remember the days when all you had was a 8" screen to use? The viewable area on many widescreen's height is better than past laptops anyway.
Oh well people will always bitch about monitor size. I remember giving people 17" CRT's because they NEEDED the extra space that their 15" didn't give them, they still ran 800x600. Then they NEEDED the 19" CRTs, which they ran at a whopping 1024x768 (If I made them break from 800x600). But as soon as they saw someone with a 17" LCD, they suddenly NEEDED the desk space. Then the 17"WFP came out and suddenly people NEEDED the extra wide space. Oh it never ends.
Yes Parallels does the same thing as fusion Unity. Haven't played much with parallels coherence, fusion makes the Windows desktop disappear as well. Since it is considerably newer on the mac market I haven't gotten much feedback on it.
I guess if you turn aero off you should be fine. Now that we are on a more edifying topic; Being a VM mac user have you had much success with Fusion helping run your windows app? I used it with my clients and Outlook cause we all know the Mac users feelings on Entourage :)
no practical computer vermin for Macs out in the wild taking advantage of the many supposed flaws.
a simple google search pulls up: http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/Macintosh_Viruses_and_Mac_Virus_Resources.htm
As your knowledge of technology matures you will find that different situations call for different OS's.
Yes virtualization is the future, but not in the way you think, already the next release of windows server is implementing near to full VM environments. Apple will continue to push OSX but hopefully they will not open it up to multiple hardware environments, or we are going to say goodbye to our beloved stable Mac. Broad sweeping statements, inability to distinguish between BSD and Linux, I see now that I am talking to a fanboy.
And for cryin out loud, dont run vista in a VM, what are you? A glutton for punishment?
Take it from a guy who has implemented Macs, *n*x, and Windows in many many many different environments. Been there done that, they are pretty much all equal. I am just as comfortable giving someone a windows box as long as it is behind a firewall and Firefox, as I am giving them a MAC. My reluctance on macs is generally pointed to the difficulty in supporting them, increasing downtime when a failure does happen. What I do like is that MAC users tend to be considerably more tech savvy than Windows users. Of course I have good money that OS.5 is going to kick ass as it gets tested in the real world. I think we will se great market share increases for OSX here in the next 5 years, especially with the disappointment of vista.
For a eye opening experience for you read this article, I think it may have been linked on /. or roundabouts not too long ago.Hard numbers for you, not theory or personal bias. http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=758
As for the botnets, well that is another debate for another day, but suffice to say, the same thing that makes windows wonderful for networking is why worms slide in so easily.
Personally I run most major platforms at home, not to mention the 100+ networks I support. My parents run a Cheesegrater G5 and a windows Inspiron laptop. I personally run BSD, XP, Vista, FC5 (up to about a week ago), and one lonely mac computer at home. I have contemplated purchasing an up to date mac for a while. While I believe OSX to be a work of art for an OS, it is still just an OS and is flawed.
Each PC has its issues, linux is not user friendly to non-tinkers (Ubuntu has made great gains in this area though). Windows leaves to many services unguarded. Macs are difficult to support, also now that they are x86 their hardware is just as flawed as Windows architecture. In fact I have a HD coming in today to fix where windows will boot on the HD but OSX wont and cant be repaired. (Not a fault of OSX just happened to be on the part of the platter that got destroyed). Windows with all its flaws, has a lot of exposure and doesn't install on proprietary hardware which makes it more versatile but less stable, something like 29% of Vista crashes were due to NVIDIA.
But Mac and windows in the long run are about even security wise. Ease of use? OSX hands down. Supportability, WIndows. Stability? Linux by far.
No I am not bigoted towards anything, maybe I hate windows a bit more cause I have no choice but to work with it :) Each OS has its niche that makes wonderful sense.
Problem with Macs are,when they break your support options are limited, tinkering is out of the question, upgrading will cost you an arm and a leg. Unlike my good ol honda which anyone can work on, parts are readily available, and if I want to, can swap things out myself with no penalty.
Because much like Mac users, windows users dont want to know how things work they just want automation.