What difference would that _actually_ make to us, here on Earth?
Well, personally, it wouldn't make one whit of difference.
Reasons that it would be sad is that it would speak to the "prevalence" of life in the universe. If our little backwater of a solar system can have two or three or four bodies that support life, it might be common. Since we believe that more complex life (eg animals, worms, etc.) evolves from simpler life (eg, bacteria), the more simple life we find means that, statistically, we have a better chance of finding more complex life and, possibly, "intelligent" life.
There's also the obvious religious issues for the philosophers. If God created Man on Earth, did he create Amoebas on Mars? If we discover that life on Earth is similar to life on Mars, does that mean that God created both and just didn't bother to tell us or does it show similar processes? If the life is dissimilar, does that mean that God created life on Earth and something else created life on Mars? Does Amoebas on Mars and People on Earth imply that nature cannot build anything so complex as a human being and that building human beings requires some sort of "Intelligent Design"? And if the life is dissimilar, is it really life?
Actually, I was thinking that alot of this talk is coming to a head just before WWDC. So I was thinking that, in two weeks, Microsoft will begin letting everyone know that Vista is being delayed due to "Beta Feedback."
No, I doubt it will happen. But it would be funny if, right after WWDC, a "Vista Delay" became official. You'd hear the Mac Heads laughing from miles away...
So the top three games are available for Mac and the fourth one is coming. And I ran across plenty of articles about how the other games are available via BootCamp, if you just gotta have the lesser popular games (ie, numbers 4-10).:^)
Guess the percentage of Windows apps can be found for a Mac? If you guess 50 you are being way too optomistic
You might be surprised at what software is available on Macintosh. As I've said before, I've had all sorts of people tell me that such and such wasn't available on the Mac, only to find out that it was available. Lots of companies don't publicize their Mac software--they publicize their software and everyone assumes that it runs under Windows (a safe bet) and that it doesn't run on a Mac.
I'd also point out that if by "Windows apps," you mean a program created be a particular company, I'd agree. But if you look at categories, such as office productivity and such, you'll find there's plenty of software that does plenty of things. Where I've found this falls down is in external device support. I still have yet to find software that I connect to the dataport in my car and adjust the tuning. It does exist for Windows, but I can't use it on a Mac. So if you're thinking of using your PC to tune your car, you're right. Get a Windows machine. Don't waste your time with a Mac.
Find me a single publisher who will fund a 20-30 person team on a Mac game for two or more years because a programmer told them to do so and I'll eat my words.
(I have no idea how many developers Bungie had or how much they invested in writing Marathon, so I'm being facetious. Thus the smiley face.)
I'm not arguing that you have no ability to change it, so this isn't really an attack. But the smaller market for Macintosh does have some advantages. First, it's easier and cheaper to get the word out because there isn't as much noise. Probably thousands of PC games are released every year--getting a reviewer to review your game as one of 15 he has to review in a week is difficult. Since there are fewer Mac games, reviewers get to spend more time with them. It's much easier to create a buzz about a product on the Mac than in the PC world.
Second, Mac users buy more software. So your odds that a Mac user will actually buy your software are better than a PC user. Also, the Mac fans love Mac-only software, so they'll buy it to show off to their PC using friends.
So if the game gets lots of good buzz on the Mac, then you port it to the PC. If it doesn't, you've spent less money trying to convince people to buy it. If you will, Mac users become a paying test audience.
Find me a single publisher who will fund a 20-30 person team on a Mac game for two or more years because a programmer told them to do so and I'll eat my words.
(I have no idea how many developers Bungie had or how much they invested in writing Marathon, so I'm being facetious. Thus the smiley face.)
I'm not arguing that you have no ability to change it, so this isn't really an attack. But the smaller market for Macintosh does have some advantages. First, it's easier and cheaper to get the word out because there isn't as much noise. Probably thousands of PC games are released every year--getting a reviewer to review your game as one of 15 he has to review in a week is difficult. Since there are fewer Mac games, reviewers get to spend more time with them. It's much easier to create a buzz about a product on the Mac than in the PC world.
Second, Mac users buy more software. So your odds that a Mac user will actually buy your software are better than a PC user. Also, the Mac fans love Mac-only software, so they'll buy it to show off to their PC using friends.
So if the game gets lots of good buzz on the Mac, then you port it to the PC (a la Marathon). If it doesn't, you've spent less money trying to convince people. If you will, Mac users become a paying test audience.
By saying "I spent $500 extra for an OS I don't need that does nothing better than other modern OS choices". So, I'd like mine to look like it's bleeding money. Literally, bleeding.
Seriously, though, you have a point. I'm sure part of the reason Microsoft would like PC makers to do this is to make the hardware look different if it's running Vista.
Most PC users don't upgrade their operating system. They upgrade their computer. But how does the world know that they're running Vista? It's same old dull boring box. Most people can't tell a new computer from an old one, so most people wouldn't know that you bought a new computer with a brand new operating system on it.
So, come June, if I walk into three friends' houses and they all have funky-looking brand new computers, I'll probably ask why. If they have new but dull-boring looking computers, I may not even notice and I certainly won't be asking why.
I couldn't care less what the shape of my PC is. It is under the desk with my UPS, subwoofer and trash can.
That's fair. But...
Why is your computer under your desk? Is it because it's an ugly POS that detracts from the decor? Is it because it's too big to fit on your desk--or that you'd rather have room for other things on your desk?
Or, you could give them an Intel Mac with Mac OS X and if they encountered something that they need to use Windows for, you could give them Parallels and Windows.
After all, what in your company do you need Windows for?
I would submit that Apple finally "got it" when they started using standard DIMMs (versus proprietary) [...]
Which happened in 1986 with the Mac Plus. The only "proprietary" memory upgrades for Macs were the ones for the Mac 512 and Mac 128, which had to be done that way because there was no expansion slot.
Well, you're sort of right. The "Professional" line of Macs used NuBus, which is not a proprietary standard. However, many Macs did have proprietary expansion slots, mostly because of form factor issues. Trying to make a NuBus card fit into a Mac SE/30 wouldn't really work.
[...] IDE drives (versus SCSI), USB (in addition to firewire), standard monitors [...]
There's two issues here: Leading the way and legacy support.
Consider that, in 1986, IDE was considered fairly slow compared to SCSI (and arguably still is, but that's an argument for another day). SCSI was definitely the more modern route to take. Much like the NuBus issue above--should Apple have gone with a 16 bit PC-AT Bus for their 32 bit computers back in 1987 to remain compatible? Should Apple have waited around for someone to come up with a standard for communicating more than 8-bit colors in 1987, or should they have come up with their own? Should Apple have not developed ADB? Would we even have USB if Apple hadn't come up with ADB?
Do you want to be "compatible" or do you want to be "better"? If I'm spending $10,000 for a Macintosh IIfx, I expect it to be a wicked fast workhorse.
And at what point do you say, "Okay. The rest of the world has caught up. Let's call it quits."? For example, Apple switched to ATA/IDE drives in their "inexpensive" consumer models because ATA/IDE drives were inexpensive and "good enough." Apple dropped ADB for USB because it was better and more popular and all Apple would be doing with an ADB 2.0 would be reinventing the wheel (although it would have been interesting if they had developed FireWire keyboards and mice, but that's another story).
In the case of monitors, Apple flip-flopped on this one. They had their own ADA standard (Apple Display Adapter). Then they supported VGA (or SVGA or whatever) when it caught up, then they supported DVI. Then they created ADC (Apple Display Connector) which solved a problem that no one had (namely, having separate cables for USB and DVI). Now they've switched back to DVI again.
The other question is when do you stop supporting legacy hardware? After all, Apple spent money developing ADB. When do you say, "Let's compete", when do you say, "We're still good enough", and when do you say, "Aw, screw it"? I have customers who complain about having to throw out their $500 colorimeter that they bought in 1997 because we don't support it because Apple pulled ADB support.
Back when I was a kid in the late 70s, I used to use "Conference Programs"--essentially a mainframe-based chat program. I got so that I could type fast--at least compared to my peers at the time.
One day, I snuck into the high-school typing lab (I was in junior high at the time) to type up a paper. There were three or four other people in the lab. I sat down and started working on the paper when suddenly I realized that the room had gone completely silent. I stopped, looked around, and everyone in the room was staring at me.
I have largish hands and I'm very right-handed. I don't have as much dexterity with my left hand as I do with my right. When I type, I've noticed that my left hand doesn't do that much. It sits on the left side of the keyboard and pretty much handles QWER, ASDF, ZX, 1234, and the tab and shift keys. My right hand deals with the rest of the keyboard. One thing that's funny, though, is that it is dependent on the words I'm typing. For example, the word 'character'--the left hand does the first 'C' and the right hand does the second 'C'.
When I finally took a typing class, I drove my teacher nuts because I didn't "touch type." So I would sit there, with my fingers on the home row, going ka-chunk, ka-chunk, ka-chunk. Then she'd leave the room and I'd go back to the way I was more comfortable with. Of course, in the end, I wrote a program to print out the exercises and ran it on a Diablo terminal with the appropriate type-wheel so it would look like it came off the typewriters in the typing lab...
U.S. Rep. David Weldon, R-Indialantic, has earmarked money in the NASA budget for hand-picked projects in Brevard, Florida.
Rep. means he's a Representative. Why they listed him as being a representative from Indialatic, I have no idea, but there is a town of Indialantic in the county of Brevard, Florida.
But I like the concept! Since each state automatically gets one representative and people are stupid, all one needs to do is insist that there are 51 states.
Step 1: Come up with a state that sounds like another one--Massissippi Step 2: Go to Washington and start collecting money from lobbyists as the representative of the state Step 3: ??? Step 4: Profit!
Turn the shuttle and space station and all non-research operation/facilities (including launch) over to the Navy (not the Air Force, despite the superficial similarities)
I'm just curious why you'd say turn it over to the Navy and not the Air Force? I have no opinion either way, except that the Air Force seems like a more natural fit than the Navy.
We're putting humans into space so that they can build the ISS so that we can put humans into space. Into low earth orbit. The same place John Glenn went in 1962.
I'm always sick of that example.
John Glenn spent 88 minutes at that place. We're currently spending months. Where John Glenn rode around in a an capsule with about five square meters of room, the ISS has about 425 square meters! John Glenn wore a pressure suit. These people work in a shirtsleeve environment. One thing that also tends to get missed, which us old fogeys appreciate: The qualifications of people going into space has dropped dramatically since John Glenn was there. You don't have to be in peak physical shape like John Glenn was in 1962. In fact, you can be more like the John Glenn of 1998.
To me, that's pretty impressive.
[...] but the scientific aspects of the ISS seem to me to be about 98% grandstanding and PR.
You're sort of right. The scientific aspects are pretty boring. But, then, so is science. Or, more accurately, they're really exciting to a very small percentage of the American population. Of course, it can be tough to explain why these things are exciting to people who don't usually get excited about such things. So I agree that NASA tends to hype it's experiments more than they should. Some of this comes from a skeptical public: Who cares how ants/spiders/cats/frogs/squid/small furry rodents react to weightlessness? But all of these are different points in a larger plot that teaches us more about these animals and how they are the same and different from us. For example, if a mouse bones react the same way as human bones to weightlessness, this means they could be used as experimental animals. If they react differently, why do they react differently and is there something we can learn from this?
This is not really exciting stuff to the American people. So NASA will list this as potentially assisting with geriatric studies. Why? Well, some of the effects of weightlessness on bones mirror the normal aging process. So if we can figure out how to prevent bones from getting weaker in a zero-G environment, this may translate into medication that can help older people with bone problems. If we learn that mice react the same way as humans, that means that mice might make suitable test subjects here on Earth for medications.
IDF General: Why are innocent people next to Hizballah rocket installations?
Because that's where the food is?
Hell, look at America. How many military bases are located next to population centers? The Pentagon isn't out in the middle of nowhere--lots of people live around there. How many civilians work inside the Pentagon? Lots of people make pretty good money working around military installations.
For work, forget using anything from IBM, forget using the SAP client (SAP GUI) if your work requires it. Forget a *lot* of other essential corporate applications.
I'm not going to disagree with you about software availability. However, I think what you'll find is that you may have problems finding a "brand" that you're comfortable with. Everyone's favorite example: AutoCAD. Of course, there are plenty of CAD solutions on the Mac. However, if you must use AutoCAD for some reason, you're out of luck. This is true for games--a particular example of branding. If you're the sort of person who has to play the latest hottest game as soon as it comes out, you're out of luck on the Mac. For example, I got Star Wars: Battlefront for Mac OS X this past Christmas. It shipped in July 2005--about 10 months after the Windows release. So it certainly wasn't the hottest game by the time I got to play it. I still like playing it, though.
Now, how would I convince a consumer to switch to something which is more expensive while lacking both the breadth and width of software and hardware options they currently enjoy? When they ask about upgrades, how would I explain to them that Apple charges rediculous premiums for *any* kind of hardware upgrade? How would I convince my company to switch when just 10% of their essential software even has an equivalent on OSX?
Well, some of your concerns are just plain wrong.
Again, in the consumer realm on the software side, I think you're taking about games. Everything else is covered. In that realm, suggest they buy an Xbox 360 or Wii for the kids to play games with. Mom & Dad will be happier about not having to kick the kids off the computer anyway.
Hardware, I'm a bit lost on. What do you mean "breath of hardware upgrades" for consumers. Are you saying that you can't upgrade memory, hard disks, or video cards on a Mac? Sorry, Macs use industry-standard hard drives. If anything, the problem with Macs are that they tend to be ahead of the curve, so you might have to buy Serial-ATA drives instead of a cheapo ATA/66 hard drive and that will cost you more money. Same with memory--the iMac uses PC2-5300 memory which is more expensive than other types. For example, a 1GB upgrade is about $165. For a Dell XPS200, 1GB of PC2-4200 memory is $120.
From the business software side, I might agree. But, before I do, I'd point out that Macs are cheaper for a business to support than Windows. So, obviously, the more Macs you have, the cheaper it will be. So suppose we ask this question: What job positions require Windows PCs?
Receptionist? That job is mostly about e-mail, etc. All available on Mac. Sales? Again, e-mail, etc. Perhaps some database access for looking up inventory and such, which can be done via the web. Macs have web browsers, so that should be fine. So we could switch Sales. Marketing? Ooh...lots of graphics and such. Plenty of room for Macs in marketing. General Management? Show me a software category that is used by general management that is not available on the Mac.
Engineering? Well, if you're developing Windows software, you need some Windows machines. There are also some great tools for other engineering disciplines which are not available on the Mac. Fair enough. Engineering keeps it Windows machines.
Accounting? There's accounting software for Macs, believe it or not, but I'll let them keep their Windows machines. There are some great accounting solutions for Windows.
No, actually we're saying that if your garden pelts us with carrots and peas as we walk past on the public street, we're at liberty to catch them and consume them.
Agreed. But that does not mean you can grab your excess summer squash and throw it in my yard just because I'm throwing vegetables into your yard.
There are those who make the argument that the signal goes onto their property and, therefore, they can use it. As I understand it, if the neighbor's fruit tree drops fruit in your yard, it's yours. In fact, if the branches of the fruit tree are over your property, you can grab the fruit off the part of the tree that crosses onto your property. So there's some reasonable basis for that.
However, I would argue the right goes both ways. You have every right to do whatever you want with the packets I am throwing into your yard. I, in turn, have every right to do what I want with the packets you throw back into my yard. If I want to ignore them, accept them, or fiddle with them before sending them through, that's fine. After all, once those packets entered my property, they became mine to do with as I wish, right? Just like the packets I sent onto your property were yours. Turn about is fair play.
Personally, I thought the idea was great. I'd've been far crueler, though, and changed out every picture with goatse.cx or tubgirl. Which brings up an entertaining question...
Suppose I redirect every web request to a website with pornographic pictures. Suppose the neighbor's kids try to go to disney.com and, instead, get smutsite.com. Can I be arrested for distributing pornography to minors?
[...] and a dozen Soyuz trips per month?I'm not sure where this comes from.
There have been 12 Soyuz missions to the ISS since the first one in 2001. Where do you get the "dozen Soyuz trips per month."? Even if you add in 22 Progress launches, that's still nowhere near a dozen Soyuz trips per month.
Agreed. And in 1985, they had 9 launches in 12 months. Then they had the Challenger Accident and shut things down from about mid 1986 to late 1988. From 1989-2002, they averaged a little over one every two months. Then they had the Columbia Accident that shut things down from early 2003 to mid 2005.
So I'd say that, barring accidents, NASA has managed to launch one every two months.
Does any other country's space program have a vehicle that can support seven astronauts for up to a month, can return with tons of cargo, has an airlock, grappling system, etc.?
I noticed it, too. Don't get me wrong--there are some valid concerns with the Deuterium/Tritium reactors. But most of the comments were, "Doc Ock tried this in Spiderman 2..."
Hopefully they were joking, but it's awfully scary sometimes to think that they were serious...
"weren't they able to track the Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction a few years ago?"
Actually, I missed the wardrobe malfunction because of my DVR.
I like watching football with my DVR because I can fast forward through all the trivia that goes on between plays. I don't record the games because recording things without a definite end-time is always a nuisance. So when Superbowl Sunday came around, I just hit the "Pause" button and waited an hour or so until it built up enough a buffer.
When they got to the half-time show, I thought, "Well, I like Janet Jackson doing stuff from Rhythm Nation, so I'll watch that. But Justin Timberlake? Who cares?!" So whenever he showed up, I hit the fast forward button. When the "malfunction" occurred, I missed it completely. Show over, time to get back to the game!
It wasn't until afterwards that I heard of the problem and, by that time, I couldn't rewind to watch it again.
Slashdot Mirror
Beware of gifts bearing Greeks.
Yeah. Like people burning flags.
Reasons that it would be sad is that it would speak to the "prevalence" of life in the universe. If our little backwater of a solar system can have two or three or four bodies that support life, it might be common. Since we believe that more complex life (eg animals, worms, etc.) evolves from simpler life (eg, bacteria), the more simple life we find means that, statistically, we have a better chance of finding more complex life and, possibly, "intelligent" life.
There's also the obvious religious issues for the philosophers. If God created Man on Earth, did he create Amoebas on Mars? If we discover that life on Earth is similar to life on Mars, does that mean that God created both and just didn't bother to tell us or does it show similar processes? If the life is dissimilar, does that mean that God created life on Earth and something else created life on Mars? Does Amoebas on Mars and People on Earth imply that nature cannot build anything so complex as a human being and that building human beings requires some sort of "Intelligent Design"? And if the life is dissimilar, is it really life?
Actually, I was thinking that alot of this talk is coming to a head just before WWDC. So I was thinking that, in two weeks, Microsoft will begin letting everyone know that Vista is being delayed due to "Beta Feedback."
No, I doubt it will happen. But it would be funny if, right after WWDC, a "Vista Delay" became official. You'd hear the Mac Heads laughing from miles away...
Here we have a list of the top selling games for the week ending July 15, 2006.
#1. World of Warcraft -- Available for Mac.
#2. Cars -- Available for Mac. See the little Mac logo on the screen?
#3. The Sims 2 -- Available for Mac.
#6. The Sims 2: Open For Business -- Currently in Beta.
So the top three games are available for Mac and the fourth one is coming. And I ran across plenty of articles about how the other games are available via BootCamp, if you just gotta have the lesser popular games (ie, numbers 4-10).
You might be surprised at what software is available on Macintosh. As I've said before, I've had all sorts of people tell me that such and such wasn't available on the Mac, only to find out that it was available. Lots of companies don't publicize their Mac software--they publicize their software and everyone assumes that it runs under Windows (a safe bet) and that it doesn't run on a Mac.
I'd also point out that if by "Windows apps," you mean a program created be a particular company, I'd agree. But if you look at categories, such as office productivity and such, you'll find there's plenty of software that does plenty of things. Where I've found this falls down is in external device support. I still have yet to find software that I connect to the dataport in my car and adjust the tuning. It does exist for Windows, but I can't use it on a Mac. So if you're thinking of using your PC to tune your car, you're right. Get a Windows machine. Don't waste your time with a Mac.
Actually, I have. I've never used it on Windows, though. Why?
(I have no idea how many developers Bungie had or how much they invested in writing Marathon, so I'm being facetious. Thus the smiley face.)
I'm not arguing that you have no ability to change it, so this isn't really an attack. But the smaller market for Macintosh does have some advantages. First, it's easier and cheaper to get the word out because there isn't as much noise. Probably thousands of PC games are released every year--getting a reviewer to review your game as one of 15 he has to review in a week is difficult. Since there are fewer Mac games, reviewers get to spend more time with them. It's much easier to create a buzz about a product on the Mac than in the PC world.
Second, Mac users buy more software. So your odds that a Mac user will actually buy your software are better than a PC user. Also, the Mac fans love Mac-only software, so they'll buy it to show off to their PC using friends.
So if the game gets lots of good buzz on the Mac, then you port it to the PC. If it doesn't, you've spent less money trying to convince people to buy it. If you will, Mac users become a paying test audience.
(I have no idea how many developers Bungie had or how much they invested in writing Marathon, so I'm being facetious. Thus the smiley face.)
I'm not arguing that you have no ability to change it, so this isn't really an attack. But the smaller market for Macintosh does have some advantages. First, it's easier and cheaper to get the word out because there isn't as much noise. Probably thousands of PC games are released every year--getting a reviewer to review your game as one of 15 he has to review in a week is difficult. Since there are fewer Mac games, reviewers get to spend more time with them. It's much easier to create a buzz about a product on the Mac than in the PC world.
Second, Mac users buy more software. So your odds that a Mac user will actually buy your software are better than a PC user. Also, the Mac fans love Mac-only software, so they'll buy it to show off to their PC using friends.
So if the game gets lots of good buzz on the Mac, then you port it to the PC (a la Marathon). If it doesn't, you've spent less money trying to convince people. If you will, Mac users become a paying test audience.
Seriously, though, you have a point. I'm sure part of the reason Microsoft would like PC makers to do this is to make the hardware look different if it's running Vista.
Most PC users don't upgrade their operating system. They upgrade their computer. But how does the world know that they're running Vista? It's same old dull boring box. Most people can't tell a new computer from an old one, so most people wouldn't know that you bought a new computer with a brand new operating system on it.
So, come June, if I walk into three friends' houses and they all have funky-looking brand new computers, I'll probably ask why. If they have new but dull-boring looking computers, I may not even notice and I certainly won't be asking why.
Or, you could give them an Intel Mac with Mac OS X and if they encountered something that they need to use Windows for, you could give them Parallels and Windows.
After all, what in your company do you need Windows for?
Well, you're sort of right. The "Professional" line of Macs used NuBus, which is not a proprietary standard. However, many Macs did have proprietary expansion slots, mostly because of form factor issues. Trying to make a NuBus card fit into a Mac SE/30 wouldn't really work.
There's two issues here: Leading the way and legacy support.
Consider that, in 1986, IDE was considered fairly slow compared to SCSI (and arguably still is, but that's an argument for another day). SCSI was definitely the more modern route to take. Much like the NuBus issue above--should Apple have gone with a 16 bit PC-AT Bus for their 32 bit computers back in 1987 to remain compatible? Should Apple have waited around for someone to come up with a standard for communicating more than 8-bit colors in 1987, or should they have come up with their own? Should Apple have not developed ADB? Would we even have USB if Apple hadn't come up with ADB?
Do you want to be "compatible" or do you want to be "better"? If I'm spending $10,000 for a Macintosh IIfx, I expect it to be a wicked fast workhorse.
And at what point do you say, "Okay. The rest of the world has caught up. Let's call it quits."? For example, Apple switched to ATA/IDE drives in their "inexpensive" consumer models because ATA/IDE drives were inexpensive and "good enough." Apple dropped ADB for USB because it was better and more popular and all Apple would be doing with an ADB 2.0 would be reinventing the wheel (although it would have been interesting if they had developed FireWire keyboards and mice, but that's another story).
In the case of monitors, Apple flip-flopped on this one. They had their own ADA standard (Apple Display Adapter). Then they supported VGA (or SVGA or whatever) when it caught up, then they supported DVI. Then they created ADC (Apple Display Connector) which solved a problem that no one had (namely, having separate cables for USB and DVI). Now they've switched back to DVI again.
The other question is when do you stop supporting legacy hardware? After all, Apple spent money developing ADB. When do you say, "Let's compete", when do you say, "We're still good enough", and when do you say, "Aw, screw it"? I have customers who complain about having to throw out their $500 colorimeter that they bought in 1997 because we don't support it because Apple pulled ADB support.
Ah, the memories.
Back when I was a kid in the late 70s, I used to use "Conference Programs"--essentially a mainframe-based chat program. I got so that I could type fast--at least compared to my peers at the time.
One day, I snuck into the high-school typing lab (I was in junior high at the time) to type up a paper. There were three or four other people in the lab. I sat down and started working on the paper when suddenly I realized that the room had gone completely silent. I stopped, looked around, and everyone in the room was staring at me.
I have largish hands and I'm very right-handed. I don't have as much dexterity with my left hand as I do with my right. When I type, I've noticed that my left hand doesn't do that much. It sits on the left side of the keyboard and pretty much handles QWER, ASDF, ZX, 1234, and the tab and shift keys. My right hand deals with the rest of the keyboard. One thing that's funny, though, is that it is dependent on the words I'm typing. For example, the word 'character'--the left hand does the first 'C' and the right hand does the second 'C'.
When I finally took a typing class, I drove my teacher nuts because I didn't "touch type." So I would sit there, with my fingers on the home row, going ka-chunk, ka-chunk, ka-chunk. Then she'd leave the room and I'd go back to the way I was more comfortable with. Of course, in the end, I wrote a program to print out the exercises and ran it on a Diablo terminal with the appropriate type-wheel so it would look like it came off the typewriters in the typing lab...
Rep. means he's a Representative. Why they listed him as being a representative from Indialatic, I have no idea, but there is a town of Indialantic in the county of Brevard, Florida.
But I like the concept! Since each state automatically gets one representative and people are stupid, all one needs to do is insist that there are 51 states.
Step 1: Come up with a state that sounds like another one--Massissippi
Step 2: Go to Washington and start collecting money from lobbyists as the representative of the state
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit!
John Glenn spent 88 minutes at that place. We're currently spending months. Where John Glenn rode around in a an capsule with about five square meters of room, the ISS has about 425 square meters! John Glenn wore a pressure suit. These people work in a shirtsleeve environment. One thing that also tends to get missed, which us old fogeys appreciate: The qualifications of people going into space has dropped dramatically since John Glenn was there. You don't have to be in peak physical shape like John Glenn was in 1962. In fact, you can be more like the John Glenn of 1998.
To me, that's pretty impressive.
You're sort of right. The scientific aspects are pretty boring. But, then, so is science. Or, more accurately, they're really exciting to a very small percentage of the American population. Of course, it can be tough to explain why these things are exciting to people who don't usually get excited about such things. So I agree that NASA tends to hype it's experiments more than they should. Some of this comes from a skeptical public: Who cares how ants/spiders/cats/frogs/squid/small furry rodents react to weightlessness? But all of these are different points in a larger plot that teaches us more about these animals and how they are the same and different from us. For example, if a mouse bones react the same way as human bones to weightlessness, this means they could be used as experimental animals. If they react differently, why do they react differently and is there something we can learn from this?
This is not really exciting stuff to the American people. So NASA will list this as potentially assisting with geriatric studies. Why? Well, some of the effects of weightlessness on bones mirror the normal aging process. So if we can figure out how to prevent bones from getting weaker in a zero-G environment, this may translate into medication that can help older people with bone problems. If we learn that mice react the same way as humans, that means that mice might make suitable test subjects here on Earth for medications.
Hell, look at America. How many military bases are located next to population centers? The Pentagon isn't out in the middle of nowhere--lots of people live around there. How many civilians work inside the Pentagon? Lots of people make pretty good money working around military installations.
Bzzt. Thanks for playing. [PDF] You're right, though. Lots of IBM software is not available for Mac OS X. Like Lotus Notes and ViaVoice.
I'm not going to disagree with you about software availability. However, I think what you'll find is that you may have problems finding a "brand" that you're comfortable with. Everyone's favorite example: AutoCAD. Of course, there are plenty of CAD solutions on the Mac. However, if you must use AutoCAD for some reason, you're out of luck. This is true for games--a particular example of branding. If you're the sort of person who has to play the latest hottest game as soon as it comes out, you're out of luck on the Mac. For example, I got Star Wars: Battlefront for Mac OS X this past Christmas. It shipped in July 2005--about 10 months after the Windows release. So it certainly wasn't the hottest game by the time I got to play it. I still like playing it, though.
Well, some of your concerns are just plain wrong.
Again, in the consumer realm on the software side, I think you're taking about games. Everything else is covered. In that realm, suggest they buy an Xbox 360 or Wii for the kids to play games with. Mom & Dad will be happier about not having to kick the kids off the computer anyway.
Hardware, I'm a bit lost on. What do you mean "breath of hardware upgrades" for consumers. Are you saying that you can't upgrade memory, hard disks, or video cards on a Mac? Sorry, Macs use industry-standard hard drives. If anything, the problem with Macs are that they tend to be ahead of the curve, so you might have to buy Serial-ATA drives instead of a cheapo ATA/66 hard drive and that will cost you more money. Same with memory--the iMac uses PC2-5300 memory which is more expensive than other types. For example, a 1GB upgrade is about $165. For a Dell XPS200, 1GB of PC2-4200 memory is $120.
From the business software side, I might agree. But, before I do, I'd point out that Macs are cheaper for a business to support than Windows. So, obviously, the more Macs you have, the cheaper it will be. So suppose we ask this question: What job positions require Windows PCs?
Receptionist? That job is mostly about e-mail, etc. All available on Mac. Sales? Again, e-mail, etc. Perhaps some database access for looking up inventory and such, which can be done via the web. Macs have web browsers, so that should be fine. So we could switch Sales. Marketing? Ooh...lots of graphics and such. Plenty of room for Macs in marketing. General Management? Show me a software category that is used by general management that is not available on the Mac.
Engineering? Well, if you're developing Windows software, you need some Windows machines. There are also some great tools for other engineering disciplines which are not available on the Mac. Fair enough. Engineering keeps it Windows machines.
Accounting? There's accounting software for Macs, believe it or not, but I'll let them keep their Windows machines. There are some great accounting solutions for Windows.
There are those who make the argument that the signal goes onto their property and, therefore, they can use it. As I understand it, if the neighbor's fruit tree drops fruit in your yard, it's yours. In fact, if the branches of the fruit tree are over your property, you can grab the fruit off the part of the tree that crosses onto your property. So there's some reasonable basis for that.
However, I would argue the right goes both ways. You have every right to do whatever you want with the packets I am throwing into your yard. I, in turn, have every right to do what I want with the packets you throw back into my yard. If I want to ignore them, accept them, or fiddle with them before sending them through, that's fine. After all, once those packets entered my property, they became mine to do with as I wish, right? Just like the packets I sent onto your property were yours. Turn about is fair play.
Personally, I thought the idea was great. I'd've been far crueler, though, and changed out every picture with goatse.cx or tubgirl. Which brings up an entertaining question...
Suppose I redirect every web request to a website with pornographic pictures. Suppose the neighbor's kids try to go to disney.com and, instead, get smutsite.com. Can I be arrested for distributing pornography to minors?
Yes! And we have to do something about second-hand packets...
[...] and a dozen Soyuz trips per month?I'm not sure where this comes from.
There have been 12 Soyuz missions to the ISS since the first one in 2001. Where do you get the "dozen Soyuz trips per month."? Even if you add in 22 Progress launches, that's still nowhere near a dozen Soyuz trips per month.
Agreed. And in 1985, they had 9 launches in 12 months. Then they had the Challenger Accident and shut things down from about mid 1986 to late 1988. From 1989-2002, they averaged a little over one every two months. Then they had the Columbia Accident that shut things down from early 2003 to mid 2005.
So I'd say that, barring accidents, NASA has managed to launch one every two months.
Does any other country's space program have a vehicle that can support seven astronauts for up to a month, can return with tons of cargo, has an airlock, grappling system, etc.?
I noticed it, too. Don't get me wrong--there are some valid concerns with the Deuterium/Tritium reactors. But most of the comments were, "Doc Ock tried this in Spiderman 2..."
Hopefully they were joking, but it's awfully scary sometimes to think that they were serious...
"weren't they able to track the Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction a few years ago?"
Actually, I missed the wardrobe malfunction because of my DVR.
I like watching football with my DVR because I can fast forward through all the trivia that goes on between plays. I don't record the games because recording things without a definite end-time is always a nuisance. So when Superbowl Sunday came around, I just hit the "Pause" button and waited an hour or so until it built up enough a buffer.
When they got to the half-time show, I thought, "Well, I like Janet Jackson doing stuff from Rhythm Nation, so I'll watch that. But Justin Timberlake? Who cares?!" So whenever he showed up, I hit the fast forward button. When the "malfunction" occurred, I missed it completely. Show over, time to get back to the game!
It wasn't until afterwards that I heard of the problem and, by that time, I couldn't rewind to watch it again.