Did Rutgers University put its mental ward through some sort of "Patients to Profs" plan or something? Besides, what qualifies a psychology professor to make these economic statements. Is he saying that Apples have Windows envy or something? This is utterly ridiculous. Suggesting that Apple will introduce support for Windoze apps is one thing. That for them would be strategically optimal. But they will not implement a new OS, especially one so far inferior to its current product. Besides, going with Windoze would destroy their ability to profit; software makes the doh, not the hardware (although Apple seems to be approaching that from an opposite angle).
Mac OS, like all Unix systems, requires higher-level access for different function calls. Think about, for example, NMap. It requires root access to run most of its features, otherwise it will only perform a few functions. This permissions-based system is also used in Mac OS X. If a program makes a function call that requires special authorization, then the little prompt comes up and asks for the admin password. You don't have to enter the password more than once for a particular application's session, but once it is closed, it must be reauthenticated. For example, to change settings in the "system preferences" application, one must enter the password for certain panes to be accessible. When sys prefs is closed or a little "lock" is locked, the same thing must happen. Also, when apps are being installed, Mac OS has a subroutine in its installer requiring administrative password authentication. Permissions-based file systems are much more secure than Windows type file systems, where access is granted for most directories, and is "denied" for others. Most of the "denied" directories I find to be viruses. This may be considered a virus, simply because it was written to be one. But if it pops up and asks for a password, it is nothing more than a sitting duck. What Apple needs to do is wake up and patch the Unix flaws that have been fixed for 15 years. They are probably all documented from various BSD resources, and many of the flaws can probably be fixed directly from their source code.
They're just people like the rest of us who've chosen a particular profession.
It is even more sobering to consider that many prostitutes are simply trying to pay the bills and have no way out. Many prostitutes, if not all, don't like their "service", but they do it because it's a way to make money.
Not trying to start a flame war; I think we all personally enjoy rational debate (though a passionate flame is satisfying every now and then.
I agree with you somewhat about the hardware issue, in that the seamless compatibility leads to a very reliable Mac OS. I disagree though that no one would buy Mac hardware. Look at Alienware computers. They're extremely expensive, but people buy them because they want to play demanding games. If Apple were to open their OS up to standard PC boxes, the sales of the OS would increase much more than if they kept with only Apple licensed hardware. Their major problem in opening their DRM barrier would lie in support for drivers, which has been a dream on OS X and prior OS's. It's important to mention, though, that this is one area in which Microsoft has actually succeeded. Also, Linux has done quite well in this area, though the hardware support varies from distro to distro. Apple must remain profitable and continue to increase its market share. They've got profitability in their box with the little white earbuds sticking out. They need to increase market share by increasing the number of machines Mac OS is installed on. Increasing the number of machines means getting OS X ported to standard PC architecture. Like Alienware, Apple can still make a good profit on high-end hardware. They also have the potential to be like Microsoft and make a killing on software, but their software is reliable and a better value.
Are you kidding?!?! This should be their biggest blessing since the iPod. Have them release their OS for PCs like 6 months before M$ releases their upgrade. That would be kickass. Either way, Apple wins. They just have to reevaluate their criteria for "winning". What Apple should do is embrace this, and then promote its hardware line. Lots of people know Apple hardware is solid stuff. In November of last year, my G3 PowerBook, running OS 9 (when I got it, OS 7 was installed) finally died. It lasted longer than any of my PCs ever have. It got daily use and worked like a champ. Then I upgraded to a PowerBook G4 with Tiger, and the entire OS matches that rock-solid hardware from my G3. Let's keep in mind that somewhere's around 90% of the world's computers run Windows. Let's also remember that the Mac OS has software installed with the operating system to work with video and multimedia. PCs require expensive software, which frankly doesn't work as well. Other than faulty batteries in one of the iPod generations, the iPod has proven Apple's devotion to stylish hardware that is also very durable. Apple can't win a DRM battle. DRM is a very tricky policy legally (since it should be someone's right to break it under fair use) and therefore Apple has one choice: to develop stronger DRM or to embrace hackers. To a point they will choose the former, but when cost becomes prohibitive, they will choose the latter. If Apple wants to remain so arrogant like in the 1980s, they don't really deserve to have a major stake in the computer market. As a Mac-user and a Windoze hater, I hope Jobs learned some lessons from being fired in the '80s.
Wouldn't EXPENDING energy simply generate more heat?
Insightful post, and not all wrong, but you evaluated your knowledge correctly. Of course, the First Law of Thermodynamics tell us that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only changed. The General Theory of Relativity says we can change matter and energy into each other (this is the E=mc2 formula). The Second Law of Thermodynamics deals with the idea of entropy, that the "randomness" or heat energy in a system cannot be recovered to do useful work. Thermodynamics is an interesting field of physics, but it only applies macroscopicly (other than the First Law, which is arguably the foundation of science). If you look at nanotechnology, for example, some structures can be constructed to "trap" particles that would otherwise mitigate heat. In a certain sense, entropy is the definition of time. We can say that if entropy could become negative, time would appear to go backwards because chaos would reverse and causality would be reversed. Anyhow, I digress.
Global Warming is simply the phenomenon of Earth's gradual average temperature increase (though some may argue that it is increasingly accelerating [a process known as jerk], but this is a matter of statistics). The collective of phenomena causing global warming is the subject of much debate, but we are aware of greenhouse gasses and depleted protection from solar radiation (i.e. ozone layer depletion). The greenhouse effect is actually observable in a tabletop experiment. Take a fishbowl or otherwise transparent liquid container. Fill it with water. Then shine a laser up from the outside of the bowl so that the beam makes a 45 degree angle with the surface of the water. You should observe that the beam is reflected and refracted in various ways, including the side opposite the laser. This is the greenhouse effect in a nutshell; photons, which mediate the electromagnetic force, are reflected continuously from the atmosphere back to the earth. However, entropy does still exist for objects of the earth's scale, and therefore the total energy is not reflected; some of it is lost to excited particles. The idea of the greenhouse effect is somewhat like you said, the "input" minus energy "output" is a positive quantity. Rather, Earth doesn't generate much of its own energy at all. In fact, Earth meerly "redistributes" through reflection the energy that it is given.
In physics we say that energy is the ability to do work, where work is the scalar product of the force vector and displacement vector (a layman's understanding says work of a force is that force times the distance an object moves). We say that the total work done on an object by a given force is equal to the difference in the object's potential energy, from initial to final. Then we classify forces as "conservative" or "non-conservative", meaning that every Joule of energy in a conservative force can be given back (such as with gravity) whereas a non-conservative force requires some increase in entropy (such as a car hitting a concrete wall). If you walk to the top of a hill, you have used kinetic energy but have gained gravitational potential energy, and therefore the kinetic energy change proportional to the potential energy change. If you burn a log, energy is used in burning that log, which disintegrates the wood into heat (fast-moving air particles, the entropy factor), ash, and smoke. You cannot then go back and make the log from the byproducts. In both cases, energy is conserved, but in one energy is converted into work, and in the other, energy is converted into heat.
The big issue with global warming is if man-impacted greenhouse gasses are the cause, because the radiation will result in increased entropy, leading to "warmer" conditions i.e. more heat. Radiation can be converted to work, which results in much less heat than otherwise. If we could convert heat into workable energy, well then we'd be rich.
I find some of the consequences of thermodynamic laws to be practical limits rather than
Dubya on Wal-Mart: "I really like the store. I mean I go and I can, ya know, get fried chicken. And since Wal-Mart is Headquartered in Arkansas, Texas, I can't really have any, ya know, beef with it. Besides, I've had many a meeting with the Walton family for "political" and business deals..."
Dubya on Google: "Google is a peice of Texas cow-shit. First, they put me as a 'miserable failure' and then their co-president-guy is one of them commies from Russia with some name like Vladigey or Sermir or somethin' like that. And besides, I'm the only president guy there is. And there's no co of me. He heh. So, because of that, and because my good buddy Alberto Gonzales doesn't like em fur returnin' too many pornos (heh heh) when he typed 'big long missile'. We have reason to believe that this commie guy and his little friend running this "Google" are really enemies of freedom and democracy. They should be defreedomized and dedemocrat-icied. Such enemy combatants cannot help America in its crusade of terror. When my buddy Alberto demands somethin' from this Sermir guy, I expect 'em to give it up, whether its legal or not. I mean, the Constitution is a very...powerful document; I can read it, and I can do what I want...My dad was the president...(heh heh)..."
Many spelling and/or grammatical errors occur in the above paragraphs. They are intended, and are actually an improvement over President Bush's true hackery of the english language.
That no machine can even pick it up! Don't tell hollywood; let them waste their money on yet another anti-piracy scheme. If it were undetectable, then machines would be nascent of it, and it would therefore not exist. We have seen every other antipiracy scheme fail, why not this one?
Though I'm usually in favor of fewer laws with respect to corporations, I can truly stand behind this one. This type of action is the most responsible kind that the US can take. Let's say that the US was to impose strict sanctions on China, and pass huge incentives for other democracies to also "boycott" China. I think we'd see a significant change in their human rights policies. If we want to stop terrorism or improve human rights throughout the world, we must squeeze our opponents at their cores. One way to stop them is to attrophy them, weaken their economies. We know that any mid-eastern oil we buy most likely helps out some terrorist down the line. We also know that the mid-east relies on the US and Europe as one of its two major income sources, the other being, coincidentally, China. A final bit of knowledge some of us have is that the Chinese economy is terribly weak, near collapse, because of faulty loans and unsustainable growth. The US has stood up and beat its proverbial chest. I am glad that our lawmakers are finally considering some sanctions for totalitarian and authoritarian governments. Don't get me wrong, China will be a big player in the 21st century economy, but their government needs to wake up and smell the coffee. I doubt this law will affect their olfactory senses terribly much, but I believe the US has begun grinding the coffee bean.
Actually, since Mandarin is transliterated into English, and Tiananmen is a name, there is no "correct" spelling for Tiananmen. There are specific Mandarin sounds that are mapped to specific English sounds, and this is the source of the transliteration. A case in point with transliteration would be bin Laden. The FBI lists him as Usama bin Laden, wheras many media outlets refer to him as Osama bin Laden. Neither is "correct" as we are not using the Arabic alphabet. Now if I were to spell Berlin something like Burrlin, I would be crucified (as I should be) for my lack of spelling understanding. Case in point is that German is translated directly into english, and most names are kept the same (Munich is one exception, being spelled Munchen in German). I find it hard to believe someone would call the USA Today shoddy reporting over a minor spelling error (in a caption!), especially given some of the garbage that passes for "news" on/.
I think you have a sound point, but my experience is different. I find that even the non-techies like firefox and find it so much more "secure" than internet explorer. I've installed it for my parents and for some colleagues, and they all appreciate it. The only complaint is about the sometimes slow behavior (and they get bored when I explain what a "memory leak" is.) We all know that pop-ups and spyware are annoying, and I think my non-techie friends like a browser experience without that hastle. I put ad-block on one of my friend's machines and he was amazed by his ability to stop the ads (I have since stopped using ad-block because its code got fishy somewhere and now alters the flash animations on different pages, which is very annoying.) I think Average Joe User likes the clean look of firefox and the simplicity of it. I agree that people who use firefox are more likely to be computer geeks and therefore be more security conscious, but some geeks enforce security like the French in World War II, while others put shame to Hitler's Gestapo. Also, I know many "non-techie" users who are very conscious about security and make sure they don't download weird attachments or open unknown emails.
BTW, this study indicates that the two who set up the experiment were both geeks, and set the browsers simply to crawl the web, rather than have each person sit down and browse. They each visited 45000 pages, and to have one person do this would be greuling.
That's the time it'll take for WINE to handle the "Vista-only" software. It's also twice the time it will take for M$ to respond with a lawsuit. Isn't it wonderful knowing what we're efficient at?
How the hell do you call this "news"? We bitch about the media making stupid arguments; this is just drivel! He calls the people who developed his supporting theories crackpots. CmdrTaco, we demand better/. posts than this. Did you even READ the article? A site which calls itself "rebelscience.org" raises an immediate red flag with me. It doesn't help that the author labeled the directory his article is in as "Crackpots". I'd expect to read about anal probes and alien abductions on such a website. This website was just ridiculous. At least the Uncyclopedia http://uncyclopedia.org/> has humor. This is just psuedo-science at the masque. I really hate this shit, not for the content itself (I know the guy is full of himself), but for the people who'll believe it and then say "Einstein and Hawking are crackpots!" without knowing what the fuck they're talking about. Maybe the "dept." at the top of the posting should read "from the art-bell-was-right dept."
I generally hate the man, but I actually agree with him on this. How can we say that someone has the unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," when we experiment with certain people genetically (remember, these fetuses are outside the womb and therefore are not a "woman's body")? You may want an atheist as president, but an atheist should uphold the principles of America's founding. To simply allow genetic experiments or cloning or any other such endeavor would be genetic nazism. Now this isn't to be confused with embryonic stem cell research, in which case the embryos are not cloned (they may be test-tube babies, but they are not clones) and are the "waste" embryos, rejected by the fertility clinics. I disagree with every fiber in my body with President Bush about stem cell research. He seems to think it is some sort of scientific voodoo where people are cloned and then sacrificed. Nothing is further from the truth. Human cloning, however, cannot be tolerated. Imagine existing for the sole purpose of having experiments performed on you. We are people, not gods. We can meddle with many areas of science, but with human genetics, we are morally and ethically forbidden. I generally cringe at the use of words like "morals" and "values" by politicians, but a society cannot possibly function without some core principles, such as those found in the Declaration of Independence. An allowance of twisted medical experiments is an abomination of the core of the US. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (Amendment XIII) both corroborate the idea of the Enlightenment, the intellelectual rebirth of science and philosophy in Europe. To allow this genetic modification is simply deplorable; its practitioners would have no conscience. You mention an atheist or agnostic, but I fail to see how that has any relevance. If an atheist or agnostic passes a law allowing cloning and genetic modification, this shows his or her gross bastardization of history, much like the atheists who refuse to allow any instruction about religions from a secular perspective. To ignore a given faith based on a personal dislike would cloud objectivity and destroy any argument by that person of "free-thinking" or "open-mindedness". In many ways, Bush is way too much of a supporter for "Fundamentalist" Christians, but one can never be accused of being too close to the principles of America's founding.
Its all about the Windows API. For anything to become a Windows killer, the API must be extended nearly perfectly. For machines running on x86 or AMD hardware, this is simple. The API must only run pipes from the Windows system calls to the comparable Linux system calls. When there are no system calls, the machine just runs like it should. However, other hardware adds another complexity, although that can be solved relatively efficiently (a la Rosetta). Instructions can be translated across architecture at the machine level and then execute the code natively. Obviously this would run (O)2n versus (O)n on a native machine. It wouldn't really be emulation, because the entire processor and memory structure would have to be "emulated".
Why the API, you may ask? Because the API is what gives Windows its power. Now how can I be so sure? Because most Windows users out there admit that they really dislike using their computers. But they keep coming back to them. Why? Because Windows runs the programs most users want to run. In fact, Microsoft has taken great pains to ensure the WAPI runs almost completely backward compatibly, even building in certain performance "bugs" (improving them so they run efficiently) simply so that applications that worked with Windows N will work for N++. If the popularity of an OS depended upon security, efficiency, process management, and the other technical details that we geeks care about, Windows would have died before its birth. Bill Gates' genius came from marketing, in which he persuaded all the IBM-clone companies to license Windows. Then, once a solid legion of PCs had been produced, the Windows API became ever important. Windows was always a fairly "popular" operating system, but it really took off with Windows 3.1, which led to the infamous Win95. The relative ease of use, requiring little to no DOS experience, and built in software packages, such as Works, all contributed to the overall attractiveness of the system. With the legions of developers salivating at the opportunity to pounce at all those IBM-clones, the Windows API provided the foundation of Microsoft's continued growth. What's the result? 90% (guess-timate) of the world's computers run Windows OS. Mac, Linux, and other various flavors of Unix make up the remaining 10%, along with obscure systems like OS/2 and Amiga and mainframe systems, running very old software and systems.
The WAPI isn't easy to fall. Most notably, WINE, the application for Linux and various x86 Unix boxes to run Win32 apps, is a fairly good match for Windows, but has definite bugs to be ironed out. WINE has some problems like rendering windows not completely obeying the Windows API (like QuickTime). If Google hones in on the API issue, they will be in like Flynn. To live in a post-Windows world, we need to adequately match the Windows API. We all know how far superior a Linux or Unix experience is to Windows. We also must realize that Windows is king for a reason, and to behead the king, we need to beat the king at his own game. Google is the first company to be zealous enough to really attempt a coup. Apple is too proud (though I love Apple and am running a Mac right now).
My reaction to this news about Goobuntu is, well, "WAPPPPIIIII!!!!"
I seriously doubt that we won't be able to make money. We simply must redefine "Intellectual Property". Today intellectual property is the "semantic" property, i.e. visual art, music, and written word (prose, poetry, or program). Semantics are, unfortunately, hard to concretely define. There are limitations, such as physical media, that change semantic value. If, for example, I take a photograph of a Warhol painting and then publish it with JPEG compression, is it still Warhol's work or my work? It wouldn't be a perfect copy of Warhol, but it wouldn't be my "original" idea. Lets say that I modified the art to make my own statement? How would that be protected? Would I be required to pay royalties to Mr. Warhol's estate? After a point the whole argument becomes absurd, and its only purpose is to keep lawyers employed.
Let's redefine IP as the real "intellect" itself. We can hold that a person's mind is the property of that person, whether the mind is a transcendental entity (the soul) or the mind is a construct of matter (the brain). IP is therefore the mind itself, as well as the constructs of the mind. A person therefore is granted the exclusive and irrevocable right to his or her mind (an "unalienable" right) and he or she is also granted rights to the products for a limited time until a publication or public dissemination (e.g. blog post or CD or website, etc.). Then the author retains only attribution rights, which can be deferred or eliminated contingent upon external contracts.
Now how is this different? A few scenarios will clarify the proposition. Let's take/. posts, for example. When you are formulating your ideas (i.e. before publication), you hold exclusive right to the final product. This is like your personal "trade secret". But, when you click submit, the exclusive right to your product is then eliminated, other than your attribution. You then have the right to say "I wish to post anonymously", but only because/. provides that option and you have agreed to their contract. Corporate rights would be somewhat different. Since individuals work for a corporation, each of them still retains their IP as described above. However, when they meet and discuss their project, they may produce plans and other "extensions" of the mind, which would be governed by mutual contract. However, when the product is released, the authors are given the attribution rights, dependent upon agreements between individual authors and between the authors and the corporation. Therefore a "trade secret" would in fact exist, but it would be much less potent than the current bastardization. Corporations are legal people, but a corporation has no individual mind. Consider a final scenario. You write a program which you publish to the web. Someone compiles it and decides he or she likes it. They contact you about writing some more software. You accept, contingent upon them paying you. Hence, the company can use the software for their purposes, and you get paid. All "intellectual property" should be defined in this manner, because ambiguity is decreased significantly.
Well what's worse, FOX having "When Octopi Attack!" or having ABC make "Extreme Makeover: Octopus Edition!" On second thought, I think the people who made Spiderman II might file copyright infringement if anyone uses anything resembling the villian "Doc Ock." FOX has enough Octopi working for it, though. Look at Bill O'Reilly, the transparency of his objectivity is like an octopus' "ink". Of course, now I'll probably be taken into custody for being "annoying" on the web.
And let's not forget that Dubya claimed he saw the first plane that hit the WTC live as it happened.
The weird thing about Dubya saying he saw it live on TV was that he didn't in fact see any videos of it until about an hour later at earliest (assuming Air Force One has the capabilities to recieve high-bandwidth content, which it probably does). Remember that Dubya was in a school in Florida pushying his education agenda. No one saw the first plane hit the WTC live on TV; the media didn't even record it. Only a documentary cameraman got a good video of it, and the news media only got it after about 10 hours after the incident itself. The second plane hitting was captured live, however, and we all remember the live pictures of the towers with the smoke billowing out of them. But considering that the second plane hit about 15 minutes after the first, it's unlikely that Bush saw either of the planes hit live.
When, in reality, he was probably just mistaken. (Always a safe bet when Bush is involved.)
Good Point. The only really strange evidence supporting foreknowledge of the attack is that Rumsfeld held a meeting about 20 minutes before the attack began and said something about a "significant event" coming in the next year that would change global security policy. (Source: http://cooperativeresearch.org/) Of course, this may just be Rumsfeld as well. As Robin Williams humorously said, "Donald Rumsfeld holds a news conference. He says, 'I don't know where. I don't know when. Something terrible is going to happen--No further questions!'" I wouldn't rule out any political power from having foreknowledge of an attack, especially when it would mean increased power.
So, hell, if folks want to believe it exploded, no skin off my nose. The accident is just as tragic, regardless.
Amen, brother. If people care about the technical aspects of an explosion versus controlled combustion versus uncontrolled combustion, they can rent the movie "October Sky" and watch the part where the guys destroy that picket fence. Later they make real rockets that don't rely on "explosion" but "combustion". Average Joe doesn't know the difference, and combustion can involve types of explosion (namely in machines like the internal-combustion engine; the spark plug ignites the fuel-air mixture and it "explodes", i.e. rapidly expands with significant force). I agree though. Unless one is techincally concerned with the nature of explosions versus fireballs versus combustion, the topic is rather irrelevant. The first two "myths" really make no difference to the tragety, and in some ways it's more tragic for the general public to think they saw it live or that it was an explosion. In many cases they saw it only minutes later. Other than that, good article.
Well admittedly, the relative simplicity of the bug is a cause for concern. However the choice of the word "ancient" made me laugh. I was thinking, was the security hole as big as the ancient Egyptian pyramids? The pharoh I guess was the root. Ya know, "Pha-root!" some sort of salute or something. I mean "right triangle" came from some sort of ancient Egyptian interjection, sounding something like "rrright!" with the "rrr" being a gutteral, almost German sounding string. Of course, Pharohs simply opened themselves up to the security vulnerabilities (especially with that hooking the brain business; gives me the cold shiver). I mean his freaking death shrine has a BACKDOOR and NO FIREWALL. At the valley of kings there was much better security, because of a "curse placed on it." I guess that's the Microsoft approach. Either way, the Windows approach is tantamount to a pyramid. You make something that's sort of pretty, but is basically some brute temple to his excellency yada yada Mr. Gates. After the ceremony, hackers immediately break into the pyramids. People look at them forever and say, "how'd they make that s***?" as well as, "who thought this was secure?" Well, Windows is certainly a megalith. That comparison works. I mean hiring Arthur Anderson Accounting to work their system process manager would be an improvement. Which is my final Unix rave. In Windows it is so hard to figure out what is running and what is taking up time. Most of the time, you don't know what's taking up so much time. It'll freeze, then you reboot and it has no idea there was a problem. A Unix box goes down and it nearly resurrects itself, not to mention lets the root know what happened. In real life, Super-User wins. By the way, this bug apparently affects root in MacOS. Its hard as hell to even enable root access in MacOS. I'd only be worried about hackers with new holes to exploit. I actually somewhat favor this "treage" approch to computer security. Fix the worst hole and work your way down. Really, what's more important. Defacing the least viewed page on a website, or allowing potentially anyone to open your computer with a WMF that some speculate may even be a backdoor. I'll close with this: being a Windoze admin would be a lot easier than a Unix one. You don't have high expectations and you get to blame your equipment when the system gives way. Unix admins would be fired. Or they'd patch up the system. M$ would have a cow if any admin did that...
Boss: What is it? IT: The Universal Business Adapter Boss: What does it do? IT: It connects anything and everything, completely integrated Boss:::points at various ports:: IT:::quickly, following the Boss:: Ethernet, Linux Servers, Windows Servers, Print Servers, File Servers, USB... VO: Unfortunately, there is no "Universal Business Adapter." IBM can provide your organization with technology integration services second to none. IBM...On-demand business.
Maybe we have the "Universal Business Adapter" now? Nah, its not all integrated. It just cuts the cords.:-)
Also, in the olden days they really didn't know how long the gestation period was. They could sort of guess, but they thought it was a divine providence. Seemed logical to them, they had sex and one of those times God chose for the woman to become pregnant. Also, like you said, many babies died in their first years, so the "birthday" was a celebration that you survived one solar year, therefore proving the "toughness" to survive in all seasons. Also, sex has been somewhat of a taboo, therefore explaining to little kids why you are celebrating their "conception" day would be a little creepy. Besides, who ever wants to consider that their parents in fact had sex to be conceived. Also, "conception day" would be more of a pity for the father, like a rememberance of the 2 AM trips to the the only store open (inevitably Wal-Mart) so he could buy his wife ice cream, popsicles, or whatever other craving she had. I think that a birthday would be much happier for everyone. As for the whole "pro-life" thing, it's such a non-issue. There are so many other important issues like...NSA wiretapping anyone?
Obviously you have the opinion that Apple stock is overvalued, and everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. However, I believe the statistics will back me up that Apple is a very valuable company indeed. The iPod sold better than ever before this past Christmas shopping season. Plus, Mac market share is finally growing again. What's further sauce for the goose, Apple sold in one week, twice as many songs on iTunes as had ever been sold in a week ever before; the previous record happened to be the week previous. Obviously that trend can't continue, but that kind of exponential growth is just incredible. Apple is behaving like a company that is valued correctly. They keep producing, and they produce better and better. Look for their market cap to increase. If you want to see an overvalued stock, take a look at Google (NSDQ: GOOG). They are giving the signs of an over-valued company and are taking the necessary financial precautions to help themselves in the future. Microsoft is another over-valued company, and its shares are priced pretty low. he reason? They don't produce innovative stuff. The only think recently that they've done well at all is the little live.com experiment, but this is the beta stage, before they tailor it to work only with IE and require users to pay hand over fist. This is the way of Wall St.
As much as it's integrated into the OS, it would be great to have a limited free version that had things like email and the storage space (the iDisk). It's sort of annoying to just not be able to use something that pops up all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Did Rutgers University put its mental ward through some sort of "Patients to Profs" plan or something? Besides, what qualifies a psychology professor to make these economic statements. Is he saying that Apples have Windows envy or something? This is utterly ridiculous. Suggesting that Apple will introduce support for Windoze apps is one thing. That for them would be strategically optimal. But they will not implement a new OS, especially one so far inferior to its current product. Besides, going with Windoze would destroy their ability to profit; software makes the doh, not the hardware (although Apple seems to be approaching that from an opposite angle).
Mac OS, like all Unix systems, requires higher-level access for different function calls. Think about, for example, NMap. It requires root access to run most of its features, otherwise it will only perform a few functions. This permissions-based system is also used in Mac OS X. If a program makes a function call that requires special authorization, then the little prompt comes up and asks for the admin password. You don't have to enter the password more than once for a particular application's session, but once it is closed, it must be reauthenticated. For example, to change settings in the "system preferences" application, one must enter the password for certain panes to be accessible. When sys prefs is closed or a little "lock" is locked, the same thing must happen. Also, when apps are being installed, Mac OS has a subroutine in its installer requiring administrative password authentication. Permissions-based file systems are much more secure than Windows type file systems, where access is granted for most directories, and is "denied" for others. Most of the "denied" directories I find to be viruses. This may be considered a virus, simply because it was written to be one. But if it pops up and asks for a password, it is nothing more than a sitting duck. What Apple needs to do is wake up and patch the Unix flaws that have been fixed for 15 years. They are probably all documented from various BSD resources, and many of the flaws can probably be fixed directly from their source code.
They're just people like the rest of us who've chosen a particular profession.
It is even more sobering to consider that many prostitutes are simply trying to pay the bills and have no way out. Many prostitutes, if not all, don't like their "service", but they do it because it's a way to make money.
Not trying to start a flame war; I think we all personally enjoy rational debate (though a passionate flame is satisfying every now and then.
I agree with you somewhat about the hardware issue, in that the seamless compatibility leads to a very reliable Mac OS. I disagree though that no one would buy Mac hardware. Look at Alienware computers. They're extremely expensive, but people buy them because they want to play demanding games. If Apple were to open their OS up to standard PC boxes, the sales of the OS would increase much more than if they kept with only Apple licensed hardware. Their major problem in opening their DRM barrier would lie in support for drivers, which has been a dream on OS X and prior OS's. It's important to mention, though, that this is one area in which Microsoft has actually succeeded. Also, Linux has done quite well in this area, though the hardware support varies from distro to distro. Apple must remain profitable and continue to increase its market share. They've got profitability in their box with the little white earbuds sticking out. They need to increase market share by increasing the number of machines Mac OS is installed on. Increasing the number of machines means getting OS X ported to standard PC architecture. Like Alienware, Apple can still make a good profit on high-end hardware. They also have the potential to be like Microsoft and make a killing on software, but their software is reliable and a better value.
Are you kidding?!?! This should be their biggest blessing since the iPod. Have them release their OS for PCs like 6 months before M$ releases their upgrade. That would be kickass. Either way, Apple wins. They just have to reevaluate their criteria for "winning". What Apple should do is embrace this, and then promote its hardware line. Lots of people know Apple hardware is solid stuff. In November of last year, my G3 PowerBook, running OS 9 (when I got it, OS 7 was installed) finally died. It lasted longer than any of my PCs ever have. It got daily use and worked like a champ. Then I upgraded to a PowerBook G4 with Tiger, and the entire OS matches that rock-solid hardware from my G3. Let's keep in mind that somewhere's around 90% of the world's computers run Windows. Let's also remember that the Mac OS has software installed with the operating system to work with video and multimedia. PCs require expensive software, which frankly doesn't work as well. Other than faulty batteries in one of the iPod generations, the iPod has proven Apple's devotion to stylish hardware that is also very durable. Apple can't win a DRM battle. DRM is a very tricky policy legally (since it should be someone's right to break it under fair use) and therefore Apple has one choice: to develop stronger DRM or to embrace hackers. To a point they will choose the former, but when cost becomes prohibitive, they will choose the latter. If Apple wants to remain so arrogant like in the 1980s, they don't really deserve to have a major stake in the computer market. As a Mac-user and a Windoze hater, I hope Jobs learned some lessons from being fired in the '80s.
Wouldn't EXPENDING energy simply generate more heat?
Insightful post, and not all wrong, but you evaluated your knowledge correctly. Of course, the First Law of Thermodynamics tell us that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only changed. The General Theory of Relativity says we can change matter and energy into each other (this is the E=mc2 formula). The Second Law of Thermodynamics deals with the idea of entropy, that the "randomness" or heat energy in a system cannot be recovered to do useful work. Thermodynamics is an interesting field of physics, but it only applies macroscopicly (other than the First Law, which is arguably the foundation of science). If you look at nanotechnology, for example, some structures can be constructed to "trap" particles that would otherwise mitigate heat. In a certain sense, entropy is the definition of time. We can say that if entropy could become negative, time would appear to go backwards because chaos would reverse and causality would be reversed. Anyhow, I digress.
Global Warming is simply the phenomenon of Earth's gradual average temperature increase (though some may argue that it is increasingly accelerating [a process known as jerk], but this is a matter of statistics). The collective of phenomena causing global warming is the subject of much debate, but we are aware of greenhouse gasses and depleted protection from solar radiation (i.e. ozone layer depletion). The greenhouse effect is actually observable in a tabletop experiment. Take a fishbowl or otherwise transparent liquid container. Fill it with water. Then shine a laser up from the outside of the bowl so that the beam makes a 45 degree angle with the surface of the water. You should observe that the beam is reflected and refracted in various ways, including the side opposite the laser. This is the greenhouse effect in a nutshell; photons, which mediate the electromagnetic force, are reflected continuously from the atmosphere back to the earth. However, entropy does still exist for objects of the earth's scale, and therefore the total energy is not reflected; some of it is lost to excited particles. The idea of the greenhouse effect is somewhat like you said, the "input" minus energy "output" is a positive quantity. Rather, Earth doesn't generate much of its own energy at all. In fact, Earth meerly "redistributes" through reflection the energy that it is given.
In physics we say that energy is the ability to do work, where work is the scalar product of the force vector and displacement vector (a layman's understanding says work of a force is that force times the distance an object moves). We say that the total work done on an object by a given force is equal to the difference in the object's potential energy, from initial to final. Then we classify forces as "conservative" or "non-conservative", meaning that every Joule of energy in a conservative force can be given back (such as with gravity) whereas a non-conservative force requires some increase in entropy (such as a car hitting a concrete wall). If you walk to the top of a hill, you have used kinetic energy but have gained gravitational potential energy, and therefore the kinetic energy change proportional to the potential energy change. If you burn a log, energy is used in burning that log, which disintegrates the wood into heat (fast-moving air particles, the entropy factor), ash, and smoke. You cannot then go back and make the log from the byproducts. In both cases, energy is conserved, but in one energy is converted into work, and in the other, energy is converted into heat.
The big issue with global warming is if man-impacted greenhouse gasses are the cause, because the radiation will result in increased entropy, leading to "warmer" conditions i.e. more heat. Radiation can be converted to work, which results in much less heat than otherwise. If we could convert heat into workable energy, well then we'd be rich.
I find some of the consequences of thermodynamic laws to be practical limits rather than
Good point.
Dubya on Wal-Mart: "I really like the store. I mean I go and I can, ya know, get fried chicken. And since Wal-Mart is Headquartered in Arkansas, Texas, I can't really have any, ya know, beef with it. Besides, I've had many a meeting with the Walton family for "political" and business deals..."
Dubya on Google: "Google is a peice of Texas cow-shit. First, they put me as a 'miserable failure' and then their co-president-guy is one of them commies from Russia with some name like Vladigey or Sermir or somethin' like that. And besides, I'm the only president guy there is. And there's no co of me. He heh. So, because of that, and because my good buddy Alberto Gonzales doesn't like em fur returnin' too many pornos (heh heh) when he typed 'big long missile'. We have reason to believe that this commie guy and his little friend running this "Google" are really enemies of freedom and democracy. They should be defreedomized and dedemocrat-icied. Such enemy combatants cannot help America in its crusade of terror. When my buddy Alberto demands somethin' from this Sermir guy, I expect 'em to give it up, whether its legal or not. I mean, the Constitution is a very...powerful document; I can read it, and I can do what I want...My dad was the president...(heh heh)..."
Many spelling and/or grammatical errors occur in the above paragraphs. They are intended, and are actually an improvement over President Bush's true hackery of the english language.
That no machine can even pick it up! Don't tell hollywood; let them waste their money on yet another anti-piracy scheme. If it were undetectable, then machines would be nascent of it, and it would therefore not exist. We have seen every other antipiracy scheme fail, why not this one?
Though I'm usually in favor of fewer laws with respect to corporations, I can truly stand behind this one. This type of action is the most responsible kind that the US can take. Let's say that the US was to impose strict sanctions on China, and pass huge incentives for other democracies to also "boycott" China. I think we'd see a significant change in their human rights policies. If we want to stop terrorism or improve human rights throughout the world, we must squeeze our opponents at their cores. One way to stop them is to attrophy them, weaken their economies. We know that any mid-eastern oil we buy most likely helps out some terrorist down the line. We also know that the mid-east relies on the US and Europe as one of its two major income sources, the other being, coincidentally, China. A final bit of knowledge some of us have is that the Chinese economy is terribly weak, near collapse, because of faulty loans and unsustainable growth. The US has stood up and beat its proverbial chest. I am glad that our lawmakers are finally considering some sanctions for totalitarian and authoritarian governments. Don't get me wrong, China will be a big player in the 21st century economy, but their government needs to wake up and smell the coffee. I doubt this law will affect their olfactory senses terribly much, but I believe the US has begun grinding the coffee bean.
Actually, since Mandarin is transliterated into English, and Tiananmen is a name, there is no "correct" spelling for Tiananmen. There are specific Mandarin sounds that are mapped to specific English sounds, and this is the source of the transliteration. A case in point with transliteration would be bin Laden. The FBI lists him as Usama bin Laden, wheras many media outlets refer to him as Osama bin Laden. Neither is "correct" as we are not using the Arabic alphabet. Now if I were to spell Berlin something like Burrlin, I would be crucified (as I should be) for my lack of spelling understanding. Case in point is that German is translated directly into english, and most names are kept the same (Munich is one exception, being spelled Munchen in German). I find it hard to believe someone would call the USA Today shoddy reporting over a minor spelling error (in a caption!), especially given some of the garbage that passes for "news" on /.
I think you have a sound point, but my experience is different. I find that even the non-techies like firefox and find it so much more "secure" than internet explorer. I've installed it for my parents and for some colleagues, and they all appreciate it. The only complaint is about the sometimes slow behavior (and they get bored when I explain what a "memory leak" is.) We all know that pop-ups and spyware are annoying, and I think my non-techie friends like a browser experience without that hastle. I put ad-block on one of my friend's machines and he was amazed by his ability to stop the ads (I have since stopped using ad-block because its code got fishy somewhere and now alters the flash animations on different pages, which is very annoying.) I think Average Joe User likes the clean look of firefox and the simplicity of it. I agree that people who use firefox are more likely to be computer geeks and therefore be more security conscious, but some geeks enforce security like the French in World War II, while others put shame to Hitler's Gestapo. Also, I know many "non-techie" users who are very conscious about security and make sure they don't download weird attachments or open unknown emails.
BTW, this study indicates that the two who set up the experiment were both geeks, and set the browsers simply to crawl the web, rather than have each person sit down and browse. They each visited 45000 pages, and to have one person do this would be greuling.
Peace,
Andrew
That's the time it'll take for WINE to handle the "Vista-only" software. It's also twice the time it will take for M$ to respond with a lawsuit. Isn't it wonderful knowing what we're efficient at?
How the hell do you call this "news"? We bitch about the media making stupid arguments; this is just drivel! He calls the people who developed his supporting theories crackpots. CmdrTaco, we demand better /. posts than this. Did you even READ the article? A site which calls itself "rebelscience.org" raises an immediate red flag with me. It doesn't help that the author labeled the directory his article is in as "Crackpots". I'd expect to read about anal probes and alien abductions on such a website. This website was just ridiculous. At least the Uncyclopedia http://uncyclopedia.org/> has humor. This is just psuedo-science at the masque. I really hate this shit, not for the content itself (I know the guy is full of himself), but for the people who'll believe it and then say "Einstein and Hawking are crackpots!" without knowing what the fuck they're talking about. Maybe the "dept." at the top of the posting should read "from the art-bell-was-right dept."
Does this mean Google will start putting a "Threat Assessment Level" color code beside its hits?
I generally hate the man, but I actually agree with him on this. How can we say that someone has the unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," when we experiment with certain people genetically (remember, these fetuses are outside the womb and therefore are not a "woman's body")? You may want an atheist as president, but an atheist should uphold the principles of America's founding. To simply allow genetic experiments or cloning or any other such endeavor would be genetic nazism. Now this isn't to be confused with embryonic stem cell research, in which case the embryos are not cloned (they may be test-tube babies, but they are not clones) and are the "waste" embryos, rejected by the fertility clinics. I disagree with every fiber in my body with President Bush about stem cell research. He seems to think it is some sort of scientific voodoo where people are cloned and then sacrificed. Nothing is further from the truth. Human cloning, however, cannot be tolerated. Imagine existing for the sole purpose of having experiments performed on you. We are people, not gods. We can meddle with many areas of science, but with human genetics, we are morally and ethically forbidden. I generally cringe at the use of words like "morals" and "values" by politicians, but a society cannot possibly function without some core principles, such as those found in the Declaration of Independence. An allowance of twisted medical experiments is an abomination of the core of the US. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (Amendment XIII) both corroborate the idea of the Enlightenment, the intellelectual rebirth of science and philosophy in Europe. To allow this genetic modification is simply deplorable; its practitioners would have no conscience. You mention an atheist or agnostic, but I fail to see how that has any relevance. If an atheist or agnostic passes a law allowing cloning and genetic modification, this shows his or her gross bastardization of history, much like the atheists who refuse to allow any instruction about religions from a secular perspective. To ignore a given faith based on a personal dislike would cloud objectivity and destroy any argument by that person of "free-thinking" or "open-mindedness". In many ways, Bush is way too much of a supporter for "Fundamentalist" Christians, but one can never be accused of being too close to the principles of America's founding.
Its all about the Windows API. For anything to become a Windows killer, the API must be extended nearly perfectly. For machines running on x86 or AMD hardware, this is simple. The API must only run pipes from the Windows system calls to the comparable Linux system calls. When there are no system calls, the machine just runs like it should. However, other hardware adds another complexity, although that can be solved relatively efficiently (a la Rosetta). Instructions can be translated across architecture at the machine level and then execute the code natively. Obviously this would run (O)2n versus (O)n on a native machine. It wouldn't really be emulation, because the entire processor and memory structure would have to be "emulated".
Why the API, you may ask? Because the API is what gives Windows its power. Now how can I be so sure? Because most Windows users out there admit that they really dislike using their computers. But they keep coming back to them. Why? Because Windows runs the programs most users want to run. In fact, Microsoft has taken great pains to ensure the WAPI runs almost completely backward compatibly, even building in certain performance "bugs" (improving them so they run efficiently) simply so that applications that worked with Windows N will work for N++. If the popularity of an OS depended upon security, efficiency, process management, and the other technical details that we geeks care about, Windows would have died before its birth. Bill Gates' genius came from marketing, in which he persuaded all the IBM-clone companies to license Windows. Then, once a solid legion of PCs had been produced, the Windows API became ever important. Windows was always a fairly "popular" operating system, but it really took off with Windows 3.1, which led to the infamous Win95. The relative ease of use, requiring little to no DOS experience, and built in software packages, such as Works, all contributed to the overall attractiveness of the system. With the legions of developers salivating at the opportunity to pounce at all those IBM-clones, the Windows API provided the foundation of Microsoft's continued growth. What's the result? 90% (guess-timate) of the world's computers run Windows OS. Mac, Linux, and other various flavors of Unix make up the remaining 10%, along with obscure systems like OS/2 and Amiga and mainframe systems, running very old software and systems.
The WAPI isn't easy to fall. Most notably, WINE, the application for Linux and various x86 Unix boxes to run Win32 apps, is a fairly good match for Windows, but has definite bugs to be ironed out. WINE has some problems like rendering windows not completely obeying the Windows API (like QuickTime). If Google hones in on the API issue, they will be in like Flynn. To live in a post-Windows world, we need to adequately match the Windows API. We all know how far superior a Linux or Unix experience is to Windows. We also must realize that Windows is king for a reason, and to behead the king, we need to beat the king at his own game. Google is the first company to be zealous enough to really attempt a coup. Apple is too proud (though I love Apple and am running a Mac right now).
My reaction to this news about Goobuntu is, well, "WAPPPPIIIII!!!!"
I seriously doubt that we won't be able to make money. We simply must redefine "Intellectual Property". Today intellectual property is the "semantic" property, i.e. visual art, music, and written word (prose, poetry, or program). Semantics are, unfortunately, hard to concretely define. There are limitations, such as physical media, that change semantic value. If, for example, I take a photograph of a Warhol painting and then publish it with JPEG compression, is it still Warhol's work or my work? It wouldn't be a perfect copy of Warhol, but it wouldn't be my "original" idea. Lets say that I modified the art to make my own statement? How would that be protected? Would I be required to pay royalties to Mr. Warhol's estate? After a point the whole argument becomes absurd, and its only purpose is to keep lawyers employed.
Let's redefine IP as the real "intellect" itself. We can hold that a person's mind is the property of that person, whether the mind is a transcendental entity (the soul) or the mind is a construct of matter (the brain). IP is therefore the mind itself, as well as the constructs of the mind. A person therefore is granted the exclusive and irrevocable right to his or her mind (an "unalienable" right) and he or she is also granted rights to the products for a limited time until a publication or public dissemination (e.g. blog post or CD or website, etc.). Then the author retains only attribution rights, which can be deferred or eliminated contingent upon external contracts.
Now how is this different? A few scenarios will clarify the proposition. Let's take /. posts, for example. When you are formulating your ideas (i.e. before publication), you hold exclusive right to the final product. This is like your personal "trade secret". But, when you click submit, the exclusive right to your product is then eliminated, other than your attribution. You then have the right to say "I wish to post anonymously", but only because /. provides that option and you have agreed to their contract. Corporate rights would be somewhat different. Since individuals work for a corporation, each of them still retains their IP as described above. However, when they meet and discuss their project, they may produce plans and other "extensions" of the mind, which would be governed by mutual contract. However, when the product is released, the authors are given the attribution rights, dependent upon agreements between individual authors and between the authors and the corporation. Therefore a "trade secret" would in fact exist, but it would be much less potent than the current bastardization. Corporations are legal people, but a corporation has no individual mind. Consider a final scenario. You write a program which you publish to the web. Someone compiles it and decides he or she likes it. They contact you about writing some more software. You accept, contingent upon them paying you. Hence, the company can use the software for their purposes, and you get paid. All "intellectual property" should be defined in this manner, because ambiguity is decreased significantly.
Well what's worse, FOX having "When Octopi Attack!" or having ABC make "Extreme Makeover: Octopus Edition!" On second thought, I think the people who made Spiderman II might file copyright infringement if anyone uses anything resembling the villian "Doc Ock." FOX has enough Octopi working for it, though. Look at Bill O'Reilly, the transparency of his objectivity is like an octopus' "ink". Of course, now I'll probably be taken into custody for being "annoying" on the web.
And let's not forget that Dubya claimed he saw the first plane that hit the WTC live as it happened.
The weird thing about Dubya saying he saw it live on TV was that he didn't in fact see any videos of it until about an hour later at earliest (assuming Air Force One has the capabilities to recieve high-bandwidth content, which it probably does). Remember that Dubya was in a school in Florida pushying his education agenda. No one saw the first plane hit the WTC live on TV; the media didn't even record it. Only a documentary cameraman got a good video of it, and the news media only got it after about 10 hours after the incident itself. The second plane hitting was captured live, however, and we all remember the live pictures of the towers with the smoke billowing out of them. But considering that the second plane hit about 15 minutes after the first, it's unlikely that Bush saw either of the planes hit live.
When, in reality, he was probably just mistaken. (Always a safe bet when Bush is involved.)
Good Point. The only really strange evidence supporting foreknowledge of the attack is that Rumsfeld held a meeting about 20 minutes before the attack began and said something about a "significant event" coming in the next year that would change global security policy. (Source: http://cooperativeresearch.org/) Of course, this may just be Rumsfeld as well. As Robin Williams humorously said, "Donald Rumsfeld holds a news conference. He says, 'I don't know where. I don't know when. Something terrible is going to happen--No further questions!'" I wouldn't rule out any political power from having foreknowledge of an attack, especially when it would mean increased power.
So, hell, if folks want to believe it exploded, no skin off my nose. The accident is just as tragic, regardless.
Amen, brother. If people care about the technical aspects of an explosion versus controlled combustion versus uncontrolled combustion, they can rent the movie "October Sky" and watch the part where the guys destroy that picket fence. Later they make real rockets that don't rely on "explosion" but "combustion". Average Joe doesn't know the difference, and combustion can involve types of explosion (namely in machines like the internal-combustion engine; the spark plug ignites the fuel-air mixture and it "explodes", i.e. rapidly expands with significant force). I agree though. Unless one is techincally concerned with the nature of explosions versus fireballs versus combustion, the topic is rather irrelevant. The first two "myths" really make no difference to the tragety, and in some ways it's more tragic for the general public to think they saw it live or that it was an explosion. In many cases they saw it only minutes later. Other than that, good article.
Well admittedly, the relative simplicity of the bug is a cause for concern. However the choice of the word "ancient" made me laugh. I was thinking, was the security hole as big as the ancient Egyptian pyramids? The pharoh I guess was the root. Ya know, "Pha-root!" some sort of salute or something. I mean "right triangle" came from some sort of ancient Egyptian interjection, sounding something like "rrright!" with the "rrr" being a gutteral, almost German sounding string. Of course, Pharohs simply opened themselves up to the security vulnerabilities (especially with that hooking the brain business; gives me the cold shiver). I mean his freaking death shrine has a BACKDOOR and NO FIREWALL. At the valley of kings there was much better security, because of a "curse placed on it." I guess that's the Microsoft approach. Either way, the Windows approach is tantamount to a pyramid. You make something that's sort of pretty, but is basically some brute temple to his excellency yada yada Mr. Gates. After the ceremony, hackers immediately break into the pyramids. People look at them forever and say, "how'd they make that s***?" as well as, "who thought this was secure?" Well, Windows is certainly a megalith. That comparison works. I mean hiring Arthur Anderson Accounting to work their system process manager would be an improvement. Which is my final Unix rave. In Windows it is so hard to figure out what is running and what is taking up time. Most of the time, you don't know what's taking up so much time. It'll freeze, then you reboot and it has no idea there was a problem. A Unix box goes down and it nearly resurrects itself, not to mention lets the root know what happened. In real life, Super-User wins. By the way, this bug apparently affects root in MacOS. Its hard as hell to even enable root access in MacOS. I'd only be worried about hackers with new holes to exploit. I actually somewhat favor this "treage" approch to computer security. Fix the worst hole and work your way down. Really, what's more important. Defacing the least viewed page on a website, or allowing potentially anyone to open your computer with a WMF that some speculate may even be a backdoor. I'll close with this: being a Windoze admin would be a lot easier than a Unix one. You don't have high expectations and you get to blame your equipment when the system gives way. Unix admins would be fired. Or they'd patch up the system. M$ would have a cow if any admin did that...
Boss: What is it? ::points at various ports:: ::quickly, following the Boss:: Ethernet, Linux Servers, Windows Servers, Print Servers, File Servers, USB...
IT: The Universal Business Adapter
Boss: What does it do?
IT: It connects anything and everything, completely integrated
Boss:
IT:
VO: Unfortunately, there is no "Universal Business Adapter." IBM can provide your organization with technology integration services second to none. IBM...On-demand business.
Maybe we have the "Universal Business Adapter" now? Nah, its not all integrated. It just cuts the cords. :-)
Also, in the olden days they really didn't know how long the gestation period was. They could sort of guess, but they thought it was a divine providence. Seemed logical to them, they had sex and one of those times God chose for the woman to become pregnant. Also, like you said, many babies died in their first years, so the "birthday" was a celebration that you survived one solar year, therefore proving the "toughness" to survive in all seasons. Also, sex has been somewhat of a taboo, therefore explaining to little kids why you are celebrating their "conception" day would be a little creepy. Besides, who ever wants to consider that their parents in fact had sex to be conceived. Also, "conception day" would be more of a pity for the father, like a rememberance of the 2 AM trips to the the only store open (inevitably Wal-Mart) so he could buy his wife ice cream, popsicles, or whatever other craving she had. I think that a birthday would be much happier for everyone. As for the whole "pro-life" thing, it's such a non-issue. There are so many other important issues like...NSA wiretapping anyone?
Obviously you have the opinion that Apple stock is overvalued, and everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. However, I believe the statistics will back me up that Apple is a very valuable company indeed. The iPod sold better than ever before this past Christmas shopping season. Plus, Mac market share is finally growing again. What's further sauce for the goose, Apple sold in one week, twice as many songs on iTunes as had ever been sold in a week ever before; the previous record happened to be the week previous. Obviously that trend can't continue, but that kind of exponential growth is just incredible. Apple is behaving like a company that is valued correctly. They keep producing, and they produce better and better. Look for their market cap to increase. If you want to see an overvalued stock, take a look at Google (NSDQ: GOOG). They are giving the signs of an over-valued company and are taking the necessary financial precautions to help themselves in the future. Microsoft is another over-valued company, and its shares are priced pretty low. he reason? They don't produce innovative stuff. The only think recently that they've done well at all is the little live.com experiment, but this is the beta stage, before they tailor it to work only with IE and require users to pay hand over fist. This is the way of Wall St.
I guess that missing link is for the birds... Hahaha...stupid birds lost the evolutionary battle. Too bad, so sad...mwuhahaha
As much as it's integrated into the OS, it would be great to have a limited free version that had things like email and the storage space (the iDisk). It's sort of annoying to just not be able to use something that pops up all the time.