There could be a sun without a tomorrow, if, say, the earth disappeared. Please refrain from arguing from the converse.
It is possible that there will be a tomorrow without the sun rising. First of all, there will probably be a tomorrow without the sun rising if you're close enough to either pole. Second, "tomorrow" is not generally considered to start at whatever time coincides exactly with sunrise. Therefore, there would be time between the start of tomorrow and sunrise, during which the sun could theoretically disappear, leaving us with a tomorrow without a sunrise. Even if we were to see the sun begin to rise, it could have vanished up to eight minutes prior.
'The sun will rise' doesn't even imply that 'the sun will rise tomorrow' by itself, because that sunrise could take place later today, then the sun could vanish before tomorrow.
Despite the fact that your analysis was almost completely invalid, I'd like to propose that you got the answer right. It's possible that the sun will not rise tomorrow, but that possibility does not mean that it is not a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. It's either a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow or it's a fact that the sun will not rise tomorrow (or it could be a fact that that the sun could partially rise.) That we have faith in one particular possible fact does not mean it's not a fact. If it did, that would imply that anything we have faith in is false. People have had faith that when they dropped something it would fall for a long time, and it was fact that when they dropped it it did fall.
While I agree that religion lacks the kind of proof science relies on, you're begging the question by assuming that scientific proof is the only valid type of proof. However, the scientific method is incredibly limited: it tells us what has happened under a given set of conditions, relies on our extrapolations, interpretations, and re-testing. Science cannot prove that the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon, and it cannot prove that we're here because we evolved from single-celled organisms. It cannot prove that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, it can only prove that it has not been reliably measured traveling at a different speed. There's only so much science can prove, and beyond that things must be concluded beyond a reasonable doubt, the same standard that is supposed to be used in court.
I believe that I know my religion is right, but I admit that it's possible I'm wrong about that. I have studied my the evidence for and against my religion enough to know that while my belief is in the realm of faith, that faith is based on facts. While I cannot scientifically prove the superiority of my God (I believe I have to wait for Him to do that), it is possible to have compelling evidence based in science and 'know' something strictly outside the realm of science.
Actually, you would still need a driver, it would just be a very simple one you already have. The BIOS hardware doesn't magically get data from the hard drive, it magically gets data from flash, and that data includes code that tells it how to read data from the hard drive.
The point was that he prefers serial, all things being equal, and he noted that the problem is that all things are not equal. You completely missed that point. Certainly it's different than your point, but you're still missing the point he made.
I kind of think AT&T is a big network for one. And for another, yes, my analysis was somewhat simplified. But either way, the end user already bought the bandwidth, so someone else shouldn't also have to co-buy the bandwidth. Either way, a service provider should be able to deliver what is paid for by the customer and make money off of the transaction, because if they can't they either have to loose money or break the contract. So if they're already obligated to provide something, they can't fail to deliver just because someone else didn't pay them and call that good. The contract with the end user is a contract regardless of what another entity does. (Unless the other entity is the government voiding all or part of the contract.)
I have no problem with what you described. The only problems are that that doesn't describe what Net Neutrality is fighting, and it's based on a flawed idea of how the internet works.
What the network operators want to do that net neutrality is fighting is artificially reduce YouTube's bandwidth unless they pay. So YouTube actually gets a smaller proportion of the network bandwidth than the proportion of data that's requested from them, despite the fact that YouTube paid for enough bandwidth from it's ISP and the end-users all paid for enough bandwidth to recieve it.
Imagine if YouTube's ISP tried to bill you for accessing YouTube. YouTube paid for the bandwidth. The ISP has peering agreements to pass the data along to other network operators closer to you. Your ISP has peering agreements so the data can get to it. And you already paid to download the data. At what part of this process of transferring the data is everything NOT already paid for? So YouTube's ISP is trying to charge you for a service that has already been paid for.
So if AT&T wants to charge Google for data that AT&T's users request, the users have already paid for service. AT&T has made deals so that it gets bandwidth on other people's routers in exchange for giving them bandwidth on AT&T routers, so that's basically free except for maintaining their own routers and connections. Which their users have paid for. At no point do AT&T and Google actually conduct business, but Google's bandwidth is passed along because AT&T is obligated by it's peering agreements and has contracts with it's users. Since AT&T is obligated to pass along the packets, how can it refuse to unless it's paid?
Also, with the way the internet works, you buy faster connections between one point and another. It's either a faster connection between a two routers or between a router and a client. If it's between a router and a client (direct connection between network-operator's-router and YouTube), and YouTube pays for it, we call that "YouTube buying internet access from the network operator", which is perfectly legit. If it's between two routers, however, in practical terms it's not especially likely to provide a major performance boost, because any traffic can be routed over it, not just YouTube's, and there's no guarantee that YouTube's will be routed over it. If it's that much more efficient of a way to connect two points there will be such a glut of traffic from other sites that the capacity for YouTube's packets is limited. It also usually happens to be more cost-effective to improve connections to nearby routers than lay an OC48 connection across a continent, and if you're building an OC48, the money for it is probably going to come from other service providers buying bandwidth on it, and not YouTube individually.
Also, if you ever tracert a large variety of ip's, you'll discover that it usually takes an astonishingly similar number of hops no matter where you are and where you're trying to get, and that the number of hops really has minimal effect compared to the bandwidth at each end, because the internet's designed so that hops are relatively irrelevant. Yes they increase latency, but once the initial connection's made, the data flows at the maximum rate that the slower of the two ends can handle it.
So the "plain old business scenerio" you suggest really doesn't exist, unless network operator is selling bandwidth network operator doesn't have, which is fraudulent. Only if network operator doesn't have what network operator is selling does network operator need to build infrastructure to handle YouTube's traffic.
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, but There's Such A Thing As A Lunch That Has Already Been Paid For, and lunches that were paid for don't need to be paid for again by the lunch meat company.
It's unfortunate that 'rape' has been bastardized to apply only to sexual rape. But as originally defined, rape is a perfectly good word to use in the context.
My school district shares a "dumb" (practical) school with several other districts, and people who actually chose to go there can be educated in things like how to repair cars, or build a house, or be a chef, or run a computer network, or whatever the other options are. It's a very dense yet high-priced suburban area (about 750k starting price on a new house on an acre lot, and almost every thing's half-acre or smaller, and only one of the other school districts is less wealthy), but people actually chose to go. And even more people chose not to go because it leaves so little flexibility: you spend half the day there, and the other half of the day is dictated by graduation requirements. For the kids who are almost certain to fail at least one class over four years, that precludes them from going because they'd be unable to graduate on time. (And often they're failing because they don't care about classes that legitimately won't help them. The kids whose parents own construction companies and who are being trained to help manage those companies care little for how to design a good experiment. Yes, they exist. So do the ones who work for their uncle at a local pizza shop and never need to write creative essays.) For the kids who are in honors/AP, it means they would end up in far more mind-numbingly easy classes than they're willing to put up with. And it makes it almost impossible to participate in certain extracurricular activities. So de facto, they're limited to only a part of the mediocre students in each district. And even with almost no emphasis placed on people going to the practical school, or anything done to make it easier to do so, that school is still successful. So I believe that if you make that kind of schooling available, make it convenient enough to be practical, and portray it as a valid and worthwhile alternative to academics and white collar employment, people will take advantage of it. Maybe it will never be the most prominent option, but in a society where schools are supposed to produce geniuses who don't know what a wrench is and are unwilling to lift anything heavier than a laptop, it would certainly be a worthwhile improvement.
If MySpace were to sign a similar agreement with the label, there is little doubt that the lawsuit would disappear.
If they enter a contract saying they won't be sued, they probably won't be? Legally, we call that a settlement, and you can't continue a suit once you've settled it.
The signals travel at the same speed, but because copper is susceptable to interference, not as many bits per second can be sent without data integrity being compromised. One bit is in transit for nearly the same ammount of time (latency), but you can put bits closer together (higher bitrate) in fiber because there's no interference.
The advancement is technology to change the bitrate on the copper as the interference changes. So how it compares to fiber will vary.
So which end is going to be pointing out, and if it's the pointy end, how densely will they be packed? Will they all be at the same level? Also, what's average the surface area of the point of a thumbtack? What's his mass anyway? Should we consider the forces that would be applied in a hypothetical accident, or assume he won't get in one of those? Will the seat be superglued in also, or will he be able to replace it?
It's not just a simple matter of whether there are thumbtacks there. There are other important questions to consider.
drag resistance in fluid varies as a cube of the velocity, so twice the velocity is 8 times the air resistance: 2.3 times the velocity is 12.167 times the air resistance.
It's more than an order of magnitude more air resistance, and building missiles to travel 10 times the speedo of sound is not an easy task.
The author retains all patent, trademark, and copyright to all Content posted within available fields
You license the right to publish your copyrighted material, but you don't sign the copyright over.
I was monitored only by the possibility of my parents walking into the room and looking on the screen, and that was far too little monitoring. It's not playing CIA, because the relationship between parent and child is different than the one between government and citizen. Besides which, the CIA doesen't tell you ahead of time if they'll be monitoring whatever you do for so many years. If you're trusting your kids to tell you what sights they're visiting, I was one of the best-behaved people kids I know, and I shouldn't have been trusted for that.
I can also almost guarantee that regardless whether or not they go looking for it, kids who have unfiltered internet access will be exposed to pr0n, and I know nobody who thinks 10-year-old-kids, or whatever the average age of first exposure to internet pornography is down to now, should be finding that, especially unintentionally.
Re:My Grandfather the watchmaker...
on
Caller ID Watches
·
· Score: 2, Informative
RTFA, or TFPD (product description)
It doesen't require you to use two hands. Yes, if you want to mute the phone or reject the call, that requires a second hand, but there's no reason you have to do those things, and it's still a lot easier than getting your cell phone out. You still have exactly the same functionality with no additional work, and only the added functionality requires you to press a button.
The problem with your analogy with digital watches is that you can already see the time, and you can already see who'se calling you, you're not required to do anything, and if you do it produces an effect that couldn't previously be produced as easily.
But they're not forcing ads on their users; only doing all they can to convince their users to accept ads themselves and force them on non-users. I still don't see any ads on livejournal. When I do, I'll take the archives that I save periodically with the scrapbook firefox extension and move somewhere else if they annoy me. But if I'm not forced to see ads, I don't care if others decide to see ads.
As long as it remains voluntary, even to new users, it's not a problem.
If you know someone's likely to be sniping at you, wouldn't you rather have a sniper watching for them than a policeman with a pistol trained in an acadamy to fight an that he has at least some idea of the location of?
The sniper may be able to see the person who would shoot you, and shoot them first. I guarantee that sniper could conceal themself well enough that the police officer would never see them though, and they can shoot accurately at the police officer from farther away than the police officer can shoot back, so they can almost ignore the police officer.
Sure if they were checking the most well known vulnerabilities and not hidden, the academically trained hacker can protect you, and possibly even get them arrested. As with a policeman v. a common criminal. But if you're up against a BlackHat hacker who studies every detail of your defense while covering his tracks, the ex-BlackHat who studied your defenses just as well but with the benefit of inside knowledge will do you better.
Assuming, of course, that your ex-BlackHat is truly 'ex-'.
Far too many people have stupedly taken that literally. And the idea that anyone would think actual pipes would use is quite entertaining, especially once you consider that people have actually worried about things getting stuck in those pipes, or similar things. So for almost as many years, the slang term 'pipes' has been used just as much to mock people who literally thought there were pipes. And to see that there are actually plans to use physical pipes is just too hilarious to pass up.
If you don't understand geeks laughing at the technologically clueless, you need to surrender your geek badge and go to computer stupidities. You can pick it up when you return.
The problem with those is that they're either riggable, or fail the condorcet winner criterion. So either voters can rig the election by putting in things that aren't their real preferences, or the person who would beat every single other candidate one-on-one can loose.
For the record, I don't currently really care for or against apple;
That said, apple was not leveraging it's monopoly, because it has none.
Not only that, but you can uninstall, not just disable, iLife without anything breaking, and without built in OS features of iLife remaining behind and telling you that you uninstalled iLife which makes you a Bad Person.
Furthtermore, apple primarily sells computers, not OS's. An OS is something that makes the computer work. Computer vendors are free to put whatever software they want on their computers, whether developed in-house or not. It's their job to assemble parts and programs to produce something a consumer will want to buy. OS vendors are creating a platform that allows hardware, software, and users to interact easily. Editing a video is not simply an interaction between the hardware and the user, or maintenance of any aspect of the computer, so it belongs in software independent of the OS.
Simply put: Microsoft sells the xbox with a browser and video editing software. The xbox has no monopoly, and is a computer, and nobody complains. It's a home entertainment system or whatever they call it, so those are arguably integral parts. They bundle those things with windows, where they have a monopoly and the product is an OS, that's when people complain, because those are extraneous. When they act as if one product is part of another product that it has no business being a component of, that's the problem.
Cray makes supercomputers. While some 'supercomputers' may contain commodity PCs, they are not commodity PCs, and are generally described as 'clusters', not supercomputers. And cray does not make supercomputers out of commodity PCs. You wouldn't want to put it in a commodity PC, which is why nobody implied anything about commodity PCs until you pulled that connection out of thin air.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it's 200*cos^2(60*pi*t+theta) watts as a function of time, assuming a lightbulb is an ideal resistor.
There could be a sun without a tomorrow, if, say, the earth disappeared. Please refrain from arguing from the converse. It is possible that there will be a tomorrow without the sun rising. First of all, there will probably be a tomorrow without the sun rising if you're close enough to either pole. Second, "tomorrow" is not generally considered to start at whatever time coincides exactly with sunrise. Therefore, there would be time between the start of tomorrow and sunrise, during which the sun could theoretically disappear, leaving us with a tomorrow without a sunrise. Even if we were to see the sun begin to rise, it could have vanished up to eight minutes prior. 'The sun will rise' doesn't even imply that 'the sun will rise tomorrow' by itself, because that sunrise could take place later today, then the sun could vanish before tomorrow. Despite the fact that your analysis was almost completely invalid, I'd like to propose that you got the answer right. It's possible that the sun will not rise tomorrow, but that possibility does not mean that it is not a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. It's either a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow or it's a fact that the sun will not rise tomorrow (or it could be a fact that that the sun could partially rise.) That we have faith in one particular possible fact does not mean it's not a fact. If it did, that would imply that anything we have faith in is false. People have had faith that when they dropped something it would fall for a long time, and it was fact that when they dropped it it did fall.
While I agree that religion lacks the kind of proof science relies on, you're begging the question by assuming that scientific proof is the only valid type of proof. However, the scientific method is incredibly limited: it tells us what has happened under a given set of conditions, relies on our extrapolations, interpretations, and re-testing. Science cannot prove that the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon, and it cannot prove that we're here because we evolved from single-celled organisms. It cannot prove that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, it can only prove that it has not been reliably measured traveling at a different speed. There's only so much science can prove, and beyond that things must be concluded beyond a reasonable doubt, the same standard that is supposed to be used in court. I believe that I know my religion is right, but I admit that it's possible I'm wrong about that. I have studied my the evidence for and against my religion enough to know that while my belief is in the realm of faith, that faith is based on facts. While I cannot scientifically prove the superiority of my God (I believe I have to wait for Him to do that), it is possible to have compelling evidence based in science and 'know' something strictly outside the realm of science.
Actually, you would still need a driver, it would just be a very simple one you already have. The BIOS hardware doesn't magically get data from the hard drive, it magically gets data from flash, and that data includes code that tells it how to read data from the hard drive.
The point was that he prefers serial, all things being equal, and he noted that the problem is that all things are not equal. You completely missed that point. Certainly it's different than your point, but you're still missing the point he made.
I kind of think AT&T is a big network for one. And for another, yes, my analysis was somewhat simplified. But either way, the end user already bought the bandwidth, so someone else shouldn't also have to co-buy the bandwidth. Either way, a service provider should be able to deliver what is paid for by the customer and make money off of the transaction, because if they can't they either have to loose money or break the contract. So if they're already obligated to provide something, they can't fail to deliver just because someone else didn't pay them and call that good. The contract with the end user is a contract regardless of what another entity does. (Unless the other entity is the government voiding all or part of the contract.)
I have no problem with what you described. The only problems are that that doesn't describe what Net Neutrality is fighting, and it's based on a flawed idea of how the internet works. What the network operators want to do that net neutrality is fighting is artificially reduce YouTube's bandwidth unless they pay. So YouTube actually gets a smaller proportion of the network bandwidth than the proportion of data that's requested from them, despite the fact that YouTube paid for enough bandwidth from it's ISP and the end-users all paid for enough bandwidth to recieve it. Imagine if YouTube's ISP tried to bill you for accessing YouTube. YouTube paid for the bandwidth. The ISP has peering agreements to pass the data along to other network operators closer to you. Your ISP has peering agreements so the data can get to it. And you already paid to download the data. At what part of this process of transferring the data is everything NOT already paid for? So YouTube's ISP is trying to charge you for a service that has already been paid for. So if AT&T wants to charge Google for data that AT&T's users request, the users have already paid for service. AT&T has made deals so that it gets bandwidth on other people's routers in exchange for giving them bandwidth on AT&T routers, so that's basically free except for maintaining their own routers and connections. Which their users have paid for. At no point do AT&T and Google actually conduct business, but Google's bandwidth is passed along because AT&T is obligated by it's peering agreements and has contracts with it's users. Since AT&T is obligated to pass along the packets, how can it refuse to unless it's paid? Also, with the way the internet works, you buy faster connections between one point and another. It's either a faster connection between a two routers or between a router and a client. If it's between a router and a client (direct connection between network-operator's-router and YouTube), and YouTube pays for it, we call that "YouTube buying internet access from the network operator", which is perfectly legit. If it's between two routers, however, in practical terms it's not especially likely to provide a major performance boost, because any traffic can be routed over it, not just YouTube's, and there's no guarantee that YouTube's will be routed over it. If it's that much more efficient of a way to connect two points there will be such a glut of traffic from other sites that the capacity for YouTube's packets is limited. It also usually happens to be more cost-effective to improve connections to nearby routers than lay an OC48 connection across a continent, and if you're building an OC48, the money for it is probably going to come from other service providers buying bandwidth on it, and not YouTube individually. Also, if you ever tracert a large variety of ip's, you'll discover that it usually takes an astonishingly similar number of hops no matter where you are and where you're trying to get, and that the number of hops really has minimal effect compared to the bandwidth at each end, because the internet's designed so that hops are relatively irrelevant. Yes they increase latency, but once the initial connection's made, the data flows at the maximum rate that the slower of the two ends can handle it. So the "plain old business scenerio" you suggest really doesn't exist, unless network operator is selling bandwidth network operator doesn't have, which is fraudulent. Only if network operator doesn't have what network operator is selling does network operator need to build infrastructure to handle YouTube's traffic. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, but There's Such A Thing As A Lunch That Has Already Been Paid For, and lunches that were paid for don't need to be paid for again by the lunch meat company.
It's unfortunate that 'rape' has been bastardized to apply only to sexual rape. But as originally defined, rape is a perfectly good word to use in the context.
My school district shares a "dumb" (practical) school with several other districts, and people who actually chose to go there can be educated in things like how to repair cars, or build a house, or be a chef, or run a computer network, or whatever the other options are. It's a very dense yet high-priced suburban area (about 750k starting price on a new house on an acre lot, and almost every thing's half-acre or smaller, and only one of the other school districts is less wealthy), but people actually chose to go. And even more people chose not to go because it leaves so little flexibility: you spend half the day there, and the other half of the day is dictated by graduation requirements. For the kids who are almost certain to fail at least one class over four years, that precludes them from going because they'd be unable to graduate on time. (And often they're failing because they don't care about classes that legitimately won't help them. The kids whose parents own construction companies and who are being trained to help manage those companies care little for how to design a good experiment. Yes, they exist. So do the ones who work for their uncle at a local pizza shop and never need to write creative essays.) For the kids who are in honors/AP, it means they would end up in far more mind-numbingly easy classes than they're willing to put up with. And it makes it almost impossible to participate in certain extracurricular activities. So de facto, they're limited to only a part of the mediocre students in each district. And even with almost no emphasis placed on people going to the practical school, or anything done to make it easier to do so, that school is still successful. So I believe that if you make that kind of schooling available, make it convenient enough to be practical, and portray it as a valid and worthwhile alternative to academics and white collar employment, people will take advantage of it. Maybe it will never be the most prominent option, but in a society where schools are supposed to produce geniuses who don't know what a wrench is and are unwilling to lift anything heavier than a laptop, it would certainly be a worthwhile improvement.
He probably wasn't educated prior to public school, so it wasn't a reeducation camp, but a (mis)education camp
If MySpace were to sign a similar agreement with the label, there is little doubt that the lawsuit would disappear.
If they enter a contract saying they won't be sued, they probably won't be? Legally, we call that a settlement, and you can't continue a suit once you've settled it.
The signals travel at the same speed, but because copper is susceptable to interference, not as many bits per second can be sent without data integrity being compromised. One bit is in transit for nearly the same ammount of time (latency), but you can put bits closer together (higher bitrate) in fiber because there's no interference.
The advancement is technology to change the bitrate on the copper as the interference changes. So how it compares to fiber will vary.
So which end is going to be pointing out, and if it's the pointy end, how densely will they be packed? Will they all be at the same level? Also, what's average the surface area of the point of a thumbtack? What's his mass anyway? Should we consider the forces that would be applied in a hypothetical accident, or assume he won't get in one of those? Will the seat be superglued in also, or will he be able to replace it?
It's not just a simple matter of whether there are thumbtacks there. There are other important questions to consider.
And epoxy will do a better job.
drag resistance in fluid varies as a cube of the velocity, so twice the velocity is 8 times the air resistance: 2.3 times the velocity is 12.167 times the air resistance. It's more than an order of magnitude more air resistance, and building missiles to travel 10 times the speedo of sound is not an easy task.
The author retains all patent, trademark, and copyright to all Content posted within available fields You license the right to publish your copyrighted material, but you don't sign the copyright over.
I was monitored only by the possibility of my parents walking into the room and looking on the screen, and that was far too little monitoring. It's not playing CIA, because the relationship between parent and child is different than the one between government and citizen. Besides which, the CIA doesen't tell you ahead of time if they'll be monitoring whatever you do for so many years. If you're trusting your kids to tell you what sights they're visiting, I was one of the best-behaved people kids I know, and I shouldn't have been trusted for that.
I can also almost guarantee that regardless whether or not they go looking for it, kids who have unfiltered internet access will be exposed to pr0n, and I know nobody who thinks 10-year-old-kids, or whatever the average age of first exposure to internet pornography is down to now, should be finding that, especially unintentionally.
RTFA, or TFPD (product description) It doesen't require you to use two hands. Yes, if you want to mute the phone or reject the call, that requires a second hand, but there's no reason you have to do those things, and it's still a lot easier than getting your cell phone out. You still have exactly the same functionality with no additional work, and only the added functionality requires you to press a button. The problem with your analogy with digital watches is that you can already see the time, and you can already see who'se calling you, you're not required to do anything, and if you do it produces an effect that couldn't previously be produced as easily.
But they're not forcing ads on their users; only doing all they can to convince their users to accept ads themselves and force them on non-users. I still don't see any ads on livejournal. When I do, I'll take the archives that I save periodically with the scrapbook firefox extension and move somewhere else if they annoy me. But if I'm not forced to see ads, I don't care if others decide to see ads. As long as it remains voluntary, even to new users, it's not a problem.
If you know someone's likely to be sniping at you, wouldn't you rather have a sniper watching for them than a policeman with a pistol trained in an acadamy to fight an that he has at least some idea of the location of?
The sniper may be able to see the person who would shoot you, and shoot them first. I guarantee that sniper could conceal themself well enough that the police officer would never see them though, and they can shoot accurately at the police officer from farther away than the police officer can shoot back, so they can almost ignore the police officer.
Sure if they were checking the most well known vulnerabilities and not hidden, the academically trained hacker can protect you, and possibly even get them arrested. As with a policeman v. a common criminal. But if you're up against a BlackHat hacker who studies every detail of your defense while covering his tracks, the ex-BlackHat who studied your defenses just as well but with the benefit of inside knowledge will do you better.
Assuming, of course, that your ex-BlackHat is truly 'ex-'.
Far too many people have stupedly taken that literally. And the idea that anyone would think actual pipes would use is quite entertaining, especially once you consider that people have actually worried about things getting stuck in those pipes, or similar things. So for almost as many years, the slang term 'pipes' has been used just as much to mock people who literally thought there were pipes. And to see that there are actually plans to use physical pipes is just too hilarious to pass up. If you don't understand geeks laughing at the technologically clueless, you need to surrender your geek badge and go to computer stupidities. You can pick it up when you return.
The problem with those is that they're either riggable, or fail the condorcet winner criterion. So either voters can rig the election by putting in things that aren't their real preferences, or the person who would beat every single other candidate one-on-one can loose.
For the record, I don't currently really care for or against apple;
That said, apple was not leveraging it's monopoly, because it has none.
Not only that, but you can uninstall, not just disable, iLife without anything breaking, and without built in OS features of iLife remaining behind and telling you that you uninstalled iLife which makes you a Bad Person.
Furthtermore, apple primarily sells computers, not OS's. An OS is something that makes the computer work. Computer vendors are free to put whatever software they want on their computers, whether developed in-house or not. It's their job to assemble parts and programs to produce something a consumer will want to buy. OS vendors are creating a platform that allows hardware, software, and users to interact easily. Editing a video is not simply an interaction between the hardware and the user, or maintenance of any aspect of the computer, so it belongs in software independent of the OS.
Simply put: Microsoft sells the xbox with a browser and video editing software. The xbox has no monopoly, and is a computer, and nobody complains. It's a home entertainment system or whatever they call it, so those are arguably integral parts. They bundle those things with windows, where they have a monopoly and the product is an OS, that's when people complain, because those are extraneous. When they act as if one product is part of another product that it has no business being a component of, that's the problem.
Last time I saw windows bluescreen was a week ago, on my xp computer. Why?
Ok, so maybe that's just coincidence.
No, he was more than 17 years ahead of his time, so we would have been safe...
Cray makes supercomputers. While some 'supercomputers' may contain commodity PCs, they are not commodity PCs, and are generally described as 'clusters', not supercomputers. And cray does not make supercomputers out of commodity PCs. You wouldn't want to put it in a commodity PC, which is why nobody implied anything about commodity PCs until you pulled that connection out of thin air.