Don't get me wrong, I think the Fit-PC is an interesting and has its uses but, in my opinion, saying it's cheaper compared to the Mac Mini misses the point altogether. Mac Mini starts at $599, fit-PC starts at $285. Fit-PC is cheaper, period. No "point" to be missed; one is cheaper than the other.
What you seem to be trying to say is that Mac Mini is better value for money, but value depends on what you're using it for.
If you need the lowest possible power consumption, space, and the widest range of operating temperatures, then Fit-PC is better value for money.
If you need a normal PC for regular users, but you want to think that it's a special PC for special users, then a Mac Mini is going to be better value for money.
Comrade! We have detected you using mathematics and logic to stop an anti-Apple tirade! Please be advised: this is Slashdot. Apple sells only massively overpriced hardware. Pointing out that Apple sells something equivalent to its actual value, instead of the fantasy-land price that internet geeks believe it should cost (id est, free) is double-plus-ungood. We here at the Ministry for Nerdy Indignation hope that you will reconsider your eminently logical position and join with us in our outrage that Apple does not price their products at Mom's Basement prices. Thank you. The Mac Mini uses 110W, the fit-PC uses 5W, the Mac Mini is 6.5x6.5x2 inches, the fit-PC is 4.2x4.2x1.5 inches, the Mac Mini is produced on a relatively massive scale compared to the fit-PC, the Mac Mini works at 10-35C, the fit-PC works at 0-70C.
If you're comparing them based on the amount of RAM or processor speed you're being a little less than "eminently logical".
This linux driver team made most of us think you could take open source code and apply any other open source license you like. If they can GPL BSD code why not GPLv3 GPLv2 code?
It's not the fighting or violence they're worried about; Halo doesn't support geocentricity, and the futuristic setting flies in the face of predictions that the second coming will be any day now.
By the way is it just me or is there something really wrong with trying to convert children? Why not wait until they're older and less easily seduced by things like video games before trying to convince them?
Something about older men saying "come inside kids, let's play video games", when they're not actually interested in playing video games with the kids, seems wrong.
Technically they're not hybrids either, because they just mix up the starting stem cells and don't actually mix up DNA. So they're not animal-human and not hybrids.
Let's just call them FRANKENSTEINS, or ABOMINATIONS (caps are mandatory).
Okay so people are saying "Put Ubuntu on it", "No, put OS X on it", "No, put Fedora on it".
Either it comes with an OS bundled, or it doesn't. If it does that OS is getting users in an anti-competitive way, if it doesn't users won't have a clue what to do with their computer.
Also face it; there's no way computers with an OS other than Windows is going to be sold by default, because everyone expects and is familiar with Windows and understands Windows applications.
People freak out enough over Vista, which other people say didn't have enough changes; imagine someone handling a new OS with all different software that won't run their old software. Forget it, come back in a decade after a long weaning process and maybe the "debate" will be worth a look.
It's a bit hush-hush at the moment, but basically the market was created when Bush announced the OLPT, One Laptop Per Terrorist, project.
Bush and his crazy hair-brained schemes.. I think it's tipped to be the next thing after the "surge" fails.
I think it's because the internet being represented as a cloud in most diagrams, so it means "internet computing". I think "internet computing" might be better, but then someone would decide it takes too long or isn't cool to write "internet computing" and would use "IC".
The best thing to do when someone says a stupid acronym is do just what the GP* did, and ask "Exactly what does that mean?", and don't use it yourself.
The actual name for the process of depositing ink onto a charged drum is something like xeroxisition (I can't remember exactly, but I think Xerox got its name from the process and not the other way around.)
But this process deposits more than a nanometer of ink (otherwise you wouldn't be able to see it), and you need to charge the ink which might not be suitable, and even if it was workable it would only help in applying the ink in a non-uniform way across a surface, and it's hard to think how that'd be useful.
And If I was a game developer working on the same title for years on end - I'd probably want a change too. Not so with Microsoft; they know how to milk a cash cow when they find one. Merchandising! Merchandising! Where the real money from the game is made. Halo: the T-shirt, Halo: the coloring book, Halo: the lunch box, Halo: the breakfast cereal, Halo: the flamethrower--the kids love this one--last but not least, Halo: the doll. *squeeze* "Gimme mah money, bitch!" Yup, the last thing we need is more crappy merchandise from Microsoft. I remember Vista the movie, Visual Studio.NET party balloons, Microsoft Office action figures; those guys just don't know when to stop.
The problem is that selling crappy merchandise is so much more lucrative than the billion dollar expanding software market.
Silence! They were right to not give any commendation to the men responsible for Sputnik; all men are equal after all! The guys who designed the first satellite probably just.. controlled the means of production, or something..
The "or any future version" is optional for the developers. I have removed it from all of my software, as I do not want to license my code under rules which have not yet been written.
That said, I have no clue if KDE includes that line or not. But the future license has to have the same spirit as the GPLv2! How can that legally watertight clause not inspire confidence in you?
With quantum cryptography you can read data off the link, but by reading it you change it.
So someone could read the whole one time pad and decrypt it as it's sent via conventional means, and the person receiving wouldn't know the one time pad had been read until they had the incorrect encrypted message.
You could checksum the random pad, but it doesn't inspire much confidence. (I'm only barely starting quantum physics in uni so I'm a layman)
Sorry, but the "Do it yourself," attitude is just bad. Even assuming it is directed at the extremely small segment of the population that has the level of programming knowledge required (usually it isn't) that then assumes that they have nothing better to do with their time. Sorry, not how it works. Writing from the point of view of someone who frequently receives feature requests for free software:
When someone asks the kind of question that gets a response "do it yourself" they're probably making the following implications: The developers have nothing better to do, and are just code monkeys waiting for ideas; you know what the developers should be doing better than the developers; the developers owe you something because you're using their software; the developers care whether or not you use their software.
These implications are pretty offensive, like saying to a volunteer who's picking up trash "when are you gonna get around to cleaning near my place? why haven't you done my area yet?" "Do it yourself, asshole"
Part of having a successful product is listening to what people want and working to implement that. Depends how you define "successful". An evangelist might take successful to mean "used by everyone", a developer might take it to mean "it does what I need". I can see your point that you need to listen to what people want to build software that will be used by those people, but that doesn't imply developers are obliged to implement any idea anyone comes up with.
Now maybe you think that the devs shouldn't care, that it should just be whatever it is and there shouldn't be any thought given to making it what people want, unless said person is willing to do that. Fair enough, that's a valid stance. However if you take that stance, then do go evangelising Linux as a replacement for Windows or an everyman's OS. First; developers != evangelists. Second; why are you suggesting that if you want to recommend a piece of software you have to be prepared to implement everyone's ideas for them? Is Microsoft also obliged to implement suggestions from the public?
Either way is ok, there's nothing wrong with saying "We are all about DIY, if you aren't willing to do it, don't expect other people to), you just have to recognise that is a viewpoint inconsistent with "We believe this is something everyone could and should use." It's inconsistent only if you have to write code to use the software, which isn't the case.
I'm one of the people who, up until now, thought that chroot was for security (Luckily I've never had to rely on it though).
In OpenBSD chroot is used to sandbox the web server, and as someone else pointed out the documentation often encourages people to chroot daemons. Also similar software like Solaris containers and FreeBSD jails, which do pretty much the same thing as chroot, actually are for security (pretty much exclusively in the case of jails, not exclusively in the case of containers).
Also you'll often find chroot even on distros where there are no development tools to be found, which also encourages people to think that it's use goes beyond development.
I think a nice big bold sign in man chroot is required, as well as removing all the advice that's currently around to chroot processes, if chroot isn't actually for security.
It does almost make you want to vote against them.
Rudd is a pro-Christian morals bloke who believes Christianity ought to have its place in politics, and gets kicked out of strip clubs while representing us to the UN (but he "doesn't remember" what happened).
And you remember he wants to get our troops out of Iraq, and tells this to the media, but sent Howard a letter of support for the invasion in 2003.
The economic policies he has opposed Howard on have been very successful.
Howard has proven himself with a solid government time after time; what has he done wrong again?
When you read through the ALP's policies it's all about setting up committees to take action on this or that popular issue, wriggling out of concrete commitments wherever possible, and most of all badmouth the Liberal Party when in doubt.
They'll say anything to get into power, even set up MySpace accounts and all that cheesy rubbish.
And once you weigh that in with their energy stance it does make you vote against them.
Summary: Australia plans to build a 154MW solar plant which powers 45,000 homes. No info on cost or scalability (the government is contributing $120 million, but we're not told how much the total cost is). Is 154MW max energy, or average/expected energy?
I don't go to "treehugger.com" for unbiased news about energy, but okay. Summary: They announced they would build an experimental 500MW plant over a 20 year period. Once they've built 1MW they'll see if it works, and if it does they'll continue to ramp it up to a potential 500MW in 20 years time. And is 500MW max energy, or average/expected energy? It's interesting, but it's not available here and now, and I question the 6c/kWh price too (which is coming from the people seeking investment).
See Wikipedia for information on why no-one is rushing to invest in the Stirling Engine.
Nuclear power, by contrast, is here now; ready, and waiting, and capable of taking on the entire burden of our energy needs.
Summary: A company is investing $100 million in another experimental solar technology that hopes to solve the problem of our limited silicon resources. No mention of efficiency, timeline, or why we haven't heard anything about the technology since the article was published, as they said they would be pumping out "200 million" cells by 2007.
Again: Nuclear power is not an experimental dream or the idea of a gambler looking for investors; it's a tried, tested, readily available technology.
Summary: The worlds largest solar plant in 2004. $26.5 million, 33k cells * 150W/cell = 495KW = 5MW. It also uses silicon, which we don't have enough of to make enough of these to contribute a significant chunk of power. Is 150W/cell max energy, or average/expected energy?
A list of solar sites, no mention of costs. Topping the list is a solar site that generates 20MW (max energy, or average/expected energy?). Your average nuclear reactor generates 1000MW (max energy, but it can be maintained at max energy, unlike solar/wind power which depends on sunlight/wind). Did I mention nuclear is scalable, and ready now?
Wind farm. 300MW *max energy, or average/expected energy?), $300million. It beats the $30 million for 5MW for the German plant you gave above, but it won't work too well in places which aren't as windy as Scotland. Nuclear power can be used anywhere, and in any amount. Things like hydroelectric power are good where there are canyons, and wind power is good where there's wind, and solar may possibly be good if you're a small town in the middle of a desert, and geothermal is good if you live near a volcanic site, but nuclear is good everywhere.
All of Americas power needs could be supplied by (for example) covering 100x100 km of the Nevada Desert with PV cells. Why not just bite the bullet and do it?
Because we don't have the silicon required, and it would be massively expensive even if we d
Is it really going to be cheaper than (say) paving large areas of desert with ever-cheaper solar cells? Or building the really large wind-farm projects in the many available on/off shore locations? Yes, with a capital 'Y'. Much, much cheaper, much, much more scalable, and also more environmentally friendly.
As technology advances, these alternatives have got cheaper and cheaper.. But nowhere near cheap enough, and still not scalable enough. You might be able to run your car pretty cheap on biofuel, but if everyone wanted to use it it just wouldn't scale up.
And the full cost of Nuclear Waste disposal is still not known, nor is it included in the quoted "price" of the electricity.. Actually waste storage is included in the price, and so is the decommission of the nuclear plant. Contrast this with a coal plant, where the cost of dealing with climate change definitely isn't included in the price.
Facilities that store nuclear waste can store waste economically and securely. If we figure out how to destroy it (like using it in breeder reactors perhaps, when Uranium-235 runs out) then great, if we don't it's no big deal to keep it stored (and it's not like the world would explode even if it did leak).
Nuclear is really the only option, and it's great that your government is going with what's right rather than what the misinformed majority think about nuclear power.
Unfortunately here in Australia the government that's probably going to get into power is anti-nuclear, just because of public opinion.
Just to emphasize this: Australia is a geographically and politically stable country, with a large surplus, which is a major climate change contributor, and has thousands of square kilometers of dry, arid, unused, practically inaccessible land, with vast uranium reserves and little threat from terrorism. But the ALP, if voted in, will invest in "clean coal" that it says won't even be ready to supply more than a fraction of our energy for another 15 years, by which time they won't be in power any longer.
Labor will help industry build on that work. Labor's plan to secure the future of the coal industry includes:
A national clean coal initiative to put the coal industry and exports on a sure international footing;
A $500 million clean coal fund to generate investment in clean coal;
$25 million in funding for the CSIRO to research and develop new clean coal technologies and
A national objective of having clean coal generated electricity in the national electricity grid by 2020.
The ALP's method of fighting climate change; research a technology with the objective of having it in use to some degree by 2020, by which time we'll be out of power and the climate will be even worse. This is how desperate the situation is without your government opting for a viable, scalable power source like nuclear. So please write to your local congressmen and show your support!
It's at worse a misinformed response to an equally misinformed post. But remember that Windows used to have publicly accessible (but protected) SMB shares, and it didn't turn out too well.
Leopard is as great of a jump from Tiger as Tiger was from Panther. You mean it has over 200 new features?! That is just breathtaking.
Nice refinements everywhere, significant new apps and features like Spaces/Time Machine, major improvements to Mail/iCal/Safari/Quicktime/iChat, lots of major improvements under the hood that will propel third party development, including Core Animation. You forgot about the other key features introduced, like the new transparent finder bar, the way shortcuts are now placed in folders (ahem.. stacks) on the desktop. I literally drooled when Jobs demo'd downloads getting saved into a desktop folder.
Also now the Finder can browse folders on other computers. Microsoft are probably kicking themselves that they didn't implement that over a decade ago and call it SMB.
Being able to look like Spock off Star Trek when you're iChatting to friends is a breathtaking way to let them know you're an asshole. You can also turn the contrast up and down ("Glow" and "Black and white" in Apple marketing speak).
And those flashy templates for your mail are good too; now the person reading your mail can focus on something other than the mail's text (who said content was more important than style?).
Mail also now has notes, to-do lists, and you can actually search through your mail. Wow! It can almost do everything Outlook Express, Yahoo Mail, GMail, and Thunderbird can do!
There's also Boot Camp: "Leopard is the world's most advanced operating system. So advanced, it even lets you run Windows if there's a PC application you need to use."
That's pretty amazing; an operating system so advanced you can dual boot into a different operating system. I used to think every non-Mac PC could do this, and that it had nothing to do with your operating system, but I must be mistaken.
I'm not even going to start on the groundbreaking main-page features like "Photo Booth", "DVD Player", and "Front Row" (ie full-screen media player with tacky remote).
But "Time Machine" is the killer app. Time Machine is like Windows Backup, except it has a starry background, it backs up everything instead of backing up only what you specify, and it doesn't support scheduling and different kinds of backups for different situations.
Vista is XP with a new theme, plus DRM support for the dying HD-DVD, and a bolted on version of Apple's Quartz (WPF) and Cocoa (.Net). Microsoft also has a bolted on version of Apple's Dashcode (Visual Studio.NET), Apple's Mail (Outlook), Apple's Objective-C (C#, C++, VB.NET, IronPython), Apple's send document revisions using e-mail (Microsoft Groove), Apple's post-it-note Dashboard Widget (Microsoft OneNote), Apple's iTunes (Windows Media Player), Apple's Quicktime (Windows Media Player), Apple's Front Row (Windows Media Player), Apple's security-through-obscurity (Microsoft's Active Directory Security Policy, Address space randomization, NX-memory support), Apple's ipfw (Microsoft Firewall), and Apple's Rosetta aka AIM's Admission-Of-Defeat (Microsoft Run-on-Intel-from-the-start).
And who doesn't love that ad where the iMacs are spinning around with the cheesy tune? It gets across all the key points needed to sell a computer to an informed, discerning buyer (a typical Apple customer); it's all-new, and it's all-in-one.
And the biggest problem is that it's a situation that you just can't escape from. The guy is happier with $15 million than with $100 million, but how are you supposed to lose that $85 million? It's not like there are billions of people willing to share his terrible burden.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I don't think I've ever seen a pro-Vista comment on /. , and I browse through every stories comments.
What you seem to be trying to say is that Mac Mini is better value for money, but value depends on what you're using it for.
If you need the lowest possible power consumption, space, and the widest range of operating temperatures, then Fit-PC is better value for money.
If you need a normal PC for regular users, but you want to think that it's a special PC for special users, then a Mac Mini is going to be better value for money.
If you're comparing them based on the amount of RAM or processor speed you're being a little less than "eminently logical".
86% of people reading your comment suspect you're full of shit.
As a terrorist, I feel so lucky that all my communications are encrypted and that I have nothing to fear from passive monitoring.
This linux driver team made most of us think you could take open source code and apply any other open source license you like. If they can GPL BSD code why not GPLv3 GPLv2 code?
It's not the fighting or violence they're worried about; Halo doesn't support geocentricity, and the futuristic setting flies in the face of predictions that the second coming will be any day now.
By the way is it just me or is there something really wrong with trying to convert children? Why not wait until they're older and less easily seduced by things like video games before trying to convince them?
Something about older men saying "come inside kids, let's play video games", when they're not actually interested in playing video games with the kids, seems wrong.
Technically they're not hybrids either, because they just mix up the starting stem cells and don't actually mix up DNA. So they're not animal-human and not hybrids.
Let's just call them FRANKENSTEINS, or ABOMINATIONS (caps are mandatory).
Okay so people are saying "Put Ubuntu on it", "No, put OS X on it", "No, put Fedora on it".
Either it comes with an OS bundled, or it doesn't. If it does that OS is getting users in an anti-competitive way, if it doesn't users won't have a clue what to do with their computer.
Also face it; there's no way computers with an OS other than Windows is going to be sold by default, because everyone expects and is familiar with Windows and understands Windows applications.
People freak out enough over Vista, which other people say didn't have enough changes; imagine someone handling a new OS with all different software that won't run their old software. Forget it, come back in a decade after a long weaning process and maybe the "debate" will be worth a look.
The Bible forbids all stem cell research.
"Suffer not the stem cells to come to me." John 6:29
It's a bit hush-hush at the moment, but basically the market was created when Bush announced the OLPT, One Laptop Per Terrorist, project.
Bush and his crazy hair-brained schemes.. I think it's tipped to be the next thing after the "surge" fails.
I think it's because the internet being represented as a cloud in most diagrams, so it means "internet computing". I think "internet computing" might be better, but then someone would decide it takes too long or isn't cool to write "internet computing" and would use "IC".
The best thing to do when someone says a stupid acronym is do just what the GP* did, and ask "Exactly what does that mean?", and don't use it yourself.
* Ahh, the irony..
The actual name for the process of depositing ink onto a charged drum is something like xeroxisition (I can't remember exactly, but I think Xerox got its name from the process and not the other way around.)
But this process deposits more than a nanometer of ink (otherwise you wouldn't be able to see it), and you need to charge the ink which might not be suitable, and even if it was workable it would only help in applying the ink in a non-uniform way across a surface, and it's hard to think how that'd be useful.
The problem is that selling crappy merchandise is so much more lucrative than the billion dollar expanding software market.
Silence! They were right to not give any commendation to the men responsible for Sputnik; all men are equal after all! The guys who designed the first satellite probably just.. controlled the means of production, or something..
That said, I have no clue if KDE includes that line or not. But the future license has to have the same spirit as the GPLv2! How can that legally watertight clause not inspire confidence in you?
With quantum cryptography you can read data off the link, but by reading it you change it.
So someone could read the whole one time pad and decrypt it as it's sent via conventional means, and the person receiving wouldn't know the one time pad had been read until they had the incorrect encrypted message.
You could checksum the random pad, but it doesn't inspire much confidence. (I'm only barely starting quantum physics in uni so I'm a layman)
When someone asks the kind of question that gets a response "do it yourself" they're probably making the following implications: The developers have nothing better to do, and are just code monkeys waiting for ideas; you know what the developers should be doing better than the developers; the developers owe you something because you're using their software; the developers care whether or not you use their software.
These implications are pretty offensive, like saying to a volunteer who's picking up trash "when are you gonna get around to cleaning near my place? why haven't you done my area yet?" "Do it yourself, asshole"
Part of having a successful product is listening to what people want and working to implement that. Depends how you define "successful". An evangelist might take successful to mean "used by everyone", a developer might take it to mean "it does what I need". I can see your point that you need to listen to what people want to build software that will be used by those people, but that doesn't imply developers are obliged to implement any idea anyone comes up with. Now maybe you think that the devs shouldn't care, that it should just be whatever it is and there shouldn't be any thought given to making it what people want, unless said person is willing to do that. Fair enough, that's a valid stance. However if you take that stance, then do go evangelising Linux as a replacement for Windows or an everyman's OS. First; developers != evangelists. Second; why are you suggesting that if you want to recommend a piece of software you have to be prepared to implement everyone's ideas for them? Is Microsoft also obliged to implement suggestions from the public? Either way is ok, there's nothing wrong with saying "We are all about DIY, if you aren't willing to do it, don't expect other people to), you just have to recognise that is a viewpoint inconsistent with "We believe this is something everyone could and should use." It's inconsistent only if you have to write code to use the software, which isn't the case.
I'm one of the people who, up until now, thought that chroot was for security (Luckily I've never had to rely on it though).
In OpenBSD chroot is used to sandbox the web server, and as someone else pointed out the documentation often encourages people to chroot daemons. Also similar software like Solaris containers and FreeBSD jails, which do pretty much the same thing as chroot, actually are for security (pretty much exclusively in the case of jails, not exclusively in the case of containers).
Also you'll often find chroot even on distros where there are no development tools to be found, which also encourages people to think that it's use goes beyond development.
I think a nice big bold sign in man chroot is required, as well as removing all the advice that's currently around to chroot processes, if chroot isn't actually for security.
It does almost make you want to vote against them.
Rudd is a pro-Christian morals bloke who believes Christianity ought to have its place in politics, and gets kicked out of strip clubs while representing us to the UN (but he "doesn't remember" what happened).
And you remember he wants to get our troops out of Iraq, and tells this to the media, but sent Howard a letter of support for the invasion in 2003.
The economic policies he has opposed Howard on have been very successful.
Howard has proven himself with a solid government time after time; what has he done wrong again?
When you read through the ALP's policies it's all about setting up committees to take action on this or that popular issue, wriggling out of concrete commitments wherever possible, and most of all badmouth the Liberal Party when in doubt.
They'll say anything to get into power, even set up MySpace accounts and all that cheesy rubbish.
And once you weigh that in with their energy stance it does make you vote against them.
Not true. Just for starters, (and at the risk of repeating myself)..
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46415
Summary: Australia plans to build a 154MW solar plant which powers 45,000 homes. No info on cost or scalability (the government is contributing $120 million, but we're not told how much the total cost is). Is 154MW max energy, or average/expected energy?
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/worlds_largest_4.php
I don't go to "treehugger.com" for unbiased news about energy, but okay. Summary: They announced they would build an experimental 500MW plant over a 20 year period. Once they've built 1MW they'll see if it works, and if it does they'll continue to ramp it up to a potential 500MW in 20 years time. And is 500MW max energy, or average/expected energy? It's interesting, but it's not available here and now, and I question the 6c/kWh price too (which is coming from the people seeking investment).
See Wikipedia for information on why no-one is rushing to invest in the Stirling Engine.
Nuclear power, by contrast, is here now; ready, and waiting, and capable of taking on the entire burden of our energy needs.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/21/BUG9VJHBLB1.DTL
Summary: A company is investing $100 million in another experimental solar technology that hopes to solve the problem of our limited silicon resources. No mention of efficiency, timeline, or why we haven't heard anything about the technology since the article was published, as they said they would be pumping out "200 million" cells by 2007.
Again: Nuclear power is not an experimental dream or the idea of a gambler looking for investors; it's a tried, tested, readily available technology.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1321857,00.html
Summary: The worlds largest solar plant in 2004. $26.5 million, 33k cells * 150W/cell = 495KW = 5MW. It also uses silicon, which we don't have enough of to make enough of these to contribute a significant chunk of power. Is 150W/cell max energy, or average/expected energy?
http://www.pvresources.com/en/top50pv.php
A list of solar sites, no mention of costs. Topping the list is a solar site that generates 20MW (max energy, or average/expected energy?). Your average nuclear reactor generates 1000MW (max energy, but it can be maintained at max energy, unlike solar/wind power which depends on sunlight/wind). Did I mention nuclear is scalable, and ready now?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6031995.stm
Wind farm. 300MW *max energy, or average/expected energy?), $300million. It beats the $30 million for 5MW for the German plant you gave above, but it won't work too well in places which aren't as windy as Scotland. Nuclear power can be used anywhere, and in any amount. Things like hydroelectric power are good where there are canyons, and wind power is good where there's wind, and solar may possibly be good if you're a small town in the middle of a desert, and geothermal is good if you live near a volcanic site, but nuclear is good everywhere.
All of Americas power needs could be supplied by (for example) covering 100x100 km of the Nevada Desert with PV cells. Why not just bite the bullet and do it?
Because we don't have the silicon required, and it would be massively expensive even if we d
Facilities that store nuclear waste can store waste economically and securely. If we figure out how to destroy it (like using it in breeder reactors perhaps, when Uranium-235 runs out) then great, if we don't it's no big deal to keep it stored (and it's not like the world would explode even if it did leak).
Nuclear is really the only option, and it's great that your government is going with what's right rather than what the misinformed majority think about nuclear power.
Unfortunately here in Australia the government that's probably going to get into power is anti-nuclear, just because of public opinion.
Just to emphasize this: Australia is a geographically and politically stable country, with a large surplus, which is a major climate change contributor, and has thousands of square kilometers of dry, arid, unused, practically inaccessible land, with vast uranium reserves and little threat from terrorism. But the ALP, if voted in, will invest in "clean coal" that it says won't even be ready to supply more than a fraction of our energy for another 15 years, by which time they won't be in power any longer.
Labor will help industry build on that work. Labor's plan to secure the future of the coal industry includes:
- A national clean coal initiative to put the coal industry and exports on a sure international footing;
- A $500 million clean coal fund to generate investment in clean coal;
- $25 million in funding for the CSIRO to research and develop new clean coal technologies and
- A national objective of having clean coal generated electricity in the national electricity grid by 2020.
The ALP's method of fighting climate change; research a technology with the objective of having it in use to some degree by 2020, by which time we'll be out of power and the climate will be even worse. This is how desperate the situation is without your government opting for a viable, scalable power source like nuclear. So please write to your local congressmen and show your support!It's at worse a misinformed response to an equally misinformed post. But remember that Windows used to have publicly accessible (but protected) SMB shares, and it didn't turn out too well.
Also now the Finder can browse folders on other computers. Microsoft are probably kicking themselves that they didn't implement that over a decade ago and call it SMB.
Being able to look like Spock off Star Trek when you're iChatting to friends is a breathtaking way to let them know you're an asshole. You can also turn the contrast up and down ("Glow" and "Black and white" in Apple marketing speak).
And those flashy templates for your mail are good too; now the person reading your mail can focus on something other than the mail's text (who said content was more important than style?).
Mail also now has notes, to-do lists, and you can actually search through your mail. Wow! It can almost do everything Outlook Express, Yahoo Mail, GMail, and Thunderbird can do!
There's also Boot Camp: "Leopard is the world's most advanced operating system. So advanced, it even lets you run Windows if there's a PC application you need to use."
That's pretty amazing; an operating system so advanced you can dual boot into a different operating system. I used to think every non-Mac PC could do this, and that it had nothing to do with your operating system, but I must be mistaken.
I'm not even going to start on the groundbreaking main-page features like "Photo Booth", "DVD Player", and "Front Row" (ie full-screen media player with tacky remote).
But "Time Machine" is the killer app. Time Machine is like Windows Backup, except it has a starry background, it backs up everything instead of backing up only what you specify, and it doesn't support scheduling and different kinds of backups for different situations.
Vista is XP with a new theme, plus DRM support for the dying HD-DVD, and a bolted on version of Apple's Quartz (WPF) and Cocoa (.Net). Microsoft also has a bolted on version of Apple's Dashcode (Visual Studio
And who doesn't love that ad where the iMacs are spinning around with the cheesy tune? It gets across all the key points needed to sell a computer to an informed, discerning buyer (a typical Apple customer); it's all-new, and it's all-in-one.
And the biggest problem is that it's a situation that you just can't escape from. The guy is happier with $15 million than with $100 million, but how are you supposed to lose that $85 million? It's not like there are billions of people willing to share his terrible burden.