Premium Ready [aero, etc ready -wmf] machines need a 1GHz processor, 128MB of graphics memory, 1GB of system memory, a 40GB hard drive and an internal or external DVD-ROM drive.
I run os x on my early g3/250 powerbook (with 160MB ram) and linux on an old 90mhz pentium classic (w/128MB).
On both, things run perfectly, with all gui features, XGL, aqua effects, etc etc.
(ducks!)
Seriously - 1GB ram (512MB for low end installs) seems like an awful lot to me....
Mutations can be negative and positive - consider sickle cell anemia. its 'negative' unless there's lots of malaria in your area, in which case it's positive!
And I don't think the point of evolution is to create humans. I simply ask the question. Given the two types of evolution we teach, how do they explain the differences in how humans forked from this common ancestor?
1) Only one type of evolution is taught. It's split into two for the convenience of explaining things on small or large timescales (just like macro and micro economics are both just aspects of economics)
2) There isn't a specific explanation of why human evolution took a different path. It's just random. Sorry.
And having said debate numerous times over the years, no one has ever come close to answering that question once.
Jeepers! For someone who said: I've made a rather lengthy arguement about this before and I'm not sure I totally want to get into again, you do seem to want to get into it again!
You post seems to have the base assumption that the 'goal' (or destination perhaps) of evolution is to produce humans (or at least culture/art/language).
A small zoo acquires a rare gorilla, who quickly becomes agitated. The zookeeper determines that the female ape is in heat, but there are no male apes available for mating.
The zookeeper approaches Rob with a proposition. "Would you be willing to have sex with this gorilla for $500?" he asks.
Rob accepts the offer, but only on three conditions: "First, I don't want to have to kiss her. And second, you can never tell anyone about this." The zookeeper agrees to the conditions and asks about the third.
"Well," says Rob, "I'm gonna need another week to come up with the $500."
That being said, I don't think we descended from chimps. I've made a rather lengthy arguement about this before and I'm not sure I totally want to get into again, but I just don't believe humans came from chimps.
Dude, nobody thinks humans are descended from chimps. Chimps and Humans have a common ancestor (and now the divergence line is a little more blurred).
Scientists: Humans and Apes share a common ancestor.
Creationists: No they don't, God created us all as we are now.
Scientists: To clarify, we're actually descended from the interbreeding between our ancestral humans and early chimps, which created a third, infertile "hybrid" species, the human equivalent of a mule. Though incapable of breeding among its own, the hybrid is believed to have survived by mating with its parent human or chimp species.
Scientists: Oh, and our ancestor's were happily getting up to monkey business with their cousins (so to speak) for four million years after the split!
Creationists: Oh right, that clears that up then! Cheers:-)
(Second scientist line ripped off from the rather good article on this subject on the Guardian's website.)
Translation (for those who don't understand slashspeak) "I can't defend my point, as it is based on fanboi logic, yet I want to get the last word in regardless."....whiney Wintroll.
Wintroll?
I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying I troll the windows fanbois?
A few seconds basic research would have found you an example - here's one:
The much celebrated Virginia Tech G5 cluster (ranked in the top five supercomputers for a time) replaced the rather average OS X Memory Manager with a real one.
There you go. They won't be able to do that when Apple are only selling Intel PCs.
The one where they gave WebKit a public repository and even offered the whole engine to Konquerer's devs to use?
After massive bad publicity, yes, Apple offered that - I don't think you've really managed to refute the OP's point. Apple are takers, not contributers to Open Source.
Anyway, I don't know why I'm bothering to reply to an Apple Shill. I note that when this story first broke, you posted the following:
Another WRONG Slashdot article
See this comment [slashdot.org]. Apple made a quick mistake and fixed it, and the sources ARE available.
Next.
Like we're going to believe anything you post about Apple again.
Do you honestly think there is a SINGLE OSX PPC user who has downloaded the darwin kernel sources, changed them, recompiled them, and are now running OSX on a custom darwin kernel?
Hmmmn, I'm going to presume you're of the mindset "Well, I don't do it, therefore noone wants to do it"
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly what is a fanbox?
(I mean apart from what you need to run a quad amd)
Far enough back, your ancestors were indeed a bunch of money-types.
*sighs*
Unfortunately modern humans seem to be a bit like that too....
I know I'm a mac biggot...
I'll have you know, that round here the correct term is 'mac fanboy' (or whiney mac fanboy if you prefer).
On both, things run perfectly, with all gui features, XGL, aqua effects, etc etc.
(ducks!)
Seriously - 1GB ram (512MB for low end installs) seems like an awful lot to me....
Don't believe everything you're told :-)
Mutations can be negative and positive - consider sickle cell anemia. its 'negative' unless there's lots of malaria in your area, in which case it's positive!
Read more at the Most mutations are harmful Evowiki page.
Oh - and evowiki catalogues (and rebuts) most creationist arguments if you want to read up on them!
And I don't think the point of evolution is to create humans. I simply ask the question. Given the two types of evolution we teach, how do they explain the differences in how humans forked from this common ancestor?
1) Only one type of evolution is taught. It's split into two for the convenience of explaining things on small or large timescales (just like macro and micro economics are both just aspects of economics)
2) There isn't a specific explanation of why human evolution took a different path. It's just random. Sorry.
And having said debate numerous times over the years, no one has ever come close to answering that question once.
Hmmmn, sounds like you're making an argument from incredulity
I believe you meant to say:
:-D
Just means my ancestors were fucking some pretty cool monkeys, baby.
Jeepers! For someone who said: I've made a rather lengthy arguement about this before and I'm not sure I totally want to get into again, you do seem to want to get into it again!
You post seems to have the base assumption that the 'goal' (or destination perhaps) of evolution is to produce humans (or at least culture/art/language).
That aint the case.
A small zoo acquires a rare gorilla, who quickly becomes agitated. The zookeeper determines that the female ape is in heat, but there are no male apes available for mating.
The zookeeper approaches Rob with a proposition. "Would you be willing to have sex with this gorilla for $500?" he asks.
Rob accepts the offer, but only on three conditions: "First, I don't want to have to kiss her. And second, you can never tell anyone about this." The zookeeper agrees to the conditions and asks about the third.
"Well," says Rob, "I'm gonna need another week to come up with the $500."
That being said, I don't think we descended from chimps. I've made a rather lengthy arguement about this before and I'm not sure I totally want to get into again, but I just don't believe humans came from chimps.
Dude, nobody thinks humans are descended from chimps. Chimps and Humans have a common ancestor (and now the divergence line is a little more blurred).
Scientists: Humans and Apes share a common ancestor.
:-)
Creationists: No they don't, God created us all as we are now.
Scientists: To clarify, we're actually descended from the interbreeding between our ancestral humans and early chimps, which created a third, infertile "hybrid" species, the human equivalent of a mule. Though incapable of breeding among its own, the hybrid is believed to have survived by mating with its parent human or chimp species.
Scientists: Oh, and our ancestor's were happily getting up to monkey business with their cousins (so to speak) for four million years after the split!
Creationists: Oh right, that clears that up then! Cheers
(Second scientist line ripped off from the rather good article on this subject on the Guardian's website.)
No, that's the best you deserve...
....whiney Wintroll.
Translation (for those who don't understand slashspeak) "I can't defend my point, as it is based on fanboi logic, yet I want to get the last word in regardless."
Wintroll?
I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying I troll the windows fanbois?
--
The kernel of Darwin/OS X is still open source - Lars T. (470328)
You are an asshole - apart from the bits surrounding it.
That's the best you can do to defend your statement - I presume you're irritable because I pointed out the lack of logic in your fanboist argument?
The kernel of Darwin/OS X is still open source - Lars T - that's going to become my new sig come the 20th, with a link to this thread of course.
Is this single action in and of itself a good or a bad thing? Most here say it's a bad thing.
No - the vast majority of modded up comments say its a 'neutral' thing, that won't affect users.
That folks - is why you should judge geekishness (and everything else in life for that matter) by behaviour & not looks.
A few seconds basic research would have found you an example - here's one:
The much celebrated Virginia Tech G5 cluster (ranked in the top five supercomputers for a time) replaced the rather average OS X Memory Manager with a real one.
There you go. They won't be able to do that when Apple are only selling Intel PCs.
You are soooooooooooooo right!
This is a non issue! Apple losing the HPC sector of the market is irrelevant (after all, they only made a few sales there)!
Wow! That sounds unreal!
Can I preorder a blueberry iPoo?
Eat your own medicine. The kernel of Darwin/OS X is still open source, only the x86 parts aren't.
That's Fanboi logic for you!
It's still open source! Apart from the closed bits!
After massive bad publicity, yes, Apple offered that - I don't think you've really managed to refute the OP's point. Apple are takers, not contributers to Open Source.
Anyway, I don't know why I'm bothering to reply to an Apple Shill. I note that when this story first broke, you posted the following: Like we're going to believe anything you post about Apple again.
I can't agree more with your comment.
I wonder how much Dave gets paid to post to slashdot everytime they run an apple story?
No, "open source" means "the source code is available for you to see".
You win the prize for the most clueless comment in this entire discussion! Well done!
Please read The Open Source Definition, it will help you not to look so completely ignorant in future.
What you were talking about is "viewable source".
Do you honestly think there is a SINGLE OSX PPC user who has downloaded the darwin kernel sources, changed them, recompiled them, and are now running OSX on a custom darwin kernel?
Hmmmn, I'm going to presume you're of the mindset "Well, I don't do it, therefore noone wants to do it"
Elsewhere in this thread a list of Apple HPC that use custom kernels.
Apple have killed their HPC ambitions.
Well, you're not going to be able to assemble a list like that in a few years.
This move by Apple is going to kill it's HPC ambitions (all the projects you mention use custom kernels)