If they made a mac client, it means they've either written it in or ported it to opengl. According to wikipedia, they've ported it. The idea is that most of the work necessary to make a linux client is the porting to opengl and that has already been done to make the mac client. I run macs, linux and windows (for games and the odd software that I can't get for any other platform). Since the macs are work machines, I probably won't buy a mac version, but I'd happily fork out the dough for a linux version since the only native linux games I spent any time on were penny arcade's one, neverwinter nights (not counting wine), and a little world of goo.
You know, you make an interesting point. Is this a trend? With Vista, MS had promised the sky and really didn't end up delivering a lot of the features they promised (hello winfs!). That time, my sense is that most tech people had believed them and some people felt betrayed that Vista failed to live up to it's promises. What changed this time that MS didn't even get to the point where they could get a product, any product, out of the door? Are they getting smarter about living up to their promises, or are they becoming impotent, failing to just to innovate but even playing the "me too" game? Or maybe it was just FUD all along and there never was an intent to develop the product. Would be interesting to be a fly on the wall at the MS board meetings for this one...
Because those things aren't the web, those are browsers which are tools used to access the web. Get the difference? In Jobs' view, a company should be able to sell whatever software/hardware they want to access the web, BUT, those things should access the web in an open way. It's a nuanced position, but it's not hypocritical in any way. To use a car analogy, Ford can put whatever proprietary parts they want in their cars and void your warranty if you the owner put anything but Ford-approved parts into the vehicle*, but the gas it runs on and "the interface" that the car uses to the outside world (i.e., the road) should be accessible to anyone driving any type of car and not rely on a single manufacturer.
* By the way, car manufacturers actually do this, there's an issue with Toyota FJ cruisers developing cracks in their bumpers that Toyota is claiming is due to the modifications for 4-wheeling that the people who are reporting this issue have put in their vehicles and thus won't honor the warranty.
The whole reason I use macs at work is that it's underpinnings are unix so I can use all those great tools that I use on linux at home and on my computing clusters on the mac. So, my remote computing solution is fuse, sshfs, fink and X11.app on the mac side, and ssh. Works like a charm. I even have konqueror installed on my desktop mac so I can have a remote gui file browser.
MS may have bigger problems than just the online services division. For example, statcounter is currently showing four straight weeks of flat usage share for windows 7 in north america. If this is really a trend or if statcounter is flubbing their surveys remains to be seen. But if it's true, it means that win7 doesn't even seem to be able to cannibalize old OSes very well. I would say it's depressing for MS, but they're raking in bajillions of dollars every quarter still, which is more than me.
I hope this doesn't happen, but if it does, I hope they leave the current ISA/availability/pricing scheme alone and just use ARM resources to improve their own products, but that is unlike Apple.
You mean how Apple destroyed CUPS after they bought it? Or how about when they stopped upstreaming changes to webkit? Despite much hand-wringing by slashdotters about this, they didn't do either of these things and these projects are both fine. Apple contributes much more to open source than Microsoft does and while hardware is a different beast, the point is there is absolutely no evidence that Apple would ever stop selling ARMs to competitors.
In any case, why the fuck would apple want to buy ARM? THey just bought P. A. Semi. The whole article is just baseless speculation by people whose sole purpose in life is to drive page views while having the title "analyst".
Really? REALLY?! You're trying to tell me that flash is innovation on the web?! FLASH!?! Are you high? Your comment is entirely devoid of any reason and sanity. Do you know who developed webkit? It was Apple, they forked konqueror. Now webkit runs half the browsers out there. Safari, which also runs on webkit, is, in their words:
The first browser to support HTML5 audio and video tags, Safari helps developers create media-rich sites that don't require additional plug-ins.
From where I sit, html5 is the innovation and the future of the web here, flash is holding innovation up because it's being forced to do things it was never designed to do. Apple is pushing the world forward by releasing us fro relying on a plugin that relies on a single manufacturer, i.e., Adobe.
Now that Apple has had some success outside of their previously small, niche market, they seem to be taking a big crap on one of their largest supporters. It is an interesting example of power dynamics in the real world. Apple apparently doesn't lend much weight to their long term relationship, or what Adobe has done for them in the past. It seems to be all about Apple saying, "What have you done for me lately?"
It's because Adobe really hasn't done much for Apple lately. I might be out of the loop because I use gimp for mac full time now, but as far as I know Adobe never actually ported Photoshop to become a cocoa app. This is another bad problem: no 64 bit for macs, only windows. And that's been the Mac user's cross to bear for a long time now, companies like Adobe (or Bungie) that used to focus on the mac platform have made the calculation that when one OS manufacturer owns 90% of the market (MS), even if all of the remaining people buy their products, it's still only 10% of the total base and more sales could be had by focusing on the monopoly OS. In the past Apple had to bend over and take it. Now they don't. As a guy who started using macs in 1997, all I have to say is: Revenge is sweet. I hate flash anyway, slow as molasses.
Just to emphasize my point. The version linked to in the Parent's post about Hitler finding out that Michael Jackson is dead is taken down, but a quick search of "hitler michael jackson's death" yields one that has been missed and is still there (I don't know if it's the original though).
I wouldn't worry about this. Youtube very happily takes down whatever, but just go back in a few weeks and it's up again. Just off the top of my head, here's a clip about Ron Paul that Fox had taken down, there are a multitude of Simpson's clips up there now and for a long time when youtube first started those were all being taken down, and IIRC at one point musicians or the RIAA were forcing people to take down homemade music videos that people had posted. Eventually whoever is issuing the notices will get tired and give up. Sure you can try to do this, but it's a lot like trying to keep the tide from washing your sand castle away, it's a hopeless battle.
By the way, I saw this movie in the theater for a foreign film festival. It made it all the more funny to see the viral videos start popping up since I remembered the scene vividly and it's a pretty powerful movie. Although, I saw it with a German girl and her comment was that Hitler movies were passe in germany since so many had been made. I thought it was good though.
I was a little concerned over the treatment of the cows but the guy doing it made an interesting point:
It may seem cruel to make cows sweat it out on a treadmill, but the routine is actually quite similar to the animals' normal behavior. Cows walk about eight hours a day while grazing. Doing that walking on a treadmill provides the same amount of exercise with the added bonus of renewable power production.
Also, after thinking about it, I can't think that this is any worse than making them stand shoulder to shoulder, knee deep in their own shit in the high density feed lot while they're finished off with corn before processing. The cows might actually prefer this to the high density feed lot.
Whether it was accidental or deliberate it worked out pretty well for Microsoft.
Did it? When I thought when I read the summary was -- how insipid, MS is trying to be cool again but its efforts just make it seem weird or even creepy. But then again I'm an "old geezer" who remembers when the command line was all you had. Most of the market seems to agree with me though, with the exception of a dip here and there, MS stock has been flat since about 2000. We shall see if the "sexting with your kin" will be any cooler "squirting with your zune". I'm guessing not. (See other comments in this thread about the obvious jokes sexting with your kin brings up.)
The summary gives the impression like the U.S. Government has has been willfully ignoring the problem. The fact is there were so many munitions created for WWI and they were used in such a concentrated area that it's no surprise that there are stockpiles of the stuff still around. For example, 16 million acres of northern France had to be cordoned off at the end of the war. They are still pulling chemical weapons out of the ground in some places too, like a site off of a beach resort or this stockpile where farmers to this day plow up unexploded rounds in Belgium. The fact is, there are massive amount of chemical weapons scattered around still from that era and there isn't a hell of a lot that anyone can do about it so quit trying to pin this on the current government. In fact, if you read those links, you'll find the army corps of engineers is responding in a pretty responsible way compared with what they're going through in Houthulst (the last link).
How many other self-made men have become president?
Recently? There is only one: William Jefferson Clinton. Read the early life section, his father was a traveling salesman who died when he was young, the mother left the kid with the grandparents to study nursing. In college, he worked as an intern, and received a Rhodes scholarship to study his graduate school.
I find it ironic that the conservatives in this country constantly bash the progressives as being elitist, when in actuality, both it's the Republican presidents that we've had who have grown up in a life of privilege and elitism and the Democratic presidents who grew up without the silver spoon in their mouth. It demonstrates just how clueless our society really is, when they believe a some asshole who is saying inflammatory things for the sake of ratings without trying to find out the truth of the matter.
For the past six years America's civil space program has been aimed at returning astronauts to the Moon by 2020. That's the plan announced by President George W. Bush in January of 2004. That plan also called for developing the technologies that would support human expeditions to Mars, our ultimate destination in space. But two things happened along the way since that announcement, which became known as the Vision for Space Exploration.
First, the President failed to fully fund the program, as he had initially promised. As a result, each year the development of the rockets and spacecraft called for in the plan slipped further and further behind. Second and most importantly, NASA virtually eliminated the technology development effort for advanced space systems. Equally as bad, NASA also raided the Earth and space science budgets in the struggle to keep the program, named Project Constellation, on track. Even that effort fell short.
To keep the focus on the return to the Moon, NASA pretty much abandoned all hope of preparing for Mars exploration. It looked like building bases on the Moon would consume all of NASA's resources. Yet despite much complaining, neither a Republican-controlled nor a Democratic-controlled Congress was willing or able to add back those missing and needed funds. The date of the so-called return to the Moon slipped from 2020 to heaven-knows when. At the same time, there was no money to either extend the life of the Space Shuttle, due to be retired this year, or that of the International Space Station, due to be dropped into the Pacific Ocean in 2015, a scant handful of years after it was completed.
So, it's no surprise that Bush failed to fund the program fully, since he put our society 1 trillion dollars in the hole due to the war in Iraq. Now, NASA is cannibalizing all its other programs in order to save the one effort, the moon, and the larger goal of going to mars has been largely forgotten. What Obama did was right.
(Sure, go ahead and mod me down, but you can't escape the fact that Obama is facing a reality where the budget needs to be cut to bring the deficit under control, whereas the past administration and congress continually lived in fantasyland believing that they could spend whatever they wanted.)
I myself was pretty skeptical of the glossy screens until last summer when I bought a macbook air. What I found, to my utter amazement, was that the screen is a really big improvement over the matte screens. For one thing the colors are brighter, but this might also have to do with apple increasing their contrast for the display profiles by default. The big thing for me is that the glossy screens can be read in bright light. The old matte screens would tend to scatter light so in direct sunlight the screen became completely unreadable. The glossy ones don't scatter light appreciably so the screen is much, much, much more readable in bright light. I'm completely happy with my glossy screen and can see why apple chose that. For a laptop, it really increases the usability to the point I don't worry about lighting conditions any more when looking for a place to sit and work. For a desktop which you might use under more controlled lighting conditions I can see how you might want a matte screen still though.
If you watch the video, they mention that the Segways lurch forward a bit when accelerating in a way that is similar to the posture of a human running. Also, I suspect that the stability that 4 wheels gives a platform is far too unrealistic to mimic humans well: If you ever read up on the physics of walking on two legs, you'll find that humans tend to lurch and sway a lot in a somewhat similar way to the segways.
This is the second time I've seen Julian Assange come up in reference to the video. I wonder why he's giving all this publicity? Surely this will hamper his efforts and get him on watch lists that make it difficult for him to travel. Maybe he's succumbing to the temptation to become infamous. Or maybe he just feels this is the best way to make sure the media hangs onto this story to make sure something changes. The interesting thing is that if he is a hacker, it makes it all that more interesting about how wikileaks is getting their stuff. Is it really even being leaked?
NVIDIA has released the vdpau and API for linux a couple years ago and the Adobe flash player for 64 bit linux is still in the alpha state and has NO hardware acceleration. Are you really going to take Adobe seriously with this argument when they haven't taken advantage of publicly available hardware acceleration other systems?
well that's the crux of what Gruber sees as the benefit of Apple's policy for iphone users:
iPhone users: I can see two arguments here. On the one side, this rule should be good for quality. Cross-platform software toolkits have never -- ever -- produced top-notch native apps for Apple platforms. Not for the classic Mac OS, not for Mac OS X, and not for iPhone OS. Such apps generally have been downright crummy. On the other hand, perhaps iPhone users will be missing out on good apps that would have been released if not for this rule, but won't now. I don't think iPhone OS users are going to miss the sort of apps these cross-platform toolkits produce, though.
Speaking as someone who has to deal with 64 bit flash on linux and has had to deal with all manner of MS enforced formats on the the mac, I completely and utterly agree with this part. Apps running using native platform tools do fairly well, cross-platform apps suck a lot of the time. You windows users have seen this too -- itunes, quicktime and safari are dogs on windows because they had to import all their own libraries. On Apple machines these are lighweight apps that are fast. On windows it just doesn't work as well. And let's face it, as nice as open software is, working well is what sells units, ideology is secondary.
I agree. The GP is asking why it's the government's job to dictate morals but I don't see any government dictating morals at all here, not even close. Society has said, "Thall shalt not engage in pedophilia nor be able to distribute anything portraying it" and the government is only responding to societies wishes. If you don't like it, either work to change people's attitudes on the subject (good luck with that), or find a society that has other moral standards.
It's called safari and a web-portal. You know, that way you check e-mail on a computer when you're away from your desk? The GP is just looking for excuses not to buy an ipad. That's actually fine by me, I don't want one either and I'm a mac user. Not because of anything bad, it's just that I can't think of a good reason to buy one since I have so many existing computers lying around the house. I can see how it might be more convenient than a laptop for goofy stuff, web-surfing, etc. though.
He's saying that you're biased -- you only focused on the energy it takes to create the renewables and you never asked the question how much energy it would take to create that transmission line, or to create the fossil fuel or nuclear power plant that delivers the power conventionally. All of this stuff is known as EROEI - energy returned on energy invested. Here is a web-site that gives a range of estimates of EROEI for various power sources:
Power Source: EROEI(actual) Hydro: 50, 43 and 205 Nuclear (centrifuge): 18.1, 18.4, 14.5, 13.6 and 14.8 Nuclear (diffusion): 6.0, 6.7, 5.8, 7.9, 5.3, 5.6 and 3.9 Coal: 12.2, 7.4, 7.32, 3.4 and 14.2 Gas (piped): 16 Gas (piped a lot or liquefied): 3.4, 3.76 and 4 Solar: 10.6 Solar PV: 12-10, 7.5 and 3.7 Wind: 12, 6, 34, 80 and 50
As you can see, the estimates vary widely, there's a lot of guesswork involved in making these estimates. Overall the renewables don't fare that badly, especially wind and hydroelectricity.
In case you were wondering, here's the CO2 emissions:
g/kWh CO2 Japan Sweden Finland UK: SDC EU ExternE WNA coal 990 980 894 891 815 gas thermal 653 1170* - gas combined cycle 450 472 356 362 solar photovoltaic 59 50 95 53 wind 37 5.5 14 6.5 nuclear 22 6 10 - 26 16 19.7 17 hydro 18 3 -
So yes, even with all the intensive energy requirements for renewables, they still are better than fossil fuels. The problems with widespread use of renewables are political (i.e. Republicans and conservatives don't like them), require intensive upfront capital costs, and infrastructural (the power grid is not designed to carry power where likely wind generation sites are).
The point of my post had nothing at all to do with the name, the point was room temperature superconductivity of heavy elements. In the movie they never called the substance by its official name so I had to refer to it as unobtanium. What in the world made you think I didn't know what the word unobtanium was used for?
I was thinking of the "unobtanium" in Avatar. From TFA:
As researchers have artificially created heavier and heavier elements, those elements have had briefer and briefer lifetimes -- the time it takes for unstable elements to decay by processes like spontaneous fission of the nucleus. Then, as the elements got still heavier, the lifetimes started climbing again, said Joseph Hamilton, a physicist at Vanderbilt who is on the team.
The reason may be that the elements are approaching a theorized "island of stability" at still higher masses, where the lifetimes could go from fractions of a second to days or even years, Dr. Hamilton said.
If super-heavy elements are stable, who knows, maybe room temperature super conductivity would be one of their properties. There are some superconducting uranium containing materials, which are of the unconventional type that can achieve superconductivity above the boiling point of nitrogen.
Slashdot Mirror
If they made a mac client, it means they've either written it in or ported it to opengl. According to wikipedia, they've ported it. The idea is that most of the work necessary to make a linux client is the porting to opengl and that has already been done to make the mac client. I run macs, linux and windows (for games and the odd software that I can't get for any other platform). Since the macs are work machines, I probably won't buy a mac version, but I'd happily fork out the dough for a linux version since the only native linux games I spent any time on were penny arcade's one, neverwinter nights (not counting wine), and a little world of goo.
You know, you make an interesting point. Is this a trend? With Vista, MS had promised the sky and really didn't end up delivering a lot of the features they promised (hello winfs!). That time, my sense is that most tech people had believed them and some people felt betrayed that Vista failed to live up to it's promises. What changed this time that MS didn't even get to the point where they could get a product, any product, out of the door? Are they getting smarter about living up to their promises, or are they becoming impotent, failing to just to innovate but even playing the "me too" game? Or maybe it was just FUD all along and there never was an intent to develop the product. Would be interesting to be a fly on the wall at the MS board meetings for this one...
Because those things aren't the web, those are browsers which are tools used to access the web. Get the difference? In Jobs' view, a company should be able to sell whatever software/hardware they want to access the web, BUT, those things should access the web in an open way. It's a nuanced position, but it's not hypocritical in any way. To use a car analogy, Ford can put whatever proprietary parts they want in their cars and void your warranty if you the owner put anything but Ford-approved parts into the vehicle*, but the gas it runs on and "the interface" that the car uses to the outside world (i.e., the road) should be accessible to anyone driving any type of car and not rely on a single manufacturer.
* By the way, car manufacturers actually do this, there's an issue with Toyota FJ cruisers developing cracks in their bumpers that Toyota is claiming is due to the modifications for 4-wheeling that the people who are reporting this issue have put in their vehicles and thus won't honor the warranty.
The whole reason I use macs at work is that it's underpinnings are unix so I can use all those great tools that I use on linux at home and on my computing clusters on the mac. So, my remote computing solution is fuse, sshfs, fink and X11.app on the mac side, and ssh. Works like a charm. I even have konqueror installed on my desktop mac so I can have a remote gui file browser.
MS may have bigger problems than just the online services division. For example, statcounter is currently showing four straight weeks of flat usage share for windows 7 in north america. If this is really a trend or if statcounter is flubbing their surveys remains to be seen. But if it's true, it means that win7 doesn't even seem to be able to cannibalize old OSes very well. I would say it's depressing for MS, but they're raking in bajillions of dollars every quarter still, which is more than me.
You mean how Apple destroyed CUPS after they bought it? Or how about when they stopped upstreaming changes to webkit? Despite much hand-wringing by slashdotters about this, they didn't do either of these things and these projects are both fine. Apple contributes much more to open source than Microsoft does and while hardware is a different beast, the point is there is absolutely no evidence that Apple would ever stop selling ARMs to competitors.
In any case, why the fuck would apple want to buy ARM? THey just bought P. A. Semi. The whole article is just baseless speculation by people whose sole purpose in life is to drive page views while having the title "analyst".
From where I sit, html5 is the innovation and the future of the web here, flash is holding innovation up because it's being forced to do things it was never designed to do. Apple is pushing the world forward by releasing us fro relying on a plugin that relies on a single manufacturer, i.e., Adobe.
It's because Adobe really hasn't done much for Apple lately. I might be out of the loop because I use gimp for mac full time now, but as far as I know Adobe never actually ported Photoshop to become a cocoa app. This is another bad problem: no 64 bit for macs, only windows. And that's been the Mac user's cross to bear for a long time now, companies like Adobe (or Bungie) that used to focus on the mac platform have made the calculation that when one OS manufacturer owns 90% of the market (MS), even if all of the remaining people buy their products, it's still only 10% of the total base and more sales could be had by focusing on the monopoly OS. In the past Apple had to bend over and take it. Now they don't. As a guy who started using macs in 1997, all I have to say is: Revenge is sweet. I hate flash anyway, slow as molasses.
Just to emphasize my point. The version linked to in the Parent's post about Hitler finding out that Michael Jackson is dead is taken down, but a quick search of "hitler michael jackson's death" yields one that has been missed and is still there (I don't know if it's the original though).
I wouldn't worry about this. Youtube very happily takes down whatever, but just go back in a few weeks and it's up again. Just off the top of my head, here's a clip about Ron Paul that Fox had taken down, there are a multitude of Simpson's clips up there now and for a long time when youtube first started those were all being taken down, and IIRC at one point musicians or the RIAA were forcing people to take down homemade music videos that people had posted. Eventually whoever is issuing the notices will get tired and give up. Sure you can try to do this, but it's a lot like trying to keep the tide from washing your sand castle away, it's a hopeless battle.
By the way, I saw this movie in the theater for a foreign film festival. It made it all the more funny to see the viral videos start popping up since I remembered the scene vividly and it's a pretty powerful movie. Although, I saw it with a German girl and her comment was that Hitler movies were passe in germany since so many had been made. I thought it was good though.
Also, after thinking about it, I can't think that this is any worse than making them stand shoulder to shoulder, knee deep in their own shit in the high density feed lot while they're finished off with corn before processing. The cows might actually prefer this to the high density feed lot.
Did it? When I thought when I read the summary was -- how insipid, MS is trying to be cool again but its efforts just make it seem weird or even creepy. But then again I'm an "old geezer" who remembers when the command line was all you had. Most of the market seems to agree with me though, with the exception of a dip here and there, MS stock has been flat since about 2000. We shall see if the "sexting with your kin" will be any cooler "squirting with your zune". I'm guessing not. (See other comments in this thread about the obvious jokes sexting with your kin brings up.)
The summary gives the impression like the U.S. Government has has been willfully ignoring the problem. The fact is there were so many munitions created for WWI and they were used in such a concentrated area that it's no surprise that there are stockpiles of the stuff still around. For example, 16 million acres of northern France had to be cordoned off at the end of the war. They are still pulling chemical weapons out of the ground in some places too, like a site off of a beach resort or this stockpile where farmers to this day plow up unexploded rounds in Belgium. The fact is, there are massive amount of chemical weapons scattered around still from that era and there isn't a hell of a lot that anyone can do about it so quit trying to pin this on the current government. In fact, if you read those links, you'll find the army corps of engineers is responding in a pretty responsible way compared with what they're going through in Houthulst (the last link).
Recently? There is only one: William Jefferson Clinton. Read the early life section, his father was a traveling salesman who died when he was young, the mother left the kid with the grandparents to study nursing. In college, he worked as an intern, and received a Rhodes scholarship to study his graduate school.
I find it ironic that the conservatives in this country constantly bash the progressives as being elitist, when in actuality, both it's the Republican presidents that we've had who have grown up in a life of privilege and elitism and the Democratic presidents who grew up without the silver spoon in their mouth. It demonstrates just how clueless our society really is, when they believe a some asshole who is saying inflammatory things for the sake of ratings without trying to find out the truth of the matter.
So, it's no surprise that Bush failed to fund the program fully, since he put our society 1 trillion dollars in the hole due to the war in Iraq. Now, NASA is cannibalizing all its other programs in order to save the one effort, the moon, and the larger goal of going to mars has been largely forgotten. What Obama did was right.
(Sure, go ahead and mod me down, but you can't escape the fact that Obama is facing a reality where the budget needs to be cut to bring the deficit under control, whereas the past administration and congress continually lived in fantasyland believing that they could spend whatever they wanted.)
I myself was pretty skeptical of the glossy screens until last summer when I bought a macbook air. What I found, to my utter amazement, was that the screen is a really big improvement over the matte screens. For one thing the colors are brighter, but this might also have to do with apple increasing their contrast for the display profiles by default. The big thing for me is that the glossy screens can be read in bright light. The old matte screens would tend to scatter light so in direct sunlight the screen became completely unreadable. The glossy ones don't scatter light appreciably so the screen is much, much, much more readable in bright light. I'm completely happy with my glossy screen and can see why apple chose that. For a laptop, it really increases the usability to the point I don't worry about lighting conditions any more when looking for a place to sit and work. For a desktop which you might use under more controlled lighting conditions I can see how you might want a matte screen still though.
If you watch the video, they mention that the Segways lurch forward a bit when accelerating in a way that is similar to the posture of a human running. Also, I suspect that the stability that 4 wheels gives a platform is far too unrealistic to mimic humans well: If you ever read up on the physics of walking on two legs, you'll find that humans tend to lurch and sway a lot in a somewhat similar way to the segways.
This is the second time I've seen Julian Assange come up in reference to the video. I wonder why he's giving all this publicity? Surely this will hamper his efforts and get him on watch lists that make it difficult for him to travel. Maybe he's succumbing to the temptation to become infamous. Or maybe he just feels this is the best way to make sure the media hangs onto this story to make sure something changes. The interesting thing is that if he is a hacker, it makes it all that more interesting about how wikileaks is getting their stuff. Is it really even being leaked?
NVIDIA has released the vdpau and API for linux a couple years ago and the Adobe flash player for 64 bit linux is still in the alpha state and has NO hardware acceleration. Are you really going to take Adobe seriously with this argument when they haven't taken advantage of publicly available hardware acceleration other systems?
Speaking as someone who has to deal with 64 bit flash on linux and has had to deal with all manner of MS enforced formats on the the mac, I completely and utterly agree with this part. Apps running using native platform tools do fairly well, cross-platform apps suck a lot of the time. You windows users have seen this too -- itunes, quicktime and safari are dogs on windows because they had to import all their own libraries. On Apple machines these are lighweight apps that are fast. On windows it just doesn't work as well. And let's face it, as nice as open software is, working well is what sells units, ideology is secondary.
I agree. The GP is asking why it's the government's job to dictate morals but I don't see any government dictating morals at all here, not even close. Society has said, "Thall shalt not engage in pedophilia nor be able to distribute anything portraying it" and the government is only responding to societies wishes. If you don't like it, either work to change people's attitudes on the subject (good luck with that), or find a society that has other moral standards.
It's called safari and a web-portal. You know, that way you check e-mail on a computer when you're away from your desk? The GP is just looking for excuses not to buy an ipad. That's actually fine by me, I don't want one either and I'm a mac user. Not because of anything bad, it's just that I can't think of a good reason to buy one since I have so many existing computers lying around the house. I can see how it might be more convenient than a laptop for goofy stuff, web-surfing, etc. though.
As you can see, the estimates vary widely, there's a lot of guesswork involved in making these estimates. Overall the renewables don't fare that badly, especially wind and hydroelectricity.
In case you were wondering, here's the CO2 emissions:
So yes, even with all the intensive energy requirements for renewables, they still are better than fossil fuels. The problems with widespread use of renewables are political (i.e. Republicans and conservatives don't like them), require intensive upfront capital costs, and infrastructural (the power grid is not designed to carry power where likely wind generation sites are).
The point of my post had nothing at all to do with the name, the point was room temperature superconductivity of heavy elements. In the movie they never called the substance by its official name so I had to refer to it as unobtanium. What in the world made you think I didn't know what the word unobtanium was used for?
If super-heavy elements are stable, who knows, maybe room temperature super conductivity would be one of their properties. There are some superconducting uranium containing materials, which are of the unconventional type that can achieve superconductivity above the boiling point of nitrogen.