You are a clueless idiot.
I bet you're too young to have ever programmed a VCR.
It's not anything remotely comparable to what we're talking about here. If VCRs were like Win 3.1 people would have less of an excuse for their clock to be blinking at 12:00.
You're on crack.
There's a reason that Microsoft finally created a MacOS knockoff in Win95. It's a much better interface.
Up to that point, it was pretty much no contest. It wasn't just MacOS but pretty much EVERYTHING else was easier to use than what Microsoft was trying to sell.
The only reason that any version of Windows ever made more impact was the fact that Microsoft was the dominant software vendor. Their product was force fed everywhere. It took very little effort to improve on whatever the current version of DOS and Windows was.
I've fascinated that a "rocket scientist" would have problems dealing with the Win 3.1 "desktop". Sure, it wasn't great but it wasn't that hard to deal with.
Nope.
MacOS is a variant of OpenStep (not-unix).
Linux shares the same graphics subsystem as other Unixen use thus allowing for portability of GUI window managers, desktops, and applications across Unixen.
No. The problem is that they COPIED it badly.
Another problem is Microsoft invented anything.
It's much like the start menu itself. It's nothing more than an anchored cascading menu. This was being done by a lot of people on different operating systems (including Windows) before this "invention".
Perfect example of a bogus patent.
"But.. what does my cell phone carrier have to do with anything?"
The important question is: How often do you actually drive far enough in one day to drain the battery and need to recharge away from home.
I know in my own life & commute, the answer is "not at all" - being able to gas up on a long trip just isn't a use case. On the other hand, with an Electric, never having to stop at a gas station is a big advantage/selling point.
Batteries are becoming cheaper very quickly with cost parity expected in less than a decade. The ability to charge faster is also improving dramatically, so those disadvantages of electric cars are rapidly vanishing. It's already a lower cost per mile to drive electric, and maintenance costs are lower on electric cars compared to cars powered by ICE's.
I suspect for an increasing number of people (especially those living in cities or suburbia), the advantages of electric cars will soon be more than sufficiently compelling to warrant a switch to electric.
"Green" has little to do with it. Convenience and cost per mile are big advantages of electric vehicles.
> That's cute. You think that actual benefits of GMOs mean anything to the people listening to all the FUD that gets spread about them.
My main objection to GMOs is that they transfer rights from individuals to large corporations.
The "science" aspect is entirely a side show to distract from that.
Well, the pink slime scandal was all about chemicals used in processing that weren't disclosed despite the fact that they remained in the end product in sufficient quantities to make them smell rank.
There are other additives that are in American foods and are unlabeled while being banned in other countries. Some of these are also relevant to some portion of the population that are sensitive to them.
Some people can even smell the farm chemicals on produce if you concentrate them through juicing.
Again, you are using the hubris of science to try and treat it like a religion and to smear any skeptic.
GMO is not a "science". It's technology, and like any tech "it's how you use it". Professors I tend to trust. Chemical companies not so much.
Extreme transgenics also ups the ante a bit and puts us in uncharted territory because these things are NOT the same. If they really were, then Monsanto wouldn't have such a hard on for them. They wouldn't because it would give them no added legal benefits.
According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.
