What Are You Doing Right Now? (308 Viewers)
- Thread starter ßöмßäяðîëя
- Start date
- Tags gay space iliveforfinasteride iliveforjuve is not white loldevil size queens sweet matt is sweet errwhere virgin devil
Okay, I have to stop you right there, because the ignorance of this statement is staggering.
The term PC - personal computer refers to the new line of computer sold in the late 70s. They were called personal, because up to that point every computer was multi user, because computers cost way too much for one person to pay. As such, "PC" is a completely non descriptive term in personal computers. When Microsoft came along in the 80s with DOS "PC" was sort of hijacked to mean the Intel x86 platform. Any processor that was compatible with that was a PC, and could run DOS and later Windows. The term PC-compatible came up. Around the same time Apple came out with the Mac. It was not Intel based and not "PC-compatible", their chips were made by Motorola, later they switched to the IBM Power PC cpu architecture.
Thus far, the distinction "PC or Mac" makes a certain amount of practical sense. All through this, Apple has always claimed their hardware superior to the lowly PC. Then came the ironic twist. IBM decided they could not keep up with Intel and AMD and that their line of cpus, the powerpc, didn't have much of a future. Apple switched their whole line to the Intel x86. The Mac became a PC. Today there is no difference whatsoever between "a Mac" and "a PC", beyond the color of the plastic and the particular hardware peripherals like network adapter etc.
In fact, Apple is now advertising the fact you can run Windows, yes Windows, on "a Mac". That's because the Mac is actually just a regular PC, there's no magic here. It is entirely possible to run both Windows and Mac OS X (and Linux) on the same PC, whether there's a silly apple on the plastic or not. I've done it myself.
So when you said "Windows-based PC's" as opposed to Macs, it was very misinformed in its formulation. PCs are not "Windows based", there is an illusion that they are because Microsoft is using their near-monopoly to reinforce their near-monopoly by making PC makers bundle Windows with machines, strangling competition. This in the so called "free market".
Linux, in turn, is not tied to the Intel x86 platform and runs on just about every single piece of hardware. You can get Ubuntu for both the powerpc (the old Mac) and Intel x86.
I don't mean to patronize you, but from what you said it's hard to tell what you know and what you don't.
The term PC - personal computer refers to the new line of computer sold in the late 70s. They were called personal, because up to that point every computer was multi user, because computers cost way too much for one person to pay. As such, "PC" is a completely non descriptive term in personal computers. When Microsoft came along in the 80s with DOS "PC" was sort of hijacked to mean the Intel x86 platform. Any processor that was compatible with that was a PC, and could run DOS and later Windows. The term PC-compatible came up. Around the same time Apple came out with the Mac. It was not Intel based and not "PC-compatible", their chips were made by Motorola, later they switched to the IBM Power PC cpu architecture.
Thus far, the distinction "PC or Mac" makes a certain amount of practical sense. All through this, Apple has always claimed their hardware superior to the lowly PC. Then came the ironic twist. IBM decided they could not keep up with Intel and AMD and that their line of cpus, the powerpc, didn't have much of a future. Apple switched their whole line to the Intel x86. The Mac became a PC. Today there is no difference whatsoever between "a Mac" and "a PC", beyond the color of the plastic and the particular hardware peripherals like network adapter etc.
In fact, Apple is now advertising the fact you can run Windows, yes Windows, on "a Mac". That's because the Mac is actually just a regular PC, there's no magic here. It is entirely possible to run both Windows and Mac OS X (and Linux) on the same PC, whether there's a silly apple on the plastic or not. I've done it myself.
So when you said "Windows-based PC's" as opposed to Macs, it was very misinformed in its formulation. PCs are not "Windows based", there is an illusion that they are because Microsoft is using their near-monopoly to reinforce their near-monopoly by making PC makers bundle Windows with machines, strangling competition. This in the so called "free market".
Linux, in turn, is not tied to the Intel x86 platform and runs on just about every single piece of hardware. You can get Ubuntu for both the powerpc (the old Mac) and Intel x86.
I don't mean to patronize you, but from what you said it's hard to tell what you know and what you don't.
Considering this:
Fiona is a physical education teacher at a private school. One of requirements that her job has is that the teacher has to actually show students how to do certain exercises. On a recent skiing trip she had an accident which paralysed her from the waist down. After her accident the human resource officer at the school interviews her. She states that Fiona can not go back to the same job, because of the physical requirements that job entails. The school will however look at Fiona’s qualifications, experience and skills and consider her for any suitable other jobs in the school that might come up.
The school offers Fiona the only vacant role they have – an organisational role with a slightly less salary. Fiona turns down the new role as unsuitable and argues that she should be able to continue in her old role. She argues that the physical requirements are unnecessary in her old role and she can teach just as well without needing to show the students how to do something physically herself. She claims that she has been discriminated against when the school refuses to allow her to continue in her old role.
Question – Is Fiona being discriminated against and if so is there any legally acceptable objective justification for this?
Fiona is a physical education teacher at a private school. One of requirements that her job has is that the teacher has to actually show students how to do certain exercises. On a recent skiing trip she had an accident which paralysed her from the waist down. After her accident the human resource officer at the school interviews her. She states that Fiona can not go back to the same job, because of the physical requirements that job entails. The school will however look at Fiona’s qualifications, experience and skills and consider her for any suitable other jobs in the school that might come up.
The school offers Fiona the only vacant role they have – an organisational role with a slightly less salary. Fiona turns down the new role as unsuitable and argues that she should be able to continue in her old role. She argues that the physical requirements are unnecessary in her old role and she can teach just as well without needing to show the students how to do something physically herself. She claims that she has been discriminated against when the school refuses to allow her to continue in her old role.
Question – Is Fiona being discriminated against and if so is there any legally acceptable objective justification for this?
Nice.
I'm reading up on it just now, but my inclination is that there was discrimination but it was justified and the employer should be okay because of offering the alternative job.
Alternatively it could be argued that the employer failed to make reasonable adjustments and dropped the requirement for the teacher to demonstrate the exercises.
I'm reading up on it just now, but my inclination is that there was discrimination but it was justified and the employer should be okay because of offering the alternative job.
Alternatively it could be argued that the employer failed to make reasonable adjustments and dropped the requirement for the teacher to demonstrate the exercises.
OP
By dual drive I imagine you mean two physical harddrives. No, you don't need that. The technical term is "partition". You divide up your disk into partitions and you can install a different OS on each one. When I boot my laptop I get a menu and I can choose which OS I want. Apple has something called Bootcamp which I guess guides you through it. I guess Bootcamp only supports Windows because Apple users are "too dumb" to want anything else. But you can dualboot Linux with a little technical know how, people have been doing it for a decade.
On technical merits I still think Gentoo is the best distro by a mile. It's so incredibly configurable that you could almost call it a programmable distro. On the other hand, Ubuntu is so pleasant and easy to use. So I run both. On my laptop, the one I do occasionally carry around, I have Ubuntu. On my other laptop that never leaves my desk, I have Gentoo.