Slashdot Mirror
Apple to Announce new Mac OS X version in June
swiert writes "Apple has announced that the WWDC conference has been rescheduled in order to present the new version of Mac OS X, codenamed "Panther". Unfortunately, Apple haven't given any details about what to expect from Panther, but after Jaguar this looks promising."
While you're at it, the correct English would be "Apple hasn't".
Brings new meaning to the concept of lickable!
Another troll posting useless information...as already stated, the real topic is the AMD logo next to the item.
Q: You know where the weapons of mass destruction were?
A: In the baby incubators.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
Because if only one person pointed out that the post is either a dupe, or has the wrong logo (this has both, along with grammatical errors), then Taco et al can say "Of the x million readers only ONE cares". As it is, now though they still try to laugh off their mistakes and carelessness as irrelevant, they can't say that no one cares. Eventually they might get annoyed or embarrassed enough from people bitching that they implement any of the simple systems that would detect most dupes or spelling mistakes. Forcing them to select the correct logo might be harder, evidently.
Yes, I have to agree with many other /. peons. PLEASE don't go to brushed metal as the default theme for apple apps. I'm strongly considering a switch from wintel/lintel to Mac when ppc64 comes to consumer processors, but that's mainly because OSX is so damn pretty. Metal themes, OTOH, have been played out since Mario64. Please... aqua is neat, the jaguar logo theme is cute, but brushed metal!?!? sooo 1999....
--JRZ
I'm just saying that your sig is actually misleading (it needs clarification) AND is likely to cause offense. I think it would be better if you changed it, as a mark of respect for the lives lost on 9/11, but also as I think that causing offense to someone is a bad start to changing their mind.
As I said I'm not American, and perhaps you'd like to remember that the attack of 9/11 wasn't an attack on Americans but an attack on the nationals of many nations, including the Muslims that the attackers claim to represent.
It's an interesting point - I think that we'd have called it a 'covert operation'. The media do like the word terrorism, as it is now so politically loaded. It does in part depend on WHO is doing it. (Here I mean soldier, operative or citizien not a political classification) I did find the use of the word odd myself.
And if New York were in Iraq, and the WTC still standing, it would be a "dual-use" target for the American military. Period.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
War isn't terrorism? Ever been bombed?
Words have specific meanings. The word "terrorism" means the deliberate targeting of civilians by covert means with the goal of affecting political change through the infliction of widespread fear. War is not terrorism, because it doesn't involve the deliberate targeting of civilians, and fear is not its objective.
Yes, Osama bin Laden has openly stated his desire for a "holy war" or jihad against America and Americans -- yet you still claim Al Qaeda is not at war with us.
War is exclusively the province of nations. We do not recognize the right of non-governmental groups to wage war. The word "war" doesn't apply to al Qaeda.
Perhaps if anyone in the State Department had been listening to his repeated calls for the U.S. expulsion from the Holy Land, we could have avoided WTC in the first place.
Sure. If we always do what everybody wants us to do, we'll never make anybody mad. But there comes a time when it's more important to do what's right than what's popular.
Ultimately, it is a continuum, not a dichotomy between War and Terrorism as you have put forth.
That's like saying it's a continuum between war and blueberries. Terrorism is a completely different thing. It is not war, it is not comparable to war, it doesn't even resemble war.
I feel very strongly that its destrucion was part of "a military compain to achieve objectives that cannot be achieved dipolomatically.
That's demonstrably false. Al Qaeda is not a military organization. They are not even associated with any military organizations. At best, they are a guerilla or paramilitary organization, but their methodology-- the repeated targeting of civilian targets-- sets them apart.
My sig is not intended to justify the destruction of the WTC. Rather, its purpose is to point out the ease with which America rationalizes the violence it commits in the rest of the world.
Oh, get off your high horse. Your signature is designed to make people mad. You're not trying to point out anything; you're just trying to pick a fight. If you really wanted to make a legitimate point, you'd use less inflamatory language.
Now, in the war between US and Al Qaeda
There is no war between the US and al Qaeda. There was a war between the US and Afghanistan, but that was is largely concluded now. If al Qaeda were to pick up and move to another sponsoring state, then we would be justified in going to war with that state as well, but that's a different thing.
See, as I said, war is exclusively the province of nations. Our "war on terrorism" is just like the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty." It's not literally a war; it's a metaphor.
Clearly I'm not in favor of any more U.S. buildings blowing up, and I tend to wonder why our troops are protecting the Saud family.
Because the House of Saud is our ally. What more do you need to know?
I write in my journal