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."
FP!
rk
The french don't want peace, they want Saddam's money. Check it out here.
MMMmmmm ... a truly yummy operating system ...
While you're at it, the correct English would be "Apple hasn't".
That's odd, I submitted this exact story about 2 days ago to Slashdot. :(
oh hurray!!! i got frosty piss!!! i didn't fail it!!! pr0pz 2 #jerkcity
Important Stuff:
I am a homosexual. I bought an Apple computer because of its well earned reputation for being "the" gay computer. Since I have become an Apple owner, I have been exposed to a whole new world of gay friends. It is really a pleasure to meet and compute with other homos such as myself. I plan on using my new Apple computer as a way to entice and recruit young schoolboys into the homosexual lifestyle; it would be so helpful if you could produce more software which would appeal to young boys. Thanks in advance.
with much gayness,
Father Randy "Pudge" O'Day, S.J.
This is off topic, but who has the superior airforce? Both have long range missles and agile aircraft?
Another troll posting useless information...as already stated, the real topic is the AMD logo next to the item.
The goatsex guy spells it prOn, for everybody else it's pr.n
cxgrant@qwest.com
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.
cynthiathetotalwhorebag@yahoo.com
By Pentagon standards, the WTC was a "dual-use" target.
Explain, please.
I write in my journal
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
Re: By Pentagon standards, the WTC was a dual use target. Please explain:
:)
The AC mentions that financial assets are valid military targets; I hadn't thought of that, but there's probably something to it. There's a difference, though, between siezing assets and blowing up the stock market...
The WTC (at least one of them) had a huge antenna on top, which could be used by the military as part of a communications infrastructure. This was the reason given for bombing a TV tower in Yugoslavia.
Beyond that, the subway stations in the WTC served as a vital transportation hub that could be used to move troops on or off of Manhattan. Destroying the stations cripples the adversary's responsiveness and ability to reposition materiel.
The "dual use" classification is used by the Pentagon as a rationalization for destroying civilian infrastructure. In the first US-Iraq war Iraq's desalination facilities were bombed, with full knowledge that this would inflict great civilian casualties.
The sentiment of my sig is pretty much the same as "War is Terrorism," but that phrase seems a bit amorphous and vague. My statemet attempts to present that same argument with a side-order of reality. As for the financial side, there was a rather large gold reserve in the WTC, which was recovered and removed under heavy guard during the cleanup process.
Thanks for asking, by the way. I was hoping someone would
\me gets off soapbox
But War ISN'T Terrorism. Terrorism is spreading fear amoung populations for political aims, war is a military compain to achieve objectives that cannot be achieved dipolomatically (either because they are unreasonable or becasue those at war are facing an unreasonable administration). They are QUITE different.
In a wartime situation you might reasonably hit something like WTC, but normally you would do it with military ordinance during the night. The night time affords cover and minimises civilian deaths, normally this would ONLY happen after war had started (ie hostilities would be announced).
I find your sig to be offensive, and detracts from anything you have to say - the WTC was not destroyed as a military target, but as a symbol of economic power and a place of high population density (the death of civilians was the objective), your sig tries to paint a different picture.
Well again you're confusing a war with terrorism. As for Israel's attacks on Palestine, I don't agree with them or think they are effective in the way you suggest. Personally I believe that the Israel/Palestine situation is a graphic example of where the west's policy has failed - largely due to a lack of political will, I hope that this will change and that a equitable and lasting peace can conclude hostilities.
The idea that flying a passenger jet into a building is a way of "denting" it is just foolish. The aim of the attackers of 9/11 is clear - to cause a massive loss of life. There can be no justification for this inhuman act.
You are right that causing civilian deaths can be an effective weapon of war, and one that western powers have used in the past - and one that might be necessary again. The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki forced the Japanese to surrender, and from a military stand point have to be seen as effective.
You seem to think that I'm American - I'm not, and I did not agree with Americans funding the IRA at the time, but remember that this was not the US Administration.
There can be no excuse or justification for the attacks of 9/11 or any doubt that those who sanctioned those attacks did not intend the consequences. To suggest otherwise is to defile the lives lost on that day.
War isn't terrorism? Ever been bombed?
Do you not think the residents of Baghdad live in terror as we debate this?
Al Qaeda does have a "political aim," it's the removal of the infidels from their Holy Land. They have been unable to achieve this goal via diplomatic channels, largely because they are disenfranchised by the monarchy in Saudi Arabia who prefer the U.S. military presence in their kingdom. Hostilities have been announced for many years now, and several attacks had occcured long before 9/11.
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. (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. Probably not though.) This is the same double standard that the Pentagon upholds by claiming that captured Taliban and Al Qaeda soldiers are not in fact soldiers, but are "enemy combatants" and thus exempt from the protections of the Geneva Convention. A little bit of hypocrisy that seems to matter so much more now that some of our boys are prisoner.
Ultimately, it is a continuum, not a dichotomy between War and Terrorism as you have put forth. Certain acts blur the line -- one example is the U.S. bombing of Iraq's desalination plants in 1991, a move projected by DIA analysts to lead to massive civilian casualties.
Lastly, you say that "the WTC was not destroyed as a military target." I agree that the target has little military significance (dual use snotty comments aside) but I feel very strongly that its destrucion was part of "a military compain to achieve objectives that cannot be achieved dipolomatically." If you don't believe this, I encourage you to ask yourself why the WTC was bombed. (Hint: It's not because They Hate Our Freedoms.)
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.
Now, in the war between US and Al Qaeda, I'm kind of on the fence. 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. Then we get off into oil, and it all goes downhill from there...so let's not.
Thank you for your feedback, Jezza. See you around!
Well of course I don't quite see it as you do, I agree that it's not always as cut and dried as it's presented. You keep talking about the bombing of desalination plants - but it's not just civilians who need drinking water, in war targets such as this DO have military significance and concern for the civilian population can make it onto the "back burner". This is not something we can be proud of, but we must protect the lives of our own citiziens first, let us hope that in this campain we can (and of course we can, it needs the political will to do so) pay more attention to the needs of the people of Iraq. But if you fight a war with "one hand tied behind your back" then ultimatly you lose and civilians get killed anyway - fighting in a humanitarian way is very hard.
You also have to look at the conduct of the "troops" to decide if they are soldiers or enemy combatants. People who hijack planes, or remove military uniforms to blend with the civilians are not soldiers. Do I think this should be used as a reason to dodge the Geneva Convention? No, I don't agree with that policy at all.
There is no "war" between Al Qaeda, because Al Qaeda is a terrorist organisation - there IS a war between Iraq. It the the mothods of Al Qaeda that mean that their actions cannot be called a war. Osama bin Laden hides under cover of Jihad and religion to try and give legitimacy to the actions of Al Qaeda, we should not fall into the trap of seeing him as representing his religion. His use of it as cover defiles it, just as the IRA's defiled theirs. He wants us to mistake Al Qaeda for Muslims, we must not allow that to happen.
It is important that we try and act in an even handed way now - we have not done so in the past, and there is blood on our hands, now is the time to support the creation of a Palestine state that is secure from attack.
But I still find the sig offensive - perhaps you might want to consider: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".
I find it interesting that you are offended by my sig, and ask that I change it. I am not Donald Rumsfeld; and though I did once stroll through the Pentagon, I and have little influence on the Pentagon's target list. So long as the gray area of the dual-use target exists, the truth remains that the WTC would likely be on the list. You agreed to as much in your first post, when you said it might be bombed under cover of darkness so as to minimize civilian casualties.
If in fact you're offended by the use of "dual-use" classification, which, for example, prevents Iraq from importing the chemicals necessary to provide a safe drinking water supply, then I would encourage you to do take action. What I've chosen to do is to tell the world about it in my sig. Not much, but it's a start.
The "hook" is that I'm using the imagery of the horror of 9/11. I can firmly say, though, that the past twelve years in America have been far kinder than the last twelve years in Iraq.
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