This is not news from months ago. The real news is the FT story, whose implications are quite startling. And its come out AFTER the decline has already started, presumably being the occasion of the decline. This one could run for a while and have quite interesting consequences.
Well, Al Gore and the market both disagree. Slashdot readers comprise a broad set of backgrounds, and in my case I'm someone who has had his share of experience with hedge fund sleaze. Everything I've seen of the this story, its timing at the end of year, its endless repetition on CNBC, and the market behavior of AAPL over the past few years indicates to me that this was a planted story, designed to benefit short-selling/put buying prior to loading up with shares/calls before macworld. Good luck with your own investing.
To veteran observers of AAPL stock, there is nothing new in the recent spasms of "news" concerning the options issues, citing unnamed sources and essentially repeating information from months ago, in advance of Apple's own disclosure. Over the past weeks hedge funds have driven down the price per share in advance of loading up prior to the Macworld run up in january. This latest news is being used as simple, but highly effectively ploy to bludgeon down the stock.
If you're interested in such matters, check out Cramer giving the inside hedge fund story on how to manipulate AAPL, here (the 12/22 video).
What I find amusing is that most of the responses here take the representativeness of the reported statistics at face value. But surely many questions about how Forrester gained and massaged these data remain.
Forrester analyzed nearly 2 million credit and debit card transactions for the 27-month period from April 2004 through June 2006.
Now, how exactly did the company gain access to precise credit card transactions? Did you volunteer your own data? Could they have come from comScore spyware? Why should readers assume that these data are representative of anything but the most clueless online users?
And within this data, how extensive were those on iTunes?
Forrester's recent analysis of more than 2,700 US iTunes debit and credit card transactions reveals that 3% of online households made an iTunes purchase in the past year.
Great, a look at fewer than 3,000 transactions provides enough scope to make the generalizations in the article? I'm not holding my breath. There may or may not be the trend adduced by Forresters, but I would feel very uncomfortable about assuming that they've conclusively shown anything but that any research on Apple and iTunes produces sensational headlines.
I feel bad for the Kazakhs who now have to deal with this crap from Westerners who know nothing about them.
The trouble with such fake ethnic humor is that it relies on ignorance and condescension. Good 'ol Charlie Chan and Jim Crow, used to really delight audiences.
"First on de heel tap, Den on the toe Every time I wheel about I jump Jim Crow. Wheel about and turn about An' do j's so. And every time I wheel about, I jump Jim Crow."
You're overlooking the rich mineral reserves in North Korea, the very ones that the Russians lusted after in the late 19th century, that the Japanese developed in the colonial era, and that China is locking into long-term contracts at present. Without sufficient power, the DPRK can't currently mine them and so is forced to turn to the Chinese.
North Korea has a massive, distributed array of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul. For this reason alone, the US has no incentive to attack North Korea. They are well aware of this, as is everyone.
And yet in 1994, prior to Carter's visit, we were on the verge of a bombing attack on NK. Just listen to any of the so-called "experts" trotted out by talk shows when NK comes up as topic. They know not a word of Korean, nothing of the history, may not have ever been there, but they're willing to discuss "our military option." If you were the NK leadership and saw such a combination of ignorance from a nation that had demonized your own country for decades, would *you* trust the U.S. to act rationally? (Quick test: What country killed by far the most U.S. soliders in the Korean War? What country *chose* to attack the U.S. during the Korean War? What country has thermonuclear weapsons? And what country do we trade with and portray with cuddly images such as Pandas and tea houses? -- it's not NK).
Wrong. What Kim Jong Il, who represents the sole will of the NK government, wants more than anything is to stay in power. And that isn't as easy as it might sound. If NK were really interested in normalized economic relations with the US, they could halt their massive counterfeiting and narcotics operations, for starters.
And you know of these "massive counterfeiting and narcotics operations" how? Could it be the U.S. Treasusry deparment? Strange that SK denies any such counterfeiting is occurring. Try to find a condemnation of NK on these counts by any other country. The silence is a mite suspicious, no?
Unless you believe that the US is the sole stakeholder in the region's security, there is no reason why it should open direct bilateral talks with North Korea. Granting such talks places an undue burden on the US for addressing security issues raised by NK, without much added benefit for doing so.
By that logic, we should never negotiate with anyone bilaterally! The sad fact is that the U.S. could have forestalled both their missile and nuclear programs anytime during the past 15 years, but while negotiating the Agreed Framework in the 1990s, the U.S. was convinced that the regime would soon collapse, as did the Congress, and so it went. Madelaine Albrigt was in Pyongyang in 2000, but time ran out on the Clinton administration. As far as I can tell, NK is afraid and mistrustful of the Bush administration, and rightfully so in my mind.
And rightly so. Few regimes are as richly deserving of collapse than Kim Jong Il's.
Such rhetoric is precisely why NK was rational in building a bomb. They are becoming the very country that the U.S. wants them to be, created through hatred and ignorance.
At a guess, I'd say it's because their main image of the US comes from American soldiers on leave. Lord knows that's enough to terrify anyone.
That indeed used to be the case before the mid-1990s. By now, though, especially after the 2002 World Cup was jointly hosted by South Korea and Japan, Koreans have become quite globalized, with Ban Ki-moon set to become the new UN Secretary-General. There is substantial disaffection with U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and its implications for possible war on the Korean peninsula. South Koreans fear that the U.S. will readily sacrifice their own current peace and prosperity for the sake of achieving a neo-con policy goal.
As a state whose major allies have disappeared since 1989, facing the threat of nuclear annihilation from the U.S. for two generations (the U.S. based nuclear weapons at Osan and Kunsan air bases until around 1991 and maintains South Korea under its nuclear umbrella via submarines thereafter) and branded as a "rogue regime", a member of the "axis of evil", headed by a leader who is a "moral pygmy", North Korea's decision to test a nuclear weapon was not without reason.
Largely forgotten now, the U.S. bombed North Korea relentlessly during the Korean War, destroying literally every major structure in P'yongyang, Wonsan, Hamhung and and elsewhere, bombing dams and dikes and killing over 1 million civilians in the process. Why should NK not fear the U.S. to repeat this act?
What NK wants more than anything is normalized economic relations with the U.S. Kim Jong Il even visited the Buick factory in Shanghai four years ago and has told a succession of visitors he wants constructive engagement. However, what the U.S. government appears to want is regime collapse. Of all the NATO countries, only France and the U.S. do not have formal relations with NK. And by policy the U.S. will not negotiate directly with North Korea, as if to do so would be somehow rewarding them, even as South Korea, which has the most to lose in any war, moves ahead with cultural exchange and business development on many levels.
The test today is a sad confirmation of the failure of U.S. policy toward North Korea.
Oh, and his Taepodong missiles can reach Alaska and maybe even the West Coast.
A claim endlessly repeated in the U.S. media and used to scare us into financing missile defense systems. In fact the whole missile program in NK remains something of a joke. When listening to *any* media coverage of NK, ask yourself what the commentator really knows about the country and its history. Running the same clip of prancing NK soldiers and making hysterical claims about them should not pass for media coverage.
Ask yourself, why are South Koreans increasingly more afraid of the U.S. than North Korea?
There is no such concept as "dumping" within a national market. It only comes into legal force in international trade. Large companies are free to price products in a predatory fashion and drive their competitors out of business.
Judging from the growth in orders placed on the iTunes Music Store, the service is growing quickly in popularity. It's hard to comport these figures with a view that iPod users are "shunning" the service.
The statistics cited by the anonymous contributor are deliberately misleading. A better way to look at sales for products having wide variations in season sales is to look at year-on-year figures. By that measure iPod sales continue to rack up healthy gains, and some analysts believe that that the iPod is in the "early stages of its product expansion" and can continue to grow its sales by at least 20% a year for the forseeable future.
This, of course, is nothing new - markets adjust to new technologies all the time and eventually the opportunities they offered disappear; for example when the telegraph first came out no doubt someone discovered they could buy an item at one place for less then the same item where they were and arbitrage the prices - but as more people started doing that the spread disappeared.
Nor is the creation of pools of money (aka hedge funds) to take advantage of average investors, with the assistance of a captive regulator and compliant media, new. Presumably corruption and illegality could be modeled, too, for fun and profit.
But Apple's folly is that they are offering it through iTunes, which is solely for your iPod. How much video do people actually watch on their iPods anyway.
Huh? Have you ever used iTunes to download a video? They play just fine on any computer with quicktime.
Google: "at the top", Yahoo: "a sellout"
on
Google's China Problem
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
From TFA:
I expected [famed political blogger] Zhao [Jing] to be much angrier with the American Internet companies than he was. He was surprisingly philosophical. He ranked the companies in order of ethics, ticking them off with his fingers. Google, he said, was at the top of the pile. It was genuinely improving the quality of Chinese information and trying to do its best within a bad system. . . . Yahoo came last, and Zhao had nothing but venom for the company.
"Google has struck a compromise," he said, and compromises are sometimes necessary. Yahoo's behavior, he added, put it in a different category: "Yahoo is a sellout. Chinese people hate Yahoo." The difference, Zhao said, was that Yahoo had put individual dissidents in serious danger and done so apparently without thinking much about the human damage.
A useful perspective from one of the internet celebrities in China. I hope Yahoo appreciates all the good publicity its actions in China are garnering.
True for me as well. A memorable case was when traveling by bus in China between Qingdao and Yantai when suddenly a kick-ass song by a Taiwan group came up on the video set playing at the front. My Chinese isn't that great, and I rather frantically attempted to memorize a line of lyrics to google later. Amazingly I did and was able later to acquire an album by the group (Power Station) in Beijing.
Maybe, but the science is interesting nonetheless. Having gone through too many cancer-related deaths and illnesses of friend and relatives, I'm all in favor of developing therapy beyond small-molecule chemo and radiation. The patients in the trial referenced had metastatic terminal cancer; anything that can help them has my support!
Agreed, the reovirus is exciting. If it had been developed by an American company instead of a Canadian firm from Alberta, we'd be seeing cover stories in all the major news weeklies and on 60 minutes. I only fear that the FDA is moving too cautiously now to give such innovative therapies the fast track approval they deserve.
An island off of Xiamen on the southeast coast of China. Great scenery, amazing seafood, welcoming women. And where am I? Huddled in my obscure hotel room (broadband!) puzzling via slashdot over a beowolf cluster of clods profiting in the Russian way . . .
Historians such as myself often long for a means to consult a distant colleague about some text, which in my case is often a centuries-old Korean manuscript written in classical Chinese, in which only three people on earth may have interest. This technology holds the promise of facilitating intensive collaboration between scholars on different continents, which is a luxury currently next to impossible with only voice communication.
Adding to the university coffers is a worthy pursuit, but I hope in the rush to wealth UNC won't forget the basic goal of the university to create communities that further knowledge.
However, reading the Court Opinion it seems to me that it contradicts itself here and promotes a violation of the Fifth in other circumstances. Does anyone else see it that way?
I certainly do, but more importantly Justice Stevens did in his dissent. As he points out, the very assiduousness with which the police seek out names seems a good indicator of their value in investigations. A citizen should not be compelled to assist an investigation by the state that might tend to inciminate him/her. And that includes supplying one's name.
A person's identity obviously bears informational and incriminating worth, "even if the [name] itself is not inculpatory." Hubbell, 530 U.S., at 38. A name can provide the key to a broad array of information about the person, particularly in the hands of a police officer with access to a range of law enforcement databases. And that information, in turn, can be tremendously useful in criminal prosecution. It is therefore quite wrong to suggest that a person's identity provides a link in the chain to incriminating evidence "only in unusual circumstances." Ante, at 12.
The officer in this case told petitioner, in the Court's words, that "he was conducting an investigation and needed to see some identification." Ante, at 2. As the target of that investigation, petitioner, in my view, acted well within his rights when he opted to stand mute. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
Stevens (or his clerk writing for him) in his dissent seems to be the only member of the court who addressed the issue of just how revealing a name can be in an age where large databases are omnipresent. IANAL, but his reasoning seems quite convincing to me. In some circumstances revealing one's name is indirectly, but powerfully, self-incriminating, and thus should not be compelled.
Thanks to os x language support I can easily combine Korean, Japanese, Chinese (both flavors), and English in my academic writing. Really a joy to use and largely unappreciated by the my benighted colleagues stuck with windows.
"Sorry dude, i don't own the rights to that song, maybe another time."
Reminds me of my wife's friend, who teaches modern dance and gets to deduct as business expense the music she buys for her classes. Her husband, an up-tight tax attorney, flees the room whenever she plays her music, lest by hearing it he might "taint" the purity of her business deduction. Go figure. . .
"If you can't sing Siegfried, at least you can carry a spear" -- Thomans Pynchon
Slashdot Mirror
This is not news from months ago. The real news is the FT story, whose implications are quite startling. And its come out AFTER the decline has already started, presumably being the occasion of the decline. This one could run for a while and have quite interesting consequences.
Well, Al Gore and the market both disagree. Slashdot readers comprise a broad set of backgrounds, and in my case I'm someone who has had his share of experience with hedge fund sleaze. Everything I've seen of the this story, its timing at the end of year, its endless repetition on CNBC, and the market behavior of AAPL over the past few years indicates to me that this was a planted story, designed to benefit short-selling/put buying prior to loading up with shares/calls before macworld. Good luck with your own investing.
To veteran observers of AAPL stock, there is nothing new in the recent spasms of "news" concerning the options issues, citing unnamed sources and essentially repeating information from months ago, in advance of Apple's own disclosure. Over the past weeks hedge funds have driven down the price per share in advance of loading up prior to the Macworld run up in january. This latest news is being used as simple, but highly effectively ploy to bludgeon down the stock.
If you're interested in such matters, check out Cramer giving the inside hedge fund story on how to manipulate AAPL, here (the 12/22 video).
What I find amusing is that most of the responses here take the representativeness of the reported statistics at face value. But surely many questions about how Forrester gained and massaged these data remain.
Forrester analyzed nearly 2 million credit and debit card transactions for the 27-month period from April 2004 through June 2006.
Now, how exactly did the company gain access to precise credit card transactions? Did you volunteer your own data ? Could they have come from comScore spyware? Why should readers assume that these data are representative of anything but the most clueless online users?
And within this data, how extensive were those on iTunes?
Forrester's recent analysis of more than 2,700 US iTunes debit and credit card transactions reveals that 3% of online households made an iTunes purchase in the past year.
Great, a look at fewer than 3,000 transactions provides enough scope to make the generalizations in the article? I'm not holding my breath. There may or may not be the trend adduced by Forresters, but I would feel very uncomfortable about assuming that they've conclusively shown anything but that any research on Apple and iTunes produces sensational headlines.
I feel bad for the Kazakhs who now have to deal with this crap from Westerners who know nothing about them.
The trouble with such fake ethnic humor is that it relies on ignorance and condescension. Good 'ol Charlie Chan and Jim Crow, used to really delight audiences.
"First on de heel tap,
Den on the toe
Every time I wheel about
I jump Jim Crow.
Wheel about and turn about
An' do j's so.
And every time I wheel about,
I jump Jim Crow."
Plus, NK has nothing of value to be despoiled
You're overlooking the rich mineral reserves in North Korea, the very ones that the Russians lusted after in the late 19th century, that the Japanese developed in the colonial era, and that China is locking into long-term contracts at present. Without sufficient power, the DPRK can't currently mine them and so is forced to turn to the Chinese.
North Korea has a massive, distributed array of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul. For this reason alone, the US has no incentive to attack North Korea. They are well aware of this, as is everyone.
And yet in 1994, prior to Carter's visit, we were on the verge of a bombing attack on NK. Just listen to any of the so-called "experts" trotted out by talk shows when NK comes up as topic. They know not a word of Korean, nothing of the history, may not have ever been there, but they're willing to discuss "our military option." If you were the NK leadership and saw such a combination of ignorance from a nation that had demonized your own country for decades, would *you* trust the U.S. to act rationally? (Quick test: What country killed by far the most U.S. soliders in the Korean War? What country *chose* to attack the U.S. during the Korean War? What country has thermonuclear weapsons? And what country do we trade with and portray with cuddly images such as Pandas and tea houses? -- it's not NK).
Wrong. What Kim Jong Il, who represents the sole will of the NK government, wants more than anything is to stay in power. And that isn't as easy as it might sound. If NK were really interested in normalized economic relations with the US, they could halt their massive counterfeiting and narcotics operations, for starters.
And you know of these "massive counterfeiting and narcotics operations" how? Could it be the U.S. Treasusry deparment? Strange that SK denies any such counterfeiting is occurring. Try to find a condemnation of NK on these counts by any other country. The silence is a mite suspicious, no?
Unless you believe that the US is the sole stakeholder in the region's security, there is no reason why it should open direct bilateral talks with North Korea. Granting such talks places an undue burden on the US for addressing security issues raised by NK, without much added benefit for doing so.
By that logic, we should never negotiate with anyone bilaterally! The sad fact is that the U.S. could have forestalled both their missile and nuclear programs anytime during the past 15 years, but while negotiating the Agreed Framework in the 1990s, the U.S. was convinced that the regime would soon collapse, as did the Congress, and so it went. Madelaine Albrigt was in Pyongyang in 2000, but time ran out on the Clinton administration. As far as I can tell, NK is afraid and mistrustful of the Bush administration, and rightfully so in my mind.
And rightly so. Few regimes are as richly deserving of collapse than Kim Jong Il's.
Such rhetoric is precisely why NK was rational in building a bomb. They are becoming the very country that the U.S. wants them to be, created through hatred and ignorance.
At a guess, I'd say it's because their main image of the US comes from American soldiers on leave. Lord knows that's enough to terrify anyone.
That indeed used to be the case before the mid-1990s. By now, though, especially after the 2002 World Cup was jointly hosted by South Korea and Japan, Koreans have become quite globalized, with Ban Ki-moon set to become the new UN Secretary-General. There is substantial disaffection with U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and its implications for possible war on the Korean peninsula. South Koreans fear that the U.S. will readily sacrifice their own current peace and prosperity for the sake of achieving a neo-con policy goal.
As a state whose major allies have disappeared since 1989, facing the threat of nuclear annihilation from the U.S. for two generations (the U.S. based nuclear weapons at Osan and Kunsan air bases until around 1991 and maintains South Korea under its nuclear umbrella via submarines thereafter) and branded as a "rogue regime", a member of the "axis of evil", headed by a leader who is a "moral pygmy", North Korea's decision to test a nuclear weapon was not without reason.
Largely forgotten now, the U.S. bombed North Korea relentlessly during the Korean War, destroying literally every major structure in P'yongyang, Wonsan, Hamhung and and elsewhere, bombing dams and dikes and killing over 1 million civilians in the process. Why should NK not fear the U.S. to repeat this act?
What NK wants more than anything is normalized economic relations with the U.S. Kim Jong Il even visited the Buick factory in Shanghai four years ago and has told a succession of visitors he wants constructive engagement. However, what the U.S. government appears to want is regime collapse. Of all the NATO countries, only France and the U.S. do not have formal relations with NK. And by policy the U.S. will not negotiate directly with North Korea, as if to do so would be somehow rewarding them, even as South Korea, which has the most to lose in any war, moves ahead with cultural exchange and business development on many levels.
The test today is a sad confirmation of the failure of U.S. policy toward North Korea.
Oh, and his Taepodong missiles can reach Alaska and maybe even the West Coast.
A claim endlessly repeated in the U.S. media and used to scare us into financing missile defense systems. In fact the whole missile program in NK remains something of a joke. When listening to *any* media coverage of NK, ask yourself what the commentator really knows about the country and its history. Running the same clip of prancing NK soldiers and making hysterical claims about them should not pass for media coverage.
Ask yourself, why are South Koreans increasingly more afraid of the U.S. than North Korea?
It is illegal it's called "dumping".
There is no such concept as "dumping" within a national market. It only comes into legal force in international trade. Large companies are free to price products in a predatory fashion and drive their competitors out of business.
Judging from the growth in orders placed on the iTunes Music Store, the service is growing quickly in popularity. It's hard to comport these figures with a view that iPod users are "shunning" the service.
Year Orders
2004 25197527 100%
2005 91757221 364%
2006 266794136 1059%
Q4 03: 336,000
Q1 04: 733,000 (holiday quarter)
Q2 04: 807,000
Q3 04: 860,000
Q4 04: 2,016,000
Q1 05: 4,580,000 (holiday quarter)
Q2 05: 5,311,000
Q3 05: 6,155,000
Q4 05: 6,451,000
Q1 06: 14,043,000 (holiday quarter)
Q2 06: 8,526,000
Q3 06: 8,111,000
Nor is the creation of pools of money (aka hedge funds) to take advantage of average investors, with the assistance of a captive regulator and compliant media, new. Presumably corruption and illegality could be modeled, too, for fun and profit.
But Apple's folly is that they are offering it through iTunes, which is solely for your iPod. How much video do people actually watch on their iPods anyway.
Huh? Have you ever used iTunes to download a video? They play just fine on any computer with quicktime.
From TFA:
I expected [famed political blogger] Zhao [Jing] to be much angrier with the American Internet companies than he was. He was surprisingly philosophical. He ranked the companies in order of ethics, ticking them off with his fingers. Google, he said, was at the top of the pile. It was genuinely improving the quality of Chinese information and trying to do its best within a bad system. . . . Yahoo came last, and Zhao had nothing but venom for the company.
"Google has struck a compromise," he said, and compromises are sometimes necessary. Yahoo's behavior, he added, put it in a different category: "Yahoo is a sellout. Chinese people hate Yahoo." The difference, Zhao said, was that Yahoo had put individual dissidents in serious danger and done so apparently without thinking much about the human damage.
A useful perspective from one of the internet celebrities in China. I hope Yahoo appreciates all the good publicity its actions in China are garnering.
If I can't look up lyrics, I'll buy less music.
True for me as well. A memorable case was when traveling by bus in China between Qingdao and Yantai when suddenly a kick-ass song by a Taiwan group came up on the video set playing at the front. My Chinese isn't that great, and I rather frantically attempted to memorize a line of lyrics to google later. Amazingly I did and was able later to acquire an album by the group (Power Station) in Beijing.
Maybe, but the science is interesting nonetheless. Having gone through too many cancer-related deaths and illnesses of friend and relatives, I'm all in favor of developing therapy beyond small-molecule chemo and radiation. The patients in the trial referenced had metastatic terminal cancer; anything that can help them has my support!
Agreed, the reovirus is exciting. If it had been developed by an American company instead of a Canadian firm from Alberta, we'd be seeing cover stories in all the major news weeklies and on 60 minutes. I only fear that the FDA is moving too cautiously now to give such innovative therapies the fast track approval they deserve.
An island off of Xiamen on the southeast coast of China. Great scenery, amazing seafood, welcoming women. And where am I? Huddled in my obscure hotel room (broadband!) puzzling via slashdot over a beowolf cluster of clods profiting in the Russian way . . .
Every program, every platform will have to be replaced. New langauges, new paradigms, awesome computing power. Can't wait!
The tao I can speak of
Historians such as myself often long for a means to consult a distant colleague about some text, which in my case is often a centuries-old Korean manuscript written in classical Chinese, in which only three people on earth may have interest. This technology holds the promise of facilitating intensive collaboration between scholars on different continents, which is a luxury currently next to impossible with only voice communication.
Adding to the university coffers is a worthy pursuit, but I hope in the rush to wealth UNC won't forget the basic goal of the university to create communities that further knowledge.
The tao I can speak of is
However, reading the Court Opinion it seems to me that it contradicts itself here and promotes a violation of the Fifth in other circumstances. Does anyone else see it that way?
I certainly do, but more importantly Justice Stevens did in his dissent. As he points out, the very assiduousness with which the police seek out names seems a good indicator of their value in investigations. A citizen should not be compelled to assist an investigation by the state that might tend to inciminate him/her. And that includes supplying one's name.
A person's identity obviously bears informational and incriminating worth, "even if the [name] itself is not inculpatory." Hubbell, 530 U.S., at 38. A name can provide the key to a broad array of information about the person, particularly in the hands of a police officer with access to a range of law enforcement databases. And that information, in turn, can be tremendously useful in criminal prosecution. It is therefore quite wrong to suggest that a person's identity provides a link in the chain to incriminating evidence "only in unusual circumstances." Ante, at 12.
The officer in this case told petitioner, in the Court's words, that "he was conducting an investigation and needed to see some identification." Ante, at 2. As the target of that investigation, petitioner, in my view, acted well within his rights when he opted to stand mute. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
Stevens (or his clerk writing for him) in his dissent seems to be the only member of the court who addressed the issue of just how revealing a name can be in an age where large databases are omnipresent. IANAL, but his reasoning seems quite convincing to me. In some circumstances revealing one's name is indirectly, but powerfully, self-incriminating, and thus should not be compelled.
Here hair!
."
Thanks to os x language support I can easily combine Korean, Japanese, Chinese (both flavors), and English in my academic writing. Really a joy to use and largely unappreciated by the my benighted colleagues stuck with windows.
"In the north it's the women. .
Reminds me of my wife's friend, who teaches modern dance and gets to deduct as business expense the music she buys for her classes. Her husband, an up-tight tax attorney, flees the room whenever she plays her music, lest by hearing it he might "taint" the purity of her business deduction. Go figure. . .
"If you can't sing Siegfried, at least you can carry a spear" -- Thomans Pynchon