Why does this guy get all kinds of press when he is only on 30 states ballots. When Michael Badnarik is on 48 states and libertarian party has a far larger percentage of votes.......
Nader got more votes in 2000 than the Libertarian Party.
Also, Nader has a long political career in the public spotlight, and he actively pursues press coverage. Who's Badnarik other than this year's LP candidate? What national coverage does the LP seek? As best I can tell, they make some noise every four years about not being in the debates (this year I commend him getting arrested fighting for access to democracy. He lost a huge chunk of respect he earned for the act when later he said he wouldn't have done it if he knew he was going to be arrested).
She didn't bypass user names and passwords. She accessed unprotected files just like Windows Explorer allows. This is a non-issue. If users don't want their information to be seen, they should be protecting their profile's Documents and Settings folder.
Why do you think a user should expected to know how to manage all of the security details of their computer? They're taught that that's what a password and broadband firewall do. There's a huge difference from the ability of someone to snoop around obscure files on someone's PCs, mining for data, and a whole other for someone to be able to run a simple Google search and have "private" data pop up.
Before Google's Desktop Search, this data was effectively secure except by direct snooping. With Desktop Search, it's no longer as well protected.
So what part of that did the reporter not understand? Finally, this is not mandatory software. A user has to hunt it down, download it, and install it. So don't use it if it is a problem for your computer.
The thing is, most people don't understand computers well enough to know the potential for privacy issues involved when they install software. It's unreasonable to demand users to become experts before using their computer. This tool sounds like it makes things worse. Google doesn't seem to be acting very responsibly here, even if a technically astute user can mitigate the risks.
This article sounds a lot like, "Hey, dumb users such as myself, I installed the Google Desktop Search and some of my previously hidden data showed up to other users on the system. Take caution until Google addresses the issue."
Undemocratic: Having your elected officials pass laws, and having some kind of police force enforce said laws.
Inherently so, but not unacceptably so. We accept the Republican format of government because it approaches Democracy. Ie: as long as our elected leaders serve our interests and wills, it's "democratic enough", if you will.
Democratic: Letting a small group of people break what laws they want and intimidate the greater populace.
You are generalizing a specific case. I never suggested that people (small groups or otherwise) should be able to flaunt laws on whim. What I said was that when a law conflicts with democracy, it's the law that must yield. I'm not referring to the question of, "by what right do you have to tell me I can't be loud in public," I'm talking about an ordinance that is intended to promote a peaceful neighborhood (in response to the original poster's implication that being loud was illegal enough to justify the police shooting into the crowd) being used to directly undermine the democratic foundation of our nation.
What's more important, enforcing some random law, or protecting the ideals and virtues of democracy? I imagine there are some laws from time to time which trump democratic action, from time to time, but I can't accept that as a general, default, rule. And when you look at this specific case (as posited by the poster, and now yourself) that a noise ordinance justified shooting people voicing their political views in the shadow of a visit by the President, there is no rational justification for the law trumping democracy. None.
Gotcha.
No, you don't. In fact, you're not even in the same ballpark.
Take your pick. Either the cops let shit get out of hand in which case people start fighting and breaking shit, or they can end it BEFORE anything starts.
False dichotomy. The crowd wasn't shot at for "fighting and breaking shit", it was for speaking up about Bush.
In fact, the only real violence was on the part of the police who shot people. This is excessive force against the right of the people to dissent. That's an act of a fascist state.
Do you realize you are condoning actions which diminish the moral validity of our nation?
Either way, they have goddamned idiots like your stupid self up their ass about how they're fascist.
That doesn't make any sense. No one calls them fascists if they let people assemble.
Nit pick: Ad Hominem? Okay, my argument may have been fallacious, but couldn't you have found a better fallacy?
Well, you did call me "Humpty Dumpty", which was essentially the entirety of your argument.
This was a bloody poweder keg if you ask me.
If you look at the situation in purely objective terms, ignoring subjective values and morality, then yes, police + angry Americans = violence.
But, when judging the actions, subjectivity and morality are critical. You have to ask if it's good or bad (and to what extent, and in what ways, etc). The situation is understandable, but undesirable. In a free and just nation, in a democracy (which we pretend to be, and, in some historically unprecedented ways, are), what happened is a bad thing.
Which side of the equation needs to be fixed? Whenever there's a clash between the state and the will of the people, it's always the state which must give. You can't have a free society if people aren't allowed to peaceably assemble. Any "violence" (and we're talking about pushing, which probably means the police were trying to push people in one direction, and being a crowd, the people nearest the police are going to push back instead of being crushed) was in response to the action of the state to restrict this crowd.
The only thing that sounds rather suspect is that we only hear about Kerry supporters being attacked.
I'm not sure what you mean by "suspect", but it makes perfect sense. Bush is in power, Kerry isn't. It's up to Bush to sanction the police action. You can be certain that the people who orchestrate the President's campaign stops has someone meet with the local police and make it clear the reception the President expects, and that you don't want to disappoint him.
It's not like there's 4 students lying dead in the street right now. Lets keep a little perspective. I've been shot with paintballs (paid for the pleasure too), and while they do hurt, I'm still able to walk away.
This is the standard of the lesser evil.
"Hey, we coulda shot you with M-16s! Instead we used non-lethal weapons. You should thank us."
"Uh, how about you don't shoot us at all?"
It's like Abu Ghraib. The prisoner abuse (ie: torture) was defended as being "better than Saddam". The President would call this the bigotry of low expectations.
And I'm certain this isn't your standard paintball gun. First, it's almost guaranteed to be more powerful (do you think a cop is going to be happy to trade in his gun for a paintball gun that merely "stings" the assailant?), and I'm also certain the paintballs you used weren't filled with a chemical weapon payload.
We don't know yet and may not know for a long time but so far I'm not inclined to start screaming about censorship just yet.
Then it's only proper to assume the worst. It's up to the government to justify it's actions against the people.
Because governments are granted a monopoly on the initiation of force, their actions are suspect until proven innocent.
If they aren't held to this standard, then they will abuse their power. Not necessarily because they are bad people, just because they will use the tools at hand.
Gandalf refused the one ring because he knew he'd use it.
Specifically, Fascism is the combining of corporate and government forces. Generally, it's a state that oppresses, suppresses, attacks, and otherwise controls its people.
Or does it simply mean whatever you will it to mean?
Why the "fsck" (do you even know what "fsck" means? lol) do you ask? Maybe your response would have been more constructive were you to provide some reasoning.
"The word means precisely what I want it to mean, and nothing else."
More appropriate to this discussion would be the Walrus and the Carpenter. Your Humpty Dumpty ad hominem is really inane.
Fascism? No. This is a bunch of cops who would rather inflict than be inflicted upon. I highly doubt either candidate would tell the cops to do this!
They don't have to tell them what to do, they just set up the situation and let things unfold "naturally".
Yeah, most cities have noise ordnances.
You can't let local ordinances (your misspelling is quite amusing in context) trump democracy. If you do, that's just the sort of sign to look for to warn you that you're in a fascist state.
Just a bit of a mob mentality (two opposing sides yelling at each other - it'll get heated!), and a few self-preserving cops.
"Self-preserving"? They were pushed. That's what they're there for. To provide a wall between the people and the President. In a democracy, walls aren't supposed to shoot people who "push" against it. Shooting people with chemical weapons (they've one-upped the normal mace cans with this one, now they've combined chemical and projectile weapons into one!) is excessive.
But rather than calling this fascism, I'd call this hyper-sensitivity by law enforcement, probably mostly due to the constant terror warnings and the much higher than normal tension over this election.
In other words, a fascist action on behalf of a fascist government.
Thanks for clearing that up.
The sort of "hyper-sensitivity" that leads to excessive police force is a symptom of fascism. It's like you're saying, "I wouldn't call it the flu, I'd call it coughing and sneezing and a fever," or, "I wouldn't call it a forest, it's just a tree. What? All those tens of thousands of trees around it? Yeah, well, they're each trees too. Fairly dense to be sure, but really, if you just look at this one tree, it's just a tree, I wouldn't call it a part of a 'forest'."
My family was going to buy one for my elderly/ill grandfather, but we feared he wouldnt use it because it would make him look crippled/impaired in some way.
Isn't that like missing an arm, but not wanting a prosthetic arm because it makes one look like they are missing an arm?
The people don't want these machines. We're not against electronic voting machines per se, we're just not convinced this current batch is properly designed to facilitate and protect our democracy.
Regardless of who "wins" (think about it, why is it even reasonable that I can put that word in quotes?) the election, with the roll out of these machines, it's the people who lose.
Estimated cost of clean up to prevent further toxic leakage is millions of euros.
While millions of Euros is nothing to scoff at, this is a clear problem and we need to fix it. In proper perspective, millions of euros is a small price to pay (the world can chip in if needed, but even cash-strapped Russia can pay the millions of Euros alone if necessary) to clean this mess up.
If we can spend hundreds of billions of dollars to "clean up" a country with no pending nuclear disaster, surely we can spend far less than 1 billion dollars on this.
Look, the first guy made a joke about using AppleTalk and a LaserWriter. You knew it was a joke, and you had no reason to believe he really wanted to know how to do it.
When you take what someone says, when they mean it in a non-literal way, and reply in a narrow, literal sense (especially if that narrow sense is ostensibly "correct", while be completely incorrect, non-sequitur, or otherwise irrelevant to the discussion), is pedantry, and not just any pedantry, but annoying as hell pedantry.
Pedantry isn't always bad, and yours was mildly in the 'a tad geeky but without value' dept. What was annoying was your moralizing, that the first guy was being a "smart-ass", while claiming you were being "informative" when in fact your reply was a smart-ass post itself.
You're in for the biggest let-down since Geraldo Rivera opened Al Capone's tomb...
Sony has sort of a way about sabotaging formulae like "This device + TiVo = Happiness".
Had they been the ones to come out with the "You got your peanut butter on my chocolate/your chocolate in my peanut butter" idea, instead of a Peanut Butter Cup, they'd sell a product with a tub of peanut butter and a bar of chocolate, where you couldn't even just dip the chocolate into the peanut butter, you'd have to buy some device that converts the peanut butter and chocolate into Nutella which you'd then eat off of a used hairbrush.
Why is it that they always use USB... most camcorders have 4-pin firewire out ports because they are superior for the data transfer...
You've answered your own question. Sony seems to be incapable of releasing a product without some built-in foolish technical obstacle.
I don't know what's worse: that Sony deliberately cripples their products (in ways far beyond the level of crippling the rest of the industry deems adequate) to protect their media interests, or that people spend a premium for the Sony brand to do so.
If Sony had not hobbled the MiniDisc, we would not be talking about MP3's today, we'd have MiniDiscs, and would probably all be in the process of phasing over to a HD based ATRAC3 player.
Instead, Apple is mopping the floor with them. Screw 'em. Until Sony works to enhance the lives of their customers, they deserve to fail.
I think it's what's called, "The Queen's English".
While the American thing to do would be to take their idea, pretend like we came up with it first, and cram it down their throats, I'd recommend against promoting the notion of "The President's English".
I just thought I would add that while the judge in this case did rule that the debate could go on, they did leave room for the libertarian party to seek punitive damages in the future.
That's the part that chills me the most. The judge has basically said that the activity he's allowing might just be illegal. But instead of evaluating the plans before they become history, he's putting the question off until later (and given the effort pursuing such a suit requires, it's possible the suit will die here and now).
As a general case, such a deferment of justice is bad enough, but in this specific case, the effects are chilling to the core. I personally think the LP would be far worse for America than "four more years" (and *that's* saying a lot). Even so, we need fresh views and true "spoilers" in the debates. What the judge has, essentially, done is sold-out our democratic process.
He's taken away our responsibility to provide, and right to demand, that our democratic process serve to inform and mobilize our electorate. In exchange, we get "the possibility" of a few bucks down the road.
Even if the LP were to win $10million in damages, we'll have all gotten the shaft. Doesn't the judge realize that if both parties had to fork over $50million each to keep the debates closed, they would? Isn't it abundantly clear that even if there were no other reason submitted before him, that *that's* reason enough to force reform in the debate system?
Like the sign said, "Now, we're all wearing the blue dress."
Apps that use AltiVec include, for example, many of the whizzier UI features,
By which you mean none of the whizzier UI features, as they all rely on the GPU, not the CPU, and if you don't have a capable GPU, they just use the standard PPC instructions, not AltiVec.
and all commercial audio and video apps.
I never claimed those would be G4-fast, I was merely pointing out that they could reach G4 speeds for non-AltiVec apps. Your point, while valid, was never under contention.
For all you know Cherry OS hired a bunch of guys in India to write the thing and it did cost $50. In any case prices are governed by the law of supply and demand and not by you.
Yeah, it could be. But do you really believe your scenario over the scam/hoax scenario?
Slashdot Mirror
Why does this guy get all kinds of press when he is only on 30 states ballots. When Michael Badnarik is on 48 states and libertarian party has a far larger percentage of votes.......
Nader got more votes in 2000 than the Libertarian Party.
Also, Nader has a long political career in the public spotlight, and he actively pursues press coverage. Who's Badnarik other than this year's LP candidate? What national coverage does the LP seek? As best I can tell, they make some noise every four years about not being in the debates (this year I commend him getting arrested fighting for access to democracy. He lost a huge chunk of respect he earned for the act when later he said he wouldn't have done it if he knew he was going to be arrested).
She didn't bypass user names and passwords. She accessed unprotected files just like Windows Explorer allows. This is a non-issue. If users don't want their information to be seen, they should be protecting their profile's Documents and Settings folder.
Why do you think a user should expected to know how to manage all of the security details of their computer? They're taught that that's what a password and broadband firewall do. There's a huge difference from the ability of someone to snoop around obscure files on someone's PCs, mining for data, and a whole other for someone to be able to run a simple Google search and have "private" data pop up.
Before Google's Desktop Search, this data was effectively secure except by direct snooping. With Desktop Search, it's no longer as well protected.
So what part of that did the reporter not understand? Finally, this is not mandatory software. A user has to hunt it down, download it, and install it. So don't use it if it is a problem for your computer.
The thing is, most people don't understand computers well enough to know the potential for privacy issues involved when they install software. It's unreasonable to demand users to become experts before using their computer. This tool sounds like it makes things worse. Google doesn't seem to be acting very responsibly here, even if a technically astute user can mitigate the risks.
This article sounds a lot like, "Hey, dumb users such as myself, I installed the Google Desktop Search and some of my previously hidden data showed up to other users on the system. Take caution until Google addresses the issue."
Undemocratic: Having your elected officials pass laws, and having some kind of police force enforce said laws.
Inherently so, but not unacceptably so. We accept the Republican format of government because it approaches Democracy. Ie: as long as our elected leaders serve our interests and wills, it's "democratic enough", if you will.
Democratic: Letting a small group of people break what laws they want and intimidate the greater populace.
You are generalizing a specific case. I never suggested that people (small groups or otherwise) should be able to flaunt laws on whim. What I said was that when a law conflicts with democracy, it's the law that must yield. I'm not referring to the question of, "by what right do you have to tell me I can't be loud in public," I'm talking about an ordinance that is intended to promote a peaceful neighborhood (in response to the original poster's implication that being loud was illegal enough to justify the police shooting into the crowd) being used to directly undermine the democratic foundation of our nation.
What's more important, enforcing some random law, or protecting the ideals and virtues of democracy? I imagine there are some laws from time to time which trump democratic action, from time to time, but I can't accept that as a general, default, rule. And when you look at this specific case (as posited by the poster, and now yourself) that a noise ordinance justified shooting people voicing their political views in the shadow of a visit by the President, there is no rational justification for the law trumping democracy. None.
Gotcha.
No, you don't. In fact, you're not even in the same ballpark.
Take your pick. Either the cops let shit get out of hand in which case people start fighting and breaking shit, or they can end it BEFORE anything starts.
False dichotomy. The crowd wasn't shot at for "fighting and breaking shit", it was for speaking up about Bush.
In fact, the only real violence was on the part of the police who shot people. This is excessive force against the right of the people to dissent. That's an act of a fascist state.
Do you realize you are condoning actions which diminish the moral validity of our nation?
Either way, they have goddamned idiots like your stupid self up their ass about how they're fascist.
That doesn't make any sense. No one calls them fascists if they let people assemble.
Grow the fuck up, dipshit.
And you're the paragon of maturity? LOL
Nit pick: Ad Hominem? Okay, my argument may have been fallacious, but couldn't you have found a better fallacy?
Well, you did call me "Humpty Dumpty", which was essentially the entirety of your argument.
This was a bloody poweder keg if you ask me.
If you look at the situation in purely objective terms, ignoring subjective values and morality, then yes, police + angry Americans = violence.
But, when judging the actions, subjectivity and morality are critical. You have to ask if it's good or bad (and to what extent, and in what ways, etc). The situation is understandable, but undesirable. In a free and just nation, in a democracy (which we pretend to be, and, in some historically unprecedented ways, are), what happened is a bad thing.
Which side of the equation needs to be fixed? Whenever there's a clash between the state and the will of the people, it's always the state which must give. You can't have a free society if people aren't allowed to peaceably assemble. Any "violence" (and we're talking about pushing, which probably means the police were trying to push people in one direction, and being a crowd, the people nearest the police are going to push back instead of being crushed) was in response to the action of the state to restrict this crowd.
The only thing that sounds rather suspect is that we only hear about Kerry supporters being attacked.
I'm not sure what you mean by "suspect", but it makes perfect sense. Bush is in power, Kerry isn't. It's up to Bush to sanction the police action. You can be certain that the people who orchestrate the President's campaign stops has someone meet with the local police and make it clear the reception the President expects, and that you don't want to disappoint him.
It's not like there's 4 students lying dead in the street right now. Lets keep a little perspective. I've been shot with paintballs (paid for the pleasure too), and while they do hurt, I'm still able to walk away.
This is the standard of the lesser evil.
"Hey, we coulda shot you with M-16s! Instead we used non-lethal weapons. You should thank us."
"Uh, how about you don't shoot us at all?"
It's like Abu Ghraib. The prisoner abuse (ie: torture) was defended as being "better than Saddam". The President would call this the bigotry of low expectations.
And I'm certain this isn't your standard paintball gun. First, it's almost guaranteed to be more powerful (do you think a cop is going to be happy to trade in his gun for a paintball gun that merely "stings" the assailant?), and I'm also certain the paintballs you used weren't filled with a chemical weapon payload.
We don't know yet and may not know for a long time but so far I'm not inclined to start screaming about censorship just yet.
Then it's only proper to assume the worst. It's up to the government to justify it's actions against the people.
Because governments are granted a monopoly on the initiation of force, their actions are suspect until proven innocent.
If they aren't held to this standard, then they will abuse their power. Not necessarily because they are bad people, just because they will use the tools at hand.
Gandalf refused the one ring because he knew he'd use it.
Do you even know what the fsck "fascist" means?
Yes, both specifically and generally.
Specifically, Fascism is the combining of corporate and government forces. Generally, it's a state that oppresses, suppresses, attacks, and otherwise controls its people.
Or does it simply mean whatever you will it to mean?
Why the "fsck" (do you even know what "fsck" means? lol) do you ask? Maybe your response would have been more constructive were you to provide some reasoning.
"The word means precisely what I want it to mean, and nothing else."
More appropriate to this discussion would be the Walrus and the Carpenter. Your Humpty Dumpty ad hominem is really inane.
Fascism? No. This is a bunch of cops who would rather inflict than be inflicted upon. I highly doubt either candidate would tell the cops to do this!
They don't have to tell them what to do, they just set up the situation and let things unfold "naturally".
Yeah, most cities have noise ordnances.
You can't let local ordinances (your misspelling is quite amusing in context) trump democracy. If you do, that's just the sort of sign to look for to warn you that you're in a fascist state.
Just a bit of a mob mentality (two opposing sides yelling at each other - it'll get heated!), and a few self-preserving cops.
"Self-preserving"? They were pushed. That's what they're there for. To provide a wall between the people and the President. In a democracy, walls aren't supposed to shoot people who "push" against it. Shooting people with chemical weapons (they've one-upped the normal mace cans with this one, now they've combined chemical and projectile weapons into one!) is excessive.
But rather than calling this fascism, I'd call this hyper-sensitivity by law enforcement, probably mostly due to the constant terror warnings and the much higher than normal tension over this election.
In other words, a fascist action on behalf of a fascist government.
Thanks for clearing that up.
The sort of "hyper-sensitivity" that leads to excessive police force is a symptom of fascism. It's like you're saying, "I wouldn't call it the flu, I'd call it coughing and sneezing and a fever," or, "I wouldn't call it a forest, it's just a tree. What? All those tens of thousands of trees around it? Yeah, well, they're each trees too. Fairly dense to be sure, but really, if you just look at this one tree, it's just a tree, I wouldn't call it a part of a 'forest'."
My family was going to buy one for my elderly/ill grandfather, but we feared he wouldnt use it because it would make him look crippled/impaired in some way.
Isn't that like missing an arm, but not wanting a prosthetic arm because it makes one look like they are missing an arm?
The people don't want these machines. We're not against electronic voting machines per se, we're just not convinced this current batch is properly designed to facilitate and protect our democracy.
Regardless of who "wins" (think about it, why is it even reasonable that I can put that word in quotes?) the election, with the roll out of these machines, it's the people who lose.
Estimated cost of clean up to prevent further toxic leakage is millions of euros.
While millions of Euros is nothing to scoff at, this is a clear problem and we need to fix it. In proper perspective, millions of euros is a small price to pay (the world can chip in if needed, but even cash-strapped Russia can pay the millions of Euros alone if necessary) to clean this mess up.
If we can spend hundreds of billions of dollars to "clean up" a country with no pending nuclear disaster, surely we can spend far less than 1 billion dollars on this.
Quick, someone install a Linux powered KaZaA server in the caldera (not "Caldera", caldera... you know, the hole at the top of the volcano).
SCO and RIAA problems... solved.
Correcting you, that's being pedantic.
You misspelled "whiny".
Look, the first guy made a joke about using AppleTalk and a LaserWriter. You knew it was a joke, and you had no reason to believe he really wanted to know how to do it.
When you take what someone says, when they mean it in a non-literal way, and reply in a narrow, literal sense (especially if that narrow sense is ostensibly "correct", while be completely incorrect, non-sequitur, or otherwise irrelevant to the discussion), is pedantry, and not just any pedantry, but annoying as hell pedantry.
Pedantry isn't always bad, and yours was mildly in the 'a tad geeky but without value' dept. What was annoying was your moralizing, that the first guy was being a "smart-ass", while claiming you were being "informative" when in fact your reply was a smart-ass post itself.
Happiness. What a fantastic device.
You're in for the biggest let-down since Geraldo Rivera opened Al Capone's tomb...
Sony has sort of a way about sabotaging formulae like "This device + TiVo = Happiness".
Had they been the ones to come out with the "You got your peanut butter on my chocolate/your chocolate in my peanut butter" idea, instead of a Peanut Butter Cup, they'd sell a product with a tub of peanut butter and a bar of chocolate, where you couldn't even just dip the chocolate into the peanut butter, you'd have to buy some device that converts the peanut butter and chocolate into Nutella which you'd then eat off of a used hairbrush.
It'd look damn cool though.
Why is it that they always use USB ...
most camcorders have 4-pin firewire out ports because they are superior for the data transfer...
You've answered your own question. Sony seems to be incapable of releasing a product without some built-in foolish technical obstacle.
I don't know what's worse: that Sony deliberately cripples their products (in ways far beyond the level of crippling the rest of the industry deems adequate) to protect their media interests, or that people spend a premium for the Sony brand to do so.
If Sony had not hobbled the MiniDisc, we would not be talking about MP3's today, we'd have MiniDiscs, and would probably all be in the process of phasing over to a HD based ATRAC3 player.
Instead, Apple is mopping the floor with them. Screw 'em. Until Sony works to enhance the lives of their customers, they deserve to fail.
... because few machines ship with firewire, that's why. USB is a default peripheral on any new PC.
Yet (just about?) every machine Sony ships has a FireWire (er, I mean "i.link" 4-pin non-powered bastardized Sony flavor of FireWire) port.
After all, their video cameras are all Fir.. i.link, and the standard for video transfer is FireWire.
This just seems like a natural progression for me... Standalone CD burners -> standalone DVD burners.
Probably because what seems like a "natural progression" to any sane non-retard, is generally the last thing to occur to a Sony exec.
I think it's what's called, "The Queen's English".
While the American thing to do would be to take their idea, pretend like we came up with it first, and cram it down their throats, I'd recommend against promoting the notion of "The President's English".
Just a suggestasheron.
I just thought I would add that while the judge in this case did rule that the debate could go on, they did leave room for the libertarian party to seek punitive damages in the future.
That's the part that chills me the most. The judge has basically said that the activity he's allowing might just be illegal. But instead of evaluating the plans before they become history, he's putting the question off until later (and given the effort pursuing such a suit requires, it's possible the suit will die here and now).
As a general case, such a deferment of justice is bad enough, but in this specific case, the effects are chilling to the core. I personally think the LP would be far worse for America than "four more years" (and *that's* saying a lot). Even so, we need fresh views and true "spoilers" in the debates. What the judge has, essentially, done is sold-out our democratic process.
He's taken away our responsibility to provide, and right to demand, that our democratic process serve to inform and mobilize our electorate. In exchange, we get "the possibility" of a few bucks down the road.
Even if the LP were to win $10million in damages, we'll have all gotten the shaft. Doesn't the judge realize that if both parties had to fork over $50million each to keep the debates closed, they would? Isn't it abundantly clear that even if there were no other reason submitted before him, that *that's* reason enough to force reform in the debate system?
Like the sign said, "Now, we're all wearing the blue dress."
Apps that use AltiVec include, for example, many of the whizzier UI features,
By which you mean none of the whizzier UI features, as they all rely on the GPU, not the CPU, and if you don't have a capable GPU, they just use the standard PPC instructions, not AltiVec.
and all commercial audio and video apps.
I never claimed those would be G4-fast, I was merely pointing out that they could reach G4 speeds for non-AltiVec apps. Your point, while valid, was never under contention.
For all you know Cherry OS hired a bunch of guys in India to write the thing and it did cost $50. In any case prices are governed by the law of supply and demand and not by you.
Yeah, it could be. But do you really believe your scenario over the scam/hoax scenario?
Didn't think so.
We've come a long way since the 386.
C:\NGRTLTNS.W95
I'll finally be able to play all those games I can't get for the PC platform.
My favorite Mac games you might want to try are Break Out, Super Break Out, and Photoshop.