With the rapid falloff of interest in Bitcoin someone must have gotten really bored to invest the time to create this trojan. I think they would have been better off creating a 419 scam claiming they need help to liquidate Bitcoin assets without sinking the market.
Actually, (not sure if you care) what happened was the difficulty in generating the bitcoins got to the point where buying equipment didn't pay off anymore. So, someone not bored but greedy... decided to utilize everyone else's equipment and electricity costs.
A Mac Trojan and a Bitcoin story in one! Quick someone tie this into global warming!
What's there to tie into global warming...? Of course the production of bitcoins uses processor or GPU, which uses electricity, which pollutes the atmosphere cause it's the electricity from the coal plants ONLY and not from the nuke plants... but the nuke plants are just as bad cause they are all susceptible to tsunamis, even the inland ones.
Are we going to just accept a list posted on the Internet that someone claims is from Anonymous? Are they suggesting they have any proof, or just a list?
This doesn't seem entirely flawless...
Are you suggesting the ones that are in opposition to them care?
Combat, lol... you're comparing the absolute straight line of a laser... something unaffected by almost every single type of atmospheric condition except particulate matter and atmospheric lensing... to a ballistic piece of metal...Tell that to our dead soldiers.
A green dot attached to a sniper rifle with a honkin ass scopeat a klick, I can guarantee one could solidly paint someone's face.
We're talking about the use of common laser pointers by uneducated idiots with nothing better to do, not people using purpose-built steadying devices. For the purposes of comparing the difficulty of hitting a distant target, hitting an airplane at altitude with a laser pointer is akin to shooting a target at a distance of 4 miles with a pistol... one handed and without bothering to use the sight.
We have F-18's fly by all the time... 3-4x as fast as landing speed. I've videoed them going past... easily keeping the jet in frame. With a laser scope attached... IT WOULD BE JUST AS EASY SINCE IT'S L/o/S.
Sure. Now, try attaching a theoretical lens capable of zooming-in far enough that the pilot's pupil fills the frame. Still think you can do it?
a) you do not need a "purpose built" steadying device, although they go for about $15 and are called, TRIPODS. And most people with a camera and even the slightest interest in photography, usually have one.
b) you do not need a "purpose built" sighting device. A long straw and some tape will do just fine.
c) you can do all this without a "theoretical lens" cause all it takes is 1x magnification.
d) I just took off my 'theoretical lens', a 2x-8x sniper scope and free-hand sighted my mildot on 3 planes' front quad, ie cockpit, with less than 1/4 drift. Maybe you should lay off the caffeine if you can't steadily track an object using a scope. Of course, I'm blessed with exceptional stability in that regard, that's why they hired me.
Why do you need to see someone's pupil? Oh, you don't know about scatter/beam spread and assume it has to directly go in their eyes!
And I wanted to attack this one directly:
hitting an airplane at altitude with a laser pointer is akin to shooting a target at a distance of 4 miles with a pistol... one handed and without bothering to use the sight.
Except, it isn't and you're an idiot. A laser is not affected by ANYTHING a bullet is affected by, except dust and atmospheric density. A target at a distance of 4 miles (assuming on the ground) is invisible due to the curvature of the earth. Doesn't mean you can't hit it.. but you can't see it. So, since you can see the plane, you fail on that count. Ballistics have gravity to account for, while a laser is laser straight and doesn't waver, so, fail on that point. Not sure what one-handed has to do with anything... obvious fail and when you say without sighting, it's really obvious that you've run out of steam and are just pulling a string of anal beads out your ass.
And last... but certainly not least... http://bayimg.com/dakHGaADl Taken with an EXTREMELY unremarkable 10x lens, by hand, no tripod, from my balcony as they flew past. And I can CLEARLY see VISOR.
-AI *Disclaimer for the spooks. Hi spooks, it's me again... just wanted to let you and echelon know, I have no interest in effin with you guys in any way... esp since u got things to go boom n stuff. So, no suits plz.
Windows gets blamed for keeping so much antiquated code, to be able to run across such a wide range of platforms.
CPU manufacturers get shit for keeping their chips backward compatible.
Apple gets major shit for tying everything together into one microverse.
And now we are upset that we can't have both.
Please tell me how the fuck we can: 1) Keep the CPU die small while 2) Keeping backward compatibility while 3) Allowing forward compatibility while 4) Providing an OS framework that will work on devices made years ago
Please... I'm fairly certain there's a business model in there. Then I can take it, get rich and become one of the uncaring fucks that make up the 1%./s
So because one company makes a 1 W laser, one should ban 5 mW laser pointers?
I'm sorry, I think you are reading way too far and not at all as intended... into my statement.
I am the LEAST likely to want to "pass legislation to protect the people" person out there.
I was simply responding to a serious over generalization that lasers can only 'potentially' damage someone's eyes. That "Shining lasers at people isn't dangerous."
Since 'burning' lasers have been around in compact form for over a decade.
Shining lasers at people isn't dangerous. Shining them at people's eyes can be. Big difference. Much like the difference between blowing hot air at your feet and hot air at your eyes.
You might even see the beam of a higher powered red laser at night if the air has the typical "city airport" level of pollutants and the beam was directed at you. At 600-800nm wavelengths, there is much more forward scattering than Raleigh scattering.
Try not to just skip over the fact that you're trying to track an object moving at 150MPH+ next time when explaining your simplistic straight-line theory...moving vs. stationary targets is all the difference in the world, as anyone who's ever been involved in combat can attest.
Combat, lol... you're comparing the absolute straight line of a laser... something unaffected by almost every single type of atmospheric condition except particulate matter and atmospheric lensing... to a ballistic piece of metal that a little gust can blow off course and is continuously subject to gravity.
Also, you are comparing "one particle" (a bullet) to millions of particles, (photons).
Lastly, scuse me while I have to laugh again, LOL... combat.
Open invitation to anyone that wants to "test combat" ability of lasers vs lead. Email me, my nickname @ gmail put gunrange (one word) in the title.
We'll go shoot on some open desert land. And I'll use my non-ballistic laser to stack some ballistic lead on top of each other way downrange.
FWIW... to all those people that are saying... "You can't lock on a moving target... too fast, blahzay blah"...
Tell that to our dead soldiers.
A green dot attached to a sniper rifle with a honkin ass scope at a klick, I can guarantee one could solidly paint someone's face.
We have F-18's fly by all the time... 3-4x as fast as landing speed. I've videoed them going past... easily keeping the jet in frame. With a laser scope attached... IT WOULD BE JUST AS EASY SINCE IT'S L/o/S.
Furthermore, let's say "we were in combat". At a klick, with a good, heavy assault rifle, maybe some tracers to help... I'm 98% certain, a plane traveling at only 150mph would be a sitting duck.
Mostly helo's get the lead treatment due to flight envelope, "in combat". But the fact that they go down... is evidence that a jet in the same predicament would fair just as poorly.
Lastly... if you want to apply the law of cosines or Pythagoras, the angular momentum and all that stuff, at a kilometer, the apparent angle of movement is really tiny for a landing aircraft.
It's not like you are trying to point at a car going 150mph right past you. It takes a good solid 20-30 seconds for a standard heavy to pass overhead from first sound thru last sound envelope.
Roughly a 45 viewing angle. So, you're saying you can't track a "slow" object that takes 20 seconds to cross your visual path?
For comparison, imagine being at a NASCAR race, which we also have here. Trackside, the cars are blasting past you. On the opposite side of the track, you could outstretch your arm and follow any car, easily. Now they are just shy of 150mph on our short track, however, they are MUCH closer.
My only concerns with writing any of this... I really don't want anyone to test this stuff. Just please, accept that it's all true. It is VERY easy to hit a plane with a laser. No need to try, that is what the article was about, it obviously succeeds enough that it is a problem.
Also, for Echelon and any spooks reading... I'm a pacifist and Buddhist and would never consider harming anyone or anything. In fact, I just relocated some black widows that were 'getting too large to share my tiny property'. Worried my darn terriers are going to get curious. Brrrr... spiders, ick. lol.
Nor do I have the childlike instinct to test what I know to be true. So, please... no suits at the door!
Then holy shit, every big corp pitch in a million or fifty to develop the tech to be anti-laser-glare windshields and boom, problem solved.
That is a good "point".
Even at landing glide path, it would be close to impossible to align, directly with the pilot's eyes (on normal terrain).
Here in Phoenix though, we have 3 mountain ranges that would allow you to gain a good altitude to hit someone's eyes in the cockpit.
But you're right... doing what (we) do best, capitalism... someone should work on that, make a whole bunch of money and then the incidence level will drop.
I don't doubt that this is a problem, but I'd like to know what the pilots experience is when this happens. Does the laser light cause the entire cockpit to light up? What kind of disturbance does it cause?
Depends on the particular laser, quality, build, color, power, etc.
Also depends on how clean the cockpit glass is at that spot it is hitting.
Laser quality affects the collimation at a great distance, where a cheaply built Chinese green targeting laser has a pretty appreciable spread at landing altitude. At a half mile, my green dot is a good inch or so, diameter.
That coupled with a bug splattered cockpit glass, would produce some pretty overwhelming speculars in the cockpit, also potentially striking off of other reflective objects.
Potentially worse would be a very finely collimated laser making its way into the cockpit and having a specular reflection directly in the pilot's eyes. A suitable powered green laser would cause at best, temporary blindness. Total blindness while not common isn't ruled out. And that laser could get the co-pilot as well, easily. Just leaving the flight tech to land.
And this is on approach, 5 minutes or so to get squared or splatted.
I live in Phoenix, where the article mentions some of the highest incidences. And I can believe it. When I first got back into Real Estate here, I attempted to draw a map of all the "noise zones" associated with aircraft here. I gave up as soon as I realized there was ZERO land mass in the Phoenix valley that does not have SOME air traffic at least hourly during flight traffic hours for the commuter airfields. 7pm at night, I've counted 20+ planes aloft. Gets crowded up there when we have UFO's too. =) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights
What's worse, west phoenix has all those hot shots in their F-18s, flying their practice sorties 4 at a time coming out of Luke AFB. Right... over... head. Sigh. Can't wait to hear the LOUDER F-35, since we won the bid. Hope they are deployed after I move.
I'd think it'd be pretty hard to accurately aim a laser pointer at a moving aircraft. I'm surprised it's such an issue.
Lol, you're joking right?
Maybe you're unaware that all those photons travel in an extremely straight line? and you just move that straight line until it intersects an airplane. I could draw a diagram, but it would look rather basic, with a straight line and all that./s
It sounds funny, but my favorite feature of my MacBook is the MASSIVE touchpad that works flawlessly. I don't know why manufacturer's skimp on the touchpad given that it's the primary input device,
Maybe you have a misunderstanding of primary, or maybe input... but I have NEVER had a pointer as a primary input device on any computer.
Additionally, those that DO NOT CONSIDER a mouse, tp, pointer to be a primary input device probably don't want it consuming the very important space for your palm, when you are using the REAL primary input device on a computer.
Interesting unannounced fact is, iOS 5 does support widgets. They dont work as Android ones, though, and are not (yet) available for third party development. They are part of the new notifications pulldown
Part of the new notifications pulldown... rofl, you almost owed me a coffee.
Ah! "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine, too..." That attitude seems pretty common of late. That Jobs had it to such a degree is surprising because he has so often been promoted as being a long-time Buddhist. So why would he not simply be happy with the success he already had, and let karma take care of the rest? Becoming 'livid' and authoring 'expletive-laced' emails are not examples of someone walking the Middle Way. Going "thermonuclear" *certainly* isn't either, lol. I hope that he worked this conflict out and achieved some semblance of nirvana prior to his death.
You know, that is a good post. I hadn't even thought about his Buddhist claims til you (or anyone else) brings it up. Cause, he really isn't... at all. lol
Slashdot Mirror
With the rapid falloff of interest in Bitcoin someone must have gotten really bored to invest the time to create this trojan. I think they would have been better off creating a 419 scam claiming they need help to liquidate Bitcoin assets without sinking the market.
Actually, (not sure if you care) what happened was the
difficulty in generating the bitcoins got to the point where
buying equipment didn't pay off anymore. So, someone
not bored but greedy... decided to utilize everyone else's
equipment and electricity costs.
-AI
A Mac Trojan and a Bitcoin story in one! Quick someone tie this into global warming!
What's there to tie into global warming...? Of course the production
of bitcoins uses processor or GPU, which uses electricity, which
pollutes the atmosphere cause it's the electricity from the coal plants
ONLY and not from the nuke plants... but the nuke plants are just
as bad cause they are all susceptible to tsunamis, even the inland
ones.
So, yeah, I added global warming AND nuke, there!
-AI
How many Library of Congresses is that?
-AI
... and here I am without any mod points.
Pretend that I marked you Two Thumbs Way Up!, Mr. PHB.
PS: For those of you without an irony chip installed ... pretend I started my post with </irony>
Pretend you started your post with Irony, off?
-AI
I KNOW!
Doing Psych work is like throwing water balloons at the ground!
Really should have finished up the degree sooner. Gotten myself
lined up for the recession.
-AI
Are we going to just accept a list posted on the Internet that someone claims is from Anonymous? Are they suggesting they have any proof, or just a list?
This doesn't seem entirely flawless...
Are you suggesting the ones that are in opposition to them care?
-AI
Combat, lol... you're comparing the absolute straight line of a laser... something unaffected by almost every single type of atmospheric condition except particulate matter and atmospheric lensing... to a ballistic piece of metal ...Tell that to our dead soldiers.
A green dot attached to a sniper rifle with a honkin ass scopeat a klick, I can guarantee one could solidly paint someone's face.
We're talking about the use of common laser pointers by uneducated idiots with nothing better to do, not people using purpose-built steadying devices. For the purposes of comparing the difficulty of hitting a distant target, hitting an airplane at altitude with a laser pointer is akin to shooting a target at a distance of 4 miles with a pistol... one handed and without bothering to use the sight.
We have F-18's fly by all the time... 3-4x as fast as landing speed. I've videoed them going past... easily keeping the jet in frame.
With a laser scope attached... IT WOULD BE JUST AS EASY SINCE IT'S L/o/S.
Sure. Now, try attaching a theoretical lens capable of zooming-in far enough that the pilot's pupil fills the frame. Still think you can do it?
a) you do not need a "purpose built" steadying device, although they
go for about $15 and are called, TRIPODS. And most people with a
camera and even the slightest interest in photography, usually have
one.
b) you do not need a "purpose built" sighting device. A long straw and
some tape will do just fine.
c) you can do all this without a "theoretical lens" cause all it takes is
1x magnification.
d) I just took off my 'theoretical lens', a 2x-8x sniper scope and free-hand
sighted my mildot on 3 planes' front quad, ie cockpit, with less than 1/4 drift.
Maybe you should lay off the caffeine if you can't steadily track an object
using a scope. Of course, I'm blessed with exceptional stability in that regard,
that's why they hired me.
Why do you need to see someone's pupil? Oh, you don't know about scatter/beam
spread and assume it has to directly go in their eyes!
And I wanted to attack this one directly:
hitting an airplane at altitude with a laser pointer is akin to shooting a target at a distance of 4 miles with a pistol... one handed and without bothering to use the sight.
Except, it isn't and you're an idiot. A laser is not affected by ANYTHING a
bullet is affected by, except dust and atmospheric density. A target at a distance
of 4 miles (assuming on the ground) is invisible due to the curvature of the earth.
Doesn't mean you can't hit it.. but you can't see it. So, since you can see the plane,
you fail on that count. Ballistics have gravity to account for, while a laser is laser
straight and doesn't waver, so, fail on that point. Not sure what one-handed has to do
with anything... obvious fail and when you say without sighting, it's really obvious that
you've run out of steam and are just pulling a string of anal beads out your ass.
And last... but certainly not least... http://bayimg.com/dakHGaADl
Taken with an EXTREMELY unremarkable 10x lens, by hand, no tripod,
from my balcony as they flew past. And I can CLEARLY see VISOR.
-AI
*Disclaimer for the spooks. Hi spooks, it's me again... just wanted to
let you and echelon know, I have no interest in effin with you guys in
any way... esp since u got things to go boom n stuff. So, no suits plz.
Didn't Arsenio Hall do that a lot back in the early 90s?
Funny, that's how I wind my auto.
-AI
Windows gets blamed for keeping so much antiquated code, to be able to run across such a wide range of platforms.
CPU manufacturers get shit for keeping their chips backward compatible.
Apple gets major shit for tying everything together into one microverse.
And now we are upset that we can't have both.
Please tell me how the fuck we can:
1) Keep the CPU die small
while
2) Keeping backward compatibility
while
3) Allowing forward compatibility
while
4) Providing an OS framework that will work on devices made years ago
Please... I'm fairly certain there's a business model in there. Then I can take it, get rich and become /s
one of the uncaring fucks that make up the 1%.
-AI
Please, how in the fuck is this news for nerds?
Please stay in your lane, editors.
Oh, so just cause you're not interested means you must deprive the rest?
Interesting... tell me more about your childhood. No sibs, or youngest child?
-AI
I will BUY TICKETS to that EVENT!
Wonder if Vegas is taking bets?
-AI
15 moderator points? lol, wtf?
Someone at Slashdot is gonna Qwikster here soon.
Willing to repeat that sentiment a few times aloud as someone points a 1W laser at your chest?
http://www.wickedlasers.com/lasers/Spyder_III_Pro_Arctic_Series-96-37.html
So because one company makes a 1 W laser, one should ban 5 mW laser pointers?
I'm sorry, I think you are reading way too far and not
at all as intended... into my statement.
I am the LEAST likely to want to "pass legislation to
protect the people" person out there.
I was simply responding to a serious over generalization
that lasers can only 'potentially' damage someone's eyes.
That "Shining lasers at people isn't dangerous."
Since 'burning' lasers have been around in compact form
for over a decade.
-AI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdCUpiI1MSA
-AI
Shining lasers at people isn't dangerous. Shining them at people's eyes can be. Big difference. Much like the difference between blowing hot air at your feet and hot air at your eyes.
Willing to repeat that sentiment a few times aloud as someone points a 1W laser at your chest?
http://www.wickedlasers.com/lasers/Spyder_III_Pro_Arctic_Series-96-37.html
-AI
You might even see the beam of a higher powered red laser at night if the air has the typical "city airport" level of pollutants and the beam was directed at you. At 600-800nm wavelengths, there is much more forward scattering than Raleigh scattering.
Potentially a typo, but for anyone looking up Rayleigh Scattering...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering
Raleigh, a city in NC, named after Sir Walter Raleigh.
Rayleigh, optical effect, named after Lord John William Strutt, 3rd Baron Rayleigh
-AI
(Did I Godwin anywhere?)
Lol, you're joking right?
Try not to just skip over the fact that you're trying to track an object moving at 150MPH+ next time when explaining your simplistic straight-line theory...moving vs. stationary targets is all the difference in the world, as anyone who's ever been involved in combat can attest.
Combat, lol... you're comparing the absolute straight line
of a laser... something unaffected by almost every single
type of atmospheric condition except particulate matter
and atmospheric lensing... to a ballistic piece of metal
that a little gust can blow off course and is continuously
subject to gravity.
Also, you are comparing "one particle" (a bullet) to millions
of particles, (photons).
Lastly, scuse me while I have to laugh again, LOL... combat.
Open invitation to anyone that wants to "test combat"
ability of lasers vs lead. Email me, my nickname @ gmail
put gunrange (one word) in the title.
We'll go shoot on some open desert land. And I'll use my
non-ballistic laser to stack some ballistic lead on top of each
other way downrange.
http://bayimg.com/kaKcdAadl
That thing is FUN to shoot. Yup, it's an AKM, that I kit converted
to a bullpup, ala Steyr Aug. Added Chech optics and (one of the
better) Chinese green dot lasers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_AUG
FWIW... to all those people that are saying... "You can't
lock on a moving target... too fast, blahzay blah"...
Tell that to our dead soldiers.
A green dot attached to a sniper rifle with a honkin ass scope
at a klick, I can guarantee one could solidly paint someone's face.
We have F-18's fly by all the time... 3-4x as fast as landing speed.
I've videoed them going past... easily keeping the jet in frame.
With a laser scope attached... IT WOULD BE JUST AS EASY
SINCE IT'S L/o/S.
Furthermore, let's say "we were in combat". At a klick,
with a good, heavy assault rifle, maybe some tracers to help...
I'm 98% certain, a plane traveling at only 150mph would
be a sitting duck.
Mostly helo's get the lead treatment due to flight envelope,
"in combat". But the fact that they go down... is evidence
that a jet in the same predicament would fair just as poorly.
Lastly... if you want to apply the law of cosines or Pythagoras,
the angular momentum and all that stuff, at a kilometer, the
apparent angle of movement is really tiny for a landing aircraft.
It's not like you are trying to point at a car going 150mph right
past you. It takes a good solid 20-30 seconds for a standard
heavy to pass overhead from first sound thru last sound envelope.
Roughly a 45 viewing angle. So, you're saying you can't track
a "slow" object that takes 20 seconds to cross your visual path?
For comparison, imagine being at a NASCAR race, which we
also have here. Trackside, the cars are blasting past you. On
the opposite side of the track, you could outstretch your arm
and follow any car, easily. Now they are just shy of 150mph
on our short track, however, they are MUCH closer.
My only concerns with writing any of this... I really don't want
anyone to test this stuff. Just please, accept that it's all true.
It is VERY easy to hit a plane with a laser. No need to try, that
is what the article was about, it obviously succeeds enough that
it is a problem.
Also, for Echelon and any spooks reading... I'm a pacifist and
Buddhist and would never consider harming anyone or anything.
In fact, I just relocated some black widows that were 'getting too
large to share my tiny property'. Worried my darn terriers are
going to get curious. Brrrr... spiders, ick. lol.
Nor do I have the childlike instinct to test what I know to be true.
So, please... no suits at the door!
-AI
Then holy shit, every big corp pitch in a million or fifty to develop the tech to be anti-laser-glare windshields and boom, problem solved.
That is a good "point".
Even at landing glide path, it would be close to impossible to align,
directly with the pilot's eyes (on normal terrain).
Here in Phoenix though, we have 3 mountain ranges that would
allow you to gain a good altitude to hit someone's eyes in the
cockpit.
But you're right... doing what (we) do best, capitalism... someone
should work on that, make a whole bunch of money and then
the incidence level will drop.
-AI
I don't doubt that this is a problem, but I'd like to know what the pilots experience is when this happens. Does the laser light cause the entire cockpit to light up? What kind of disturbance does it cause?
Depends on the particular laser, quality, build, color, power, etc.
Also depends on how clean the cockpit glass is at that spot it is hitting.
Laser quality affects the collimation at a great distance, where a
cheaply built Chinese green targeting laser has a pretty appreciable
spread at landing altitude. At a half mile, my green dot is a good
inch or so, diameter.
That coupled with a bug splattered cockpit glass, would produce some
pretty overwhelming speculars in the cockpit, also potentially striking
off of other reflective objects.
Potentially worse would be a very finely collimated laser making its
way into the cockpit and having a specular reflection directly in the
pilot's eyes. A suitable powered green laser would cause at best,
temporary blindness. Total blindness while not common isn't ruled out.
And that laser could get the co-pilot as well, easily. Just leaving the
flight tech to land.
And this is on approach, 5 minutes or so to get squared or splatted.
I live in Phoenix, where the article mentions some of the highest
incidences. And I can believe it. When I first got back into Real Estate
here, I attempted to draw a map of all the "noise zones" associated
with aircraft here. I gave up as soon as I realized there was ZERO
land mass in the Phoenix valley that does not have SOME air traffic
at least hourly during flight traffic hours for the commuter airfields.
7pm at night, I've counted 20+ planes aloft. Gets crowded up there
when we have UFO's too. =) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights
What's worse, west phoenix has all those hot shots in their F-18s,
flying their practice sorties 4 at a time coming out of Luke AFB.
Right... over... head. Sigh. Can't wait to hear the LOUDER F-35,
since we won the bid. Hope they are deployed after I move.
-AI
I'd think it'd be pretty hard to accurately aim a laser pointer at a moving aircraft. I'm surprised it's such an issue.
Lol, you're joking right?
Maybe you're unaware that all those photons travel in an extremely straight line? /s
and you just move that straight line until it intersects an airplane. I could draw
a diagram, but it would look rather basic, with a straight line and all that.
-AI
I submitted a post that Google has stopped using the + symbol
to denote boolean AND, (ie specifically to require the word in
the results.)
It has been replaced with double quotes.
I for one find it EXTREMELY annoying after a decade and a half
of the 'correct way' to have to completely relearn the new way.
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=24913740
-AI
It sounds funny, but my favorite feature of my MacBook is the MASSIVE touchpad that works flawlessly. I don't know why manufacturer's skimp on the touchpad given that it's the primary input device,
Maybe you have a misunderstanding of primary, or maybe input...
but I have NEVER had a pointer as a primary input device on any
computer.
Additionally, those that DO NOT CONSIDER a mouse, tp, pointer
to be a primary input device probably don't want it consuming the
very important space for your palm, when you are using the REAL
primary input device on a computer.
-AI
I'm quite certain you are wrong on all 3 counts.
Interesting unannounced fact is, iOS 5 does support widgets. They dont work as Android ones, though, and are not (yet) available for third party development. They are part of the new notifications pulldown
Part of the new notifications pulldown... rofl, you almost owed me a coffee.
-AI
Ah! "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine, too..." That attitude seems pretty common of late. That Jobs had it to such a degree is surprising because he has so often been promoted as being a long-time Buddhist. So why would he not simply be happy with the success he already had, and let karma take care of the rest? Becoming 'livid' and authoring 'expletive-laced' emails are not examples of someone walking the Middle Way. Going "thermonuclear" *certainly* isn't either, lol.
I hope that he worked this conflict out and achieved some semblance of nirvana prior to his death.
You know, that is a good post. I hadn't even thought about his
Buddhist claims til you (or anyone else) brings it up. Cause,
he really isn't... at all. lol
-AI