Nah - you could do something much easier with Applescript. You'd still need to get the user to click on the script to execute it, though plenty of windows viruses have been sucessful at getting people to do just that.
Thankfully, checking through the Applescript dictionary of iTunes, there's no trivial "buy music" object/method to work with.
It just so happens that 501 is the user number of the first user created on the machine - so, if it's "your" mac and you're the only one using it, 501 is a good place to look.
A fine discussion for something which will never happen:)
You're right - enough stuff could be changed on Apple-brand motherboards to make it not-very-useful to get OS X running on "standard" hardware. However, short of a hardware lock, I still content some deranged individual would make it happen, solely for the hack value.
But I'd also say that Apple moving OS X to x86 boxes would signal the end of Apple-as-a-hardware company - which I mean from a corporate, strategic sense, as in Steve Jobs saying "we're getting out of the hardware business" Which would mean they wouldn't be designing their own motherboards. Which means this wouldn't be an issue. Of course, I also think that'd be a remarkably dumb thing for Apple to do.
Just as an aside - home brewed kernels are possible - despite your associates having failures. I'm thinking in particular of the instructions for getting OS X to boot on non-Apple supported machines using home-brewed kernels (still Apple boxes, of course).
Thanks - I learned something from your explanations.
Interesting. But I still think it might be easier than you're making it out to be (although maybe not as easy as I said originally) - at least as long as Apple doesn't un-opensource the kernel, simply because it still handles all access to the hardware.
Just to make sure I undersand your argument, I'll break out the main points. Please correct as necessary:
1) Apple designs its own chipset for x86 2) This chipset could perform some encryption/decryption of specific data or include "purposeful" mistakes 3) a userland (closed source) program could submit specific data and check results of encryption/decryption or, alternately, look for the "mistakes" to see if it was Apple certified hardware
I guess here's how I think it such a scheme could be defeated:
1) Buy an Apple x86 running OS X. 2) Replace stock OS X kernel with home-compiled kernel (as far as the userland program is concerned, things are still cool) 3) modify home-compiled kernel to dump all requests to access hardware, along with requested data and any returned from-hardware data to file. 4) Compare a dump of this file with OS X booting off a non-Apple x86 box. Isolate the differences. 5) Modify kernel to report back exactly what Apple hardware sends back. 6) Repeat until successful.
Feel free to point out where I've gone horribly wrong. I already came up with "the userland program generated a random number on each boot, and asked the hardware to encrypt/decrypt it, and checks results of encryption/decryption", in which case the above strategy wouldn't work.
But - in that case, couldn't you peak through the binary/assembly of the non-opensourced check program, figure out where it decides the hardware isn't correct, and using your favorite editor make it jump down the "hardware is correct" path instead? I was under the impression this is how lots of cracked binaries of various commercial software programs had been made. And those usually only take a day or two to become available:)
I agree - a released for commercial use x86 port won't happen anytime in the forseeable future.
However - if it was releasead for x86, there is no way Apple could keep it bootable "only" on Apple-supplied x86 machines.
All the kernel code can be download here. It would take a motivated (and reasonably knowledgeable) individual not very long to either release a kernel with any special-Apple-only-hardware checks removed or to add in support for other BIOSes, etc.
Or, of course, Apple could un-open-source its code.
LOL - so originally when I posted it I just remember somebody telling me "you DEFINATELY don't want to do lead then plastic," and not remembering the reason that they gave me, and figuring "heck, it's slashdot - who's going to bother to ask?"
So, I'll give you a couple facts I've come up with from a few websites (really, just refer to this one) , and then make a guess (which is probably wrong, but it'll be in the ballpark) for why this happens.
1.Bremsstrahlung radiation (ie, braking radiation) comes from the collision of our friendly beta particles with something else which slows them down. 2. You can also get x-rays from electronic transitions in materials with high atomic numbers (ie, >20). This can be set off by process 1.
So here's my guess:
Plexiglas is a polymer, primarily of carbon (Z=12). You only get bremsstrahlung radiation from it, and relatively low amounts. The polymer eats up all the beta particles, leaving only released x-rays to be soaked up by the lead without any additional problems.
Lead is heavy (atomic number=82). You can get both 1 & 2 from it. The lead is relatively thin (although dense). Much of the hard x-rays released from it make it out, and the plexiglas doesn't do diddly squat as far as soaking them up.
If you can get someone with a better background in physics to give you a more detailed explanation, feel free to post a reply so that I'll know too.
Beta radiation can be shielded against with tinfoil
we typically use plexiglas in the lab when working with P32.
You'll get a little bremsstrahlung radiation (which will be very low energy) from this, which if you're feeling extremely anal you can shield with a little led on the outside of the plexiglas. Usually nobody bothers.
You DEFINATELY don't want to do lead first, plexiglas second, though.
Actually, it says at the bottom of the page (ya know, this one) that this update "allows administration of desktop and notebook computers running Mac OS 8.1 through Mac OS 9.2, or Mac OS X v10.1 or later."
So it looks like there's something there for the older OS.
On this point, I can't speak with certainty. You very well may be right. And I've got to get a poster out today and get ready for a conference, so I'm not going to have time to do the research.
Let's grant that you are correct - that France gets some sweet deals as soon as sanctions go away.
Does that make Rush's comment, that for France, this is all about oil, because France gets all of its oil from Iraq through deals cooked up in the 70's primarily correct?
I'd argue no - France still gets a very very small percentage of it's total oil from Iraq. And, since France has been arguing for continued inspections and sanctions rather than war, I don't think you can say they're trying to trigger the deals established earlier.
So I'd still say Rush is wildly misstating France's motivations for opposing attacks on Iraq.
I think it makes liars out of those chanting "No Blood for Oil"
I think this is the same sort of sloppiness with the facts (from the left) that Rush is guilty of (from the right). It's a catchy slogan they've heard from somebody else and can easily parrot back. I doubt 99.9% of the people chanting that have bothered to do any research about who gets oil from where.
But I wouldn't call them "liars," any more than I'd call somebody that after listening to Rush's show told me that France got most of its oil from Iraq. If I was feeling kind, I'd call them "misinformed" or just "duped." If I wasn't, I'd call them gullible idiots. Both groups are guilty of the same sort of laziness. Which lets both be manipulated to benefit someone else's agenda.
...but i noticed something else. my original source for the amount of french imports is clearly incorrect.
using the more recent figures I get from your link, Algeria & Nigeria both provided France more oil than Iraq in 2002 (1.376 m bbl vs. 1.196 m bbl vs 0.953 m bbl). Which puts Iraq at only 4th among OPEC countries (Saudi Arabia being #1). Since 68% of France's oil has to come from someplace else, I suspect the UK & Norway (simply by proximity, which saves a bundle on shipping costs) still provide more than Iraq.
Nothing pleases me more than when someone wants to debate things and uses facts to support their argument. I commend you, sir. Now, with the plesantries out of the way . ..
This statement is not correct:
"their imports from Iraq FAR exeec those of any other country except Saudi Arabia."
It would be correct if you added "from all OPEC countries." UK & Norway aren't in OPEC. Saudi Arabia & Iraq are (you can see for yourself here.) And, as my previous post stated, UK & Norway were numbers 2 & 3 on the list (Saudi being #1, and Iraq #4 as i recall)
Referring to the excel spreadsheet (t310.xls) you can download from the link you provided - look at rows 12 & 13. Row 12 is total gross import of oil - for the year, adding up that row, I get 26.88 m bbl. Row 13 is gross imports from OPEC:the sum for that row is 8.55 (same units). So OPEC provides 31.8% of France's total oil imports. The other 68 odd percent come from other sources (including Norway, the UK, and other various and sundry countries), which, unfortunately, weren't broken out in this spreadsheet. Now, let's continue with the math - using your number of 0.953 m bbl total Iraqi oil, with a total of 26.88 m bbl, we can get the actual percentage coming from Iraq.
Iraq provides 3.5% of the total imports to France. November 2002, the month which you mentioned had the greatest Iraqi imports, the figure came out to 4.3%.
Interestingly enough, from the same link you provided, you can download a spreadsheet with the U.S.' oil imports. (it's table 3.7, or t37.xls). I did the same series of mathematical manipulations for the U.S. as I did for France (going by gross imports - not sure what net is, but doesn't change that much.)
Iraq provides 3.9% of the total imports to the U.S. (5.316 m bbl from Iraq, total of 136.259 m bbl).
So, since France gets 3.5% of its total oil imports from Iraq, and that fraction is large enough (by your & Mr. Limbaugh's argument) to make them want to oppose the war . . . wouldn't that mean the U.S., with our 3.9% dependance on Iraqi oil, would be even less willing to "rock the boat," if you will?
And if you think the 0.9 m bbl France imports in Iraq is stunning - what do you think about the U.S.'s 5.3 m bbl?
BTW - go read through the transcript this Rush quote came from. He spends a significant amount of time discussing France's dependence on Iraqi oil as the sole reason they're against the war. When you read that, keep in mind the relative percentages of imports for the US & France. Really think about it. Now ask yourself - was his statement really "not too damn far off"? I contend in the context in which he used it, it's very far off. And I also contend if you do more fact checking like this, you won't find he's 99% correct.
Also - I'm not going to let you get away with the line "certainly doesn't compare to the outright lies coming from the left." When somebody says something like this (doesn't matter who, doesn't matter what political affiliation) my BS meter goes off. Everybody's BS meter should go off. What lies? Be specific. I'd be happy to research whatever you point out, so that I know the truth, because I don't like to be fed BS. But you've got to give some details.
People want to manipulate you. They will lie to you. They will not tell you all the facts. You've got to dig deeper. When somebody from the right or the left tells you something "big" - go investigate.
By the way - it took me no more than 10 minutes the first time I went looking for this. Quite a bit longer on this reply, obviously.
Oh - yea, thanks for the link on oil imports. It's really a wealth of information.
Rush: "the one nation on earth to whom this is only and all about oil is France. France imports most of its oil, and gets the vast majority of that from Iraq. They have sweet economic deals that go back to the 70s made between Saddam Hussein and Jacques Strap Chirac, and I'm telling you, their opposition to this is rooted solely in their desire for an uninterrupted, continued supply of oil from Iraq."
"French imports come primarily from Saudi Arabia and Norway, followed by the United Kingdom (UK), Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, and Russia. In July 2001, the Iraqi government stated that it would reconsider oil projects with French companies and no longer give French companies "priority" due to France's support of the U.S.-British "Smart Sanctions" proposal at the United Nations Security Council."
So - no, France does not import "the vast majority" of its oil from Iraq, and any "sweet deals" they had worked out were apparently ended in 2001 because France wanted to continue sanctions against Iraq.
Think of all the "anit-France" bashing going on in the U.S. right now. Don't you think this kind of claim from Rush helps contribute to that? Does it really have the same impact if Rush says, "for France, this is all about oil from their 4th largest supplier that cut their oil companies out in 2001 because of their willingness to continue with sanctions?"
I don't know - maybe you'll say "well, it's just one little misstatement", but it's symptomatic of a pattern. There is more than one of these "little misstatements" that get thrown out there, that nobody bothers to follow up on, and that shape the tone of the debate (for the worse, I'll say - because it's not based on the truth).
Browse his radio transcripts (see the link above). Look for particularly inflammatory claims, or statements of fact. Do some research on your own to see if it's exactly as Rush has proclaimed. Perhaps you'll find out 99% of what he says is true. Perhaps not. But at least then YOU can say with confidence that you trust what he says because YOU have checked up on him.
oh, yea - I did a fair amount of looking, and this was the most recent, least biased source I could come up with. Feel free to find a more recent (than Jan 2002) article from an equally repudiable source to prove me wrong.
- as another responder already mentioned, if you're reading slashdot, you ARE "the rich"
- a world econonmy helps "the owner" rather than "the rich." if you're not the owner - you're hired help. and hired help can and will be replaced if somebody cheaper comes along.
The major problem with the Japanese standard from 10 years ago was that it's analog (ie, look here or here.)
Analog signals can't be compressed nearly as well as digital - so stations would need big new allocations of the spectrum to broadcast (fat chance). It also means good bye, interactive TV, good bye multicasts, etc - there just wouldn't be the room for them. (you can get more info about this here, if interested.)
here's a couple of reasons I can think off the top of my head:
1) we've got to get the ship someplace where there are "space rocks". a low-earth orbit really isn't going to accomplish that - you'd have to go to the asteroid belt for a ready supply. that's not easy. or, conversly, you land someplace where rocks may have accumulated (ie, the moon, mars).
2) if you send a ship to a place with lots of space rocks, the ship is going to get hit by a lot of space rocks. shielding becomes a problem.
3) if you land some place, you're stuck getting rocks next to where you land (like viking) or you've got to build a way to move around (like pathfinder)
4) building a reliable, completely automated assay for amino acids is not trivial. if it's mobile, that's going to be even less trivial.
This is my last response. We're pointing you right at the facts but you keep screaming we're wrong.
The Apple link I pointed to before has the following paragraph. You were apparently too damn lazy to do the search I mentioned, so I'll reprint it here.
In addition to providing the best web browser for Mac users, one of the goals of Safari is to provide a fast and efficient HTML rendering engine for Mac application developers. Apple is actively preparing a Safari SDK that will be available later this year.
Hey - look - an embeddable cocoa component. No, it's not ready yet. But Safari (and webcore) are still beta - the SDK comes out when webcore gets finalized.
Fixed Dave Hyatt link (posting on January 17, 5:10 PM) here. Quoting again (following a quote from the above ADC link)
In other words, all good things come to those who wait, so be patient!:)
And as far as your delusional assertion that a) Apple's sticking with a branch of KHTML 3.0.2 which isn't being released or that they're not integrating things back from KHTML, further quotes from Hyatt's blog:
I landed the new table code from the KHTML trunk in WebCore today. Meanwhile Lars is working on a new CSS parser on the KHTML trunk that we'll be taking back into Safari once it's baked a bit longer.
Slashdot Mirror
*snap* *snap* *snap* *snap* *snap*
really well done.
Oh, really? Somebody better tell the boys at IBM.
No, there isn't a keyboard shortcut (that I can find after a minute of searchign) for "buy music".
Yes, OS X does recognize OSAX's, but if this becomes standard in 10.3, all kinds of crazy things could be done without any sorts of additions.
And yes, thankfully nobody seems to want to be that distructive.
Nah - you could do something much easier with Applescript. You'd still need to get the user to click on the script to execute it, though plenty of windows viruses have been sucessful at getting people to do just that.
Thankfully, checking through the Applescript dictionary of iTunes, there's no trivial "buy music" object/method to work with.
This was a truly brilliant response.
I commend you, sir.
It'll actually be in /tmp/(your user number).
It just so happens that 501 is the user number of the first user created on the machine - so, if it's "your" mac and you're the only one using it, 501 is a good place to look.
Otherwise - you'll have to hunt around a bit.
you can always look in . . . . /tmp/(your user id number)/Temporary Items/QTPluginTemp(random string)
/tmp/501/Temporary Items/QTPluginTemp55271
ie,
You're right - enough stuff could be changed on Apple-brand motherboards to make it not-very-useful to get OS X running on "standard" hardware. However, short of a hardware lock, I still content some deranged individual would make it happen, solely for the hack value.
But I'd also say that Apple moving OS X to x86 boxes would signal the end of Apple-as-a-hardware company - which I mean from a corporate, strategic sense, as in Steve Jobs saying "we're getting out of the hardware business" Which would mean they wouldn't be designing their own motherboards. Which means this wouldn't be an issue. Of course, I also think that'd be a remarkably dumb thing for Apple to do.
Just as an aside - home brewed kernels are possible - despite your associates having failures. I'm thinking in particular of the instructions for getting OS X to boot on non-Apple supported machines using home-brewed kernels (still Apple boxes, of course).
Thanks - I learned something from your explanations.
Interesting. But I still think it might be easier than you're making it out to be (although maybe not as easy as I said originally) - at least as long as Apple doesn't un-opensource the kernel, simply because it still handles all access to the hardware.
:)
Just to make sure I undersand your argument, I'll break out the main points. Please correct as necessary:
1) Apple designs its own chipset for x86
2) This chipset could perform some encryption/decryption of specific data or include "purposeful" mistakes
3) a userland (closed source) program could submit specific data and check results of encryption/decryption or, alternately, look for the "mistakes" to see if it was Apple certified hardware
I guess here's how I think it such a scheme could be defeated:
1) Buy an Apple x86 running OS X.
2) Replace stock OS X kernel with home-compiled kernel (as far as the userland program is concerned, things are still cool)
3) modify home-compiled kernel to dump all requests to access hardware, along with requested data and any returned from-hardware data to file.
4) Compare a dump of this file with OS X booting off a non-Apple x86 box. Isolate the differences.
5) Modify kernel to report back exactly what Apple hardware sends back.
6) Repeat until successful.
Feel free to point out where I've gone horribly wrong. I already came up with "the userland program generated a random number on each boot, and asked the hardware to encrypt/decrypt it, and checks results of encryption/decryption", in which case the above strategy wouldn't work.
But - in that case, couldn't you peak through the binary/assembly of the non-opensourced check program, figure out where it decides the hardware isn't correct, and using your favorite editor make it jump down the "hardware is correct" path instead? I was under the impression this is how lots of cracked binaries of various commercial software programs had been made. And those usually only take a day or two to become available
However - if it was releasead for x86, there is no way Apple could keep it bootable "only" on Apple-supplied x86 machines.
All the kernel code can be download here. It would take a motivated (and reasonably knowledgeable) individual not very long to either release a kernel with any special-Apple-only-hardware checks removed or to add in support for other BIOSes, etc.
Or, of course, Apple could un-open-source its code.
In a followup to what the other responder said, I'd suggest "Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X" by Aaron Hillegass.
Excellent, excellent book.
While it's a huge plane, which will be impressive to see, no doubt, I still don't think it has the "style" of the 747.
Gotta love the hump.
LOL - so originally when I posted it I just remember somebody telling me "you DEFINATELY don't want to do lead then plastic," and not remembering the reason that they gave me, and figuring "heck, it's slashdot - who's going to bother to ask?"
So, I'll give you a couple facts I've come up with from a few websites (really, just refer to this one) , and then make a guess (which is probably wrong, but it'll be in the ballpark) for why this happens.
1.Bremsstrahlung radiation (ie, braking radiation) comes from the collision of our friendly beta particles with something else which slows them down.
2. You can also get x-rays from electronic transitions in materials with high atomic numbers (ie, >20). This can be set off by process 1.
So here's my guess:
Plexiglas is a polymer, primarily of carbon (Z=12). You only get bremsstrahlung radiation from it, and relatively low amounts. The polymer eats up all the beta particles, leaving only released x-rays to be soaked up by the lead without any additional problems.
Lead is heavy (atomic number=82). You can get both 1 & 2 from it. The lead is relatively thin (although dense). Much of the hard x-rays released from it make it out, and the plexiglas doesn't do diddly squat as far as soaking them up.
If you can get someone with a better background in physics to give you a more detailed explanation, feel free to post a reply so that I'll know too.
we typically use plexiglas in the lab when working with P32.
You'll get a little bremsstrahlung radiation (which will be very low energy) from this, which if you're feeling extremely anal you can shield with a little led on the outside of the plexiglas.
Usually nobody bothers.
You DEFINATELY don't want to do lead first, plexiglas second, though.
Actually, it says at the bottom of the page (ya know, this one) that this update "allows administration of desktop and notebook computers running Mac OS 8.1 through Mac OS 9.2, or Mac OS X v10.1 or later."
So it looks like there's something there for the older OS.
On this point, I can't speak with certainty. You very well may be right. And I've got to get a poster out today and get ready for a conference, so I'm not going to have time to do the research.
Let's grant that you are correct - that France gets some sweet deals as soon as sanctions go away.
Does that make Rush's comment, that for France, this is all about oil, because France gets all of its oil from Iraq through deals cooked up in the 70's primarily correct?
I'd argue no - France still gets a very very small percentage of it's total oil from Iraq. And, since France has been arguing for continued inspections and sanctions rather than war, I don't think you can say they're trying to trigger the deals established earlier.
So I'd still say Rush is wildly misstating France's motivations for opposing attacks on Iraq.
Your thoughts?
I think this is the same sort of sloppiness with the facts (from the left) that Rush is guilty of (from the right). It's a catchy slogan they've heard from somebody else and can easily parrot back. I doubt 99.9% of the people chanting that have bothered to do any research about who gets oil from where.
But I wouldn't call them "liars," any more than I'd call somebody that after listening to Rush's show told me that France got most of its oil from Iraq. If I was feeling kind, I'd call them "misinformed" or just "duped." If I wasn't, I'd call them gullible idiots. Both groups are guilty of the same sort of laziness. Which lets both be manipulated to benefit someone else's agenda.
It's been a good chat.
...but i noticed something else. my original source for the amount of french imports is clearly incorrect.
using the more recent figures I get from your link, Algeria & Nigeria both provided France more oil than Iraq in 2002 (1.376 m bbl vs. 1.196 m bbl vs 0.953 m bbl). Which puts Iraq at only 4th among OPEC countries (Saudi Arabia being #1). Since 68% of France's oil has to come from someplace else, I suspect the UK & Norway (simply by proximity, which saves a bundle on shipping costs) still provide more than Iraq.
Nothing pleases me more than when someone wants to debate things and uses facts to support their argument. I commend you, sir. Now, with the plesantries out of the way . . .
:the sum for that row is 8.55 (same units). So OPEC provides 31.8% of France's total oil imports. The other 68 odd percent come from other sources (including Norway, the UK, and other various and sundry countries), which, unfortunately, weren't broken out in this spreadsheet. Now, let's continue with the math - using your number of 0.953 m bbl total Iraqi oil, with a total of 26.88 m bbl, we can get the actual percentage coming from Iraq.
This statement is not correct:
"their imports from Iraq FAR exeec those of any other country except Saudi Arabia."
It would be correct if you added "from all OPEC countries." UK & Norway aren't in OPEC. Saudi Arabia & Iraq are (you can see for yourself here.) And, as my previous post stated, UK & Norway were numbers 2 & 3 on the list (Saudi being #1, and Iraq #4 as i recall)
Referring to the excel spreadsheet (t310.xls) you can download from the link you provided - look at rows 12 & 13. Row 12 is total gross import of oil - for the year, adding up that row, I get 26.88 m bbl. Row 13 is gross imports from OPEC
Iraq provides 3.5% of the total imports to France. November 2002, the month which you mentioned had the greatest Iraqi imports, the figure came out to 4.3%.
Interestingly enough, from the same link you provided, you can download a spreadsheet with the U.S.' oil imports. (it's table 3.7, or t37.xls). I did the same series of mathematical manipulations for the U.S. as I did for France (going by gross imports - not sure what net is, but doesn't change that much.)
Iraq provides 3.9% of the total imports to the U.S. (5.316 m bbl from Iraq, total of 136.259 m bbl).
So, since France gets 3.5% of its total oil imports from Iraq, and that fraction is large enough (by your & Mr. Limbaugh's argument) to make them want to oppose the war . . . wouldn't that mean the U.S., with our 3.9% dependance on Iraqi oil, would be even less willing to "rock the boat," if you will?
And if you think the 0.9 m bbl France imports in Iraq is stunning - what do you think about the U.S.'s 5.3 m bbl?
BTW - go read through the transcript this Rush quote came from. He spends a significant amount of time discussing France's dependence on Iraqi oil as the sole reason they're against the war. When you read that, keep in mind the relative percentages of imports for the US & France. Really think about it. Now ask yourself - was his statement really "not too damn far off"? I contend in the context in which he used it, it's very far off. And I also contend if you do more fact checking like this, you won't find he's 99% correct.
Also - I'm not going to let you get away with the line "certainly doesn't compare to the outright lies coming from the left." When somebody says something like this (doesn't matter who, doesn't matter what political affiliation) my BS meter goes off. Everybody's BS meter should go off. What lies? Be specific. I'd be happy to research whatever you point out, so that I know the truth, because I don't like to be fed BS. But you've got to give some details.
People want to manipulate you. They will lie to you. They will not tell you all the facts. You've got to dig deeper. When somebody from the right or the left tells you something "big" - go investigate.
By the way - it took me no more than 10 minutes the first time I went looking for this. Quite a bit longer on this reply, obviously.
Oh - yea, thanks for the link on oil imports. It's really a wealth of information.
You can get this quote from the Rush Limbaugh transcript archive from Tuesday, Feb 25, 2003:
Rush: "the one nation on earth to whom this is only and all about oil is France. France imports most of its oil, and gets the vast majority of that from Iraq. They have sweet economic deals that go back to the 70s made between Saddam Hussein and Jacques Strap Chirac, and I'm telling you, their opposition to this is rooted solely in their desire for an uninterrupted, continued supply of oil from Iraq."
Let's see what the Department of Energy has to say about this little bombshell:
"French imports come primarily from Saudi Arabia and Norway, followed by the United Kingdom (UK), Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, and Russia. In July 2001, the Iraqi government stated that it would reconsider oil projects with French companies and no longer give French companies "priority" due to France's support of the U.S.-British "Smart Sanctions" proposal at the United Nations Security Council."
So - no, France does not import "the vast majority" of its oil from Iraq, and any "sweet deals" they had worked out were apparently ended in 2001 because France wanted to continue sanctions against Iraq.
Think of all the "anit-France" bashing going on in the U.S. right now. Don't you think this kind of claim from Rush helps contribute to that? Does it really have the same impact if Rush says, "for France, this is all about oil from their 4th largest supplier that cut their oil companies out in 2001 because of their willingness to continue with sanctions?"
I don't know - maybe you'll say "well, it's just one little misstatement", but it's symptomatic of a pattern. There is more than one of these "little misstatements" that get thrown out there, that nobody bothers to follow up on, and that shape the tone of the debate (for the worse, I'll say - because it's not based on the truth).
Browse his radio transcripts (see the link above). Look for particularly inflammatory claims, or statements of fact. Do some research on your own to see if it's exactly as Rush has proclaimed. Perhaps you'll find out 99% of what he says is true. Perhaps not. But at least then YOU can say with confidence that you trust what he says because YOU have checked up on him.
oh, yea - I did a fair amount of looking, and this was the most recent, least biased source I could come up with. Feel free to find a more recent (than Jan 2002) article from an equally repudiable source to prove me wrong.
Two points:
- as another responder already mentioned, if you're reading slashdot, you ARE "the rich"
- a world econonmy helps "the owner" rather than "the rich." if you're not the owner - you're hired help. and hired help can and will be replaced if somebody cheaper comes along.
Analog signals can't be compressed nearly as well as digital - so stations would need big new allocations of the spectrum to broadcast (fat chance). It also means good bye, interactive TV, good bye multicasts, etc - there just wouldn't be the room for them. (you can get more info about this here, if interested.)
here's a couple of reasons I can think off the top of my head:
1) we've got to get the ship someplace where there are "space rocks". a low-earth orbit really isn't going to accomplish that - you'd have to go to the asteroid belt for a ready supply. that's not easy. or, conversly, you land someplace where rocks may have accumulated (ie, the moon, mars).
2) if you send a ship to a place with lots of space rocks, the ship is going to get hit by a lot of space rocks. shielding becomes a problem.
3) if you land some place, you're stuck getting rocks next to where you land (like viking) or you've got to build a way to move around (like pathfinder)
4) building a reliable, completely automated assay for amino acids is not trivial. if it's mobile, that's going to be even less trivial.
Looks like there are sourceforge projects here and here (although the first project actually has code, and the 2nd looks just like a description.)
Not to mention you can get the "real" rendezvous source here from Apple.
The Apple link I pointed to before has the following paragraph. You were apparently too damn lazy to do the search I mentioned, so I'll reprint it here.
Hey - look - an embeddable cocoa component. No, it's not ready yet. But Safari (and webcore) are still beta - the SDK comes out when webcore gets finalized.
Fixed Dave Hyatt link (posting on January 17, 5:10 PM) here.
Quoting again (following a quote from the above ADC link)
And as far as your delusional assertion that a) Apple's sticking with a branch of KHTML 3.0.2 which isn't being released or that they're not integrating things back from KHTML, further quotes from Hyatt's blog:
Lars being Lars Knoll, KHTML developer.
And finally, talk of a unified codebase here