Recent? 10 years? You must have me mistaken for someone else. I switched when Apple went PPC. My first Mac was a 601. I run OS X at home, and at work, I run XP; what my employer dictates. I make my living fixing Windows problems. Sometimes linux, sometimes AIX, whatever makes my house payments.
Sometimes I worry that Apple will abandon me - on my G5, PPC-based Mac, just as they abandoned the "Old World" PPC Macs. I expect my macs to last 3-5 years. I upgraded my 7100 to a G3, because Apple made my software choices difficult. Not because the machine wore out. I upgraded my G3, because they limited my software choices (via iDVD - no "built-in" DVD burner - technically, my expansion, an external firewire DVD burner should work just fine - the choice was free iDVD, or $999 DVD Studio Pro. I would have paid probably $100 for a working iDVD. But Apple wanted me to buy new hardware. So I did. I bought a G5, and got out of it, what I expected. But I expect another 2 years of reliable, and FLEXIBLE utilization out of it. I hope that Apple will not cut me off because I'm not running a box with an intel chip, or I'm not running a box with the latest bootstrap scheme of the day. I'm not hopeful, because I've been burned twice before.
So I'm no Apple fanboi.
But I'm not going to switch to Windows. Or Linux. I know the pitfalls. Intimately. I have been constantly painted into corners by vender-lock-in for 15 years in my career. Among these three choices; Apple is the least troublesome. Though - Linux comes in a VERY close second. (vendor lock-in, not a problem. Software flexibility - a problem, for me).
But anyway - weren't we talking about Symantec? Oh never mind.
hm. Ya ever think that a dictator who needed the support of the conservative faction of the military ever needed to appease them to stay in power and avoid a coup? Ya ever think that maybe the bluster was empty saber rattling designed for domestic consumption? (much like Bush's).
To put this in perspective, let's say that there's a suspected child molester in your town. The police have been tipped off that he might have molested someone's kid, but they can't get any evidence of that actually happening, and the suspect will not allow police to search his property. An angry coalition of parents descends on his house, and burns his house to the ground.
Well, they should just vote the fucker out of office. . .
Then, before the 2003 invasion, while Bush was claiming Saddam wasn't allowing inspectors, Saddam had allowed inspectors. Of course, the inspectors were forced to leave when Bush invaded.
Nobody disputes that Saddam wasn't working programs after 1991, but BEFORE 1996 when Clinton bombed the crap out of his sites using intelligence from spies we planted among the weapons inspectors.
If the article was specific about those papers - that they were, in fact, definitely from a current (2002-ish) program, instead of a discontinued legacy (1996) - (ie. NOT AN IMMANENT THREAT) program, then I'd be more likely to believe it. But frankly, it sounds like the same old doublespeak scaremongering we've heard for the last 4 years.
Unfortunately, it is not specific about which documents were from 1990, and which were from 2002. The manifest of toilet paper purchase for public buildings in 2002 probably would not constitute much of a threat.
If you read the weasel-words in the quoted text, it sure sounds like we're being misled to believe that Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program in 2002. They IMPLY it, without actually saying so - because if they did, they'd probably have to provide proof, which they probably don't have. Considering the proven lies we've heard on this topic before - I would be more likely to believe such an assertion if the writer was more clear and concise, and definite.
Honestly, in the 10 years since I've been a "Mac man" - Symantec has done far more harm (in the form of instability, hangs, kernel panics, and impossible-to-remove software) to my home computer systems than any virus ever did.
Ironically - MY customer wants all of their systems to uniformly display time in UTC (what they call "Zulu-time". - UTC is a good enough approximation for what it really is).
But over the years they've switched back and forth, because certain high level (military) officials still couldn't show up at certain events on time because they couldn't figure out Zulu. You'd think they taught this stuff at OCS. Yeah, working for the DoD sucks sometimes.
Eventually, we just installed dual-clock display software, that displays the time in both UTC and local. Unfortunately, that doesn't help with COTS software that's only designed to display one or the other. (And some with bugs that don't display it correctly).
Yes - there WERE some actual technical issues related to Y2K that needed fixing.
But by and large, the whole phenomenon was a media circus working off the rightwing-thinktank-generated meme of: "all this science and technology is scary, and these liberal academic elites have put us all at risk, because we've turned away from our traditions and conservative way of life, you know, when America was great, like in the 1950's. When everyone knew their place. And scientists didn't run everything."
You know the meme I'm talking about. The media hype is really just a lot of scaremongering. Responsible folks recognized the problem, and took action to make sure civilization didn't collapse. End of story. There's no reason my grandma needed to worry about it. Unless my grandma was in charge of the budget for an IT department.
And of course, the dark secret is that plenty of people today still die due to bad medical care or air disasters.
So - when your Regulator doesn't do his or her job, then you fire the fucker, and hire someone competent. But "Libertarians" would rather use it as an excuse to do away with all regulation altogether. Which is why you should not put people into office, who do not believe in government. They'll fail on purpose.
Where the fuck were well-reasoned arguments like these back in 1997-2003 when the Anarcho-Capitalists were on FoxNews trying to brainwash everyone into believing all government is always bad?
Yeah - what is up with that stupid government, regulating how fast I can drive my 18-wheeler on the highway? It cuts into my profits, and it's the other drivers' responsibility to stay outta my way!
These are obviously cherry-picked, but when you read them, you'll get the general idea of the attitude in their minds. Jefferson was so unhappy with the New Testament as-defined by the early church, that he made his own version. (Called the Jefferson Bible).
In any case, the whole point of a Constitution, and our system of government with separation of powers, is designed specifically to protect a minority (presumably non-Christians) from a tyranny of the majority (Christians) - or vice-versa if their numbers were ever to be reversed for any reason (new religions, population shifts, etc.).
I honestly don't know where the idea came from, that our Founding Fathers were all conservative Southern Baptists. They weren't. Not even close. There's ample evidence to the contrary - and frankly, it looks like the "big lie" tactic all over again. It would be very convenient for America's Clergy to propagate this idea in support of striking down our freedoms, in particular, the Establishment Clause. It's bad enough that churches are tax-exempt.
Some additional Jefferson material:
"The bill for establishing religious freedom", Jefferson wrote, "I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it's protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that 'coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion', an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word 'Jesus Christ', so that it should read 'Jesus Christ the holy author of our religion.' The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew, the gentile, the Christian, and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."
The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.
They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition of their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.... Do not be frightened from this inquiry from any fear of its consequences. If it ends in the belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise...
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity." -Thomas Jefferson, 1782
"I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christia
God, I'm so sick of making this argument over and over with the wannabe Ayatollahs who can't get over the FACT that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and MOST of the rest of our Founding Fathers were Deists, and their ideas came from the principles of the Enlightenment - none of which espoused any kind of bullshit about allowing a religious majority to inflict their notion of morality on the rest of us.
There's ample literature to support this view, the writings of Thomas Jefferson being a good example, but really, just a small part of the overall material available. Saying that the Establishment Clause was a fluke Supreme Court creation based on taking Jefferson out of context is really a stupid and misinformed position.
The only reason that PSYOPS is not allowed to work within domestic areas is Posse Comitatus.
And they were working on shorting that out during the whole "Illegal Immigrant" debate (to justify use of troops to protect our borders).
But frankly, given the Unitary Exeuctive theory, and Bush's signing statements, I don't see how they couldn't make a strong argument for using PSYOPS domestically.
No, I think he's saying the best means of combating propaganda is with your own propaganda machine
WRONG. The best means of combating propaganda is open, honest, transparent, reasoned debate. Since we can't have that in this country, we adopt the next best thing - our own propaganda machine. Surely we can outspend them, right? Because China will keep lending us the money. I just worry what will happen when we need to outspend China on their propaganda machine. . . (ie. learn to speak Mandarin, now)
Many Americans may have lost wealth - but they have not lost THE ILLUSION of wealth (a.k.a. easy credit).
Nobody was really suffering until the interest rates started to go up (in response to Energy-cost-driven inflation). Most of us are still blissfully unaware of the massive debt, both private, and public, we've accumulated through our gluttony.
Obviously I'm familiar with Goebbels "Peoples Radio" project which was designed to provide Germans with cheap, mass produced radios in order to better enable them to listen to Nazi propaganda and, even then, the cost of these radios was still more than the average family's monthly disposable income.
Heh, sounds similar to Dr. Porsche's "Peoples Car" (ie. Volkswagen beetle). A German worker could dedicate a certain percentage of his wages to "coupons" and save up to buy one of these cars, which was actually pretty reasonably priced (given it's extremely well-engineered economical design). Unfortunately, the plant to build these cars was devoted to building the German version of the Jeep instead (later sold under the name "Thing"). I forget the name of those, but the amphibious version was the "Schwimwagen". So for all the workers who financed building these combat vehicles, none of them ever got their Volkswagen beetle.
The thing is - Porsche didn't support Hitler, politically. He just saw this as a technical challenge, and a way to use engineering and mass production to benefit people. The design was perverted into a weapon of war, and after the war, the French offered him a job designing cars, and when we went to interview, they arrested him and jailed him as a war criminal - and he spent several years in prison designing farm tractors (yes, there are Porsche farm tractors out there).
Fascism is a con-job, designed to concentrate wealth into few hands, at the expense of everyone else.
The German citizens of Berlin did quite well under the fascist state.
That is - until their power-hungry dictator overextended their military in a foolish "take over the world" scheme, and got his ass kicked by the Soviets, who rolled into downtown Berlin with tanks and reduced the city to rubble.
My grandmother-in-law was a wealthy business owner in Berlin at that time, had several homes, servants, two Mercedes, the works. She fled Berlin, and lost everything (including her husband and brothers) her family had built up over many generations of hard work. My father-in-law is Sicilian (poor farmers though), and his family also fled to America after the fascists got their village burned to the ground.
Any economic benefits to fascism are pretty much temporary. Because fascism comes from hubris. And hubris leads to ruin, eventually. (That's why Franklin called it "Temporary Security").
Fascism is fine and dandy - but if you want sustainable prosperity, most of Europe is already working in that direction. They learned this lesson the hard way after two world wars.
Too bad we Americans can't be smarter about this. Especially since so many of us left Europe to get away from this crap.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh sorry.
Does having an Apple II+ in 1979 count?
Rights DO come from man, and they CAN be taken away.
Man takes rights away from man routinely.
Good post dude.
What do you feel will be the ultimate outcome?
I mean, if ESAS is unworkable, and NASA is determined to throw money at it anyway - what do you reckon's going to happen when (not if) it fails?
Recent converts like you . . .
Recent? 10 years? You must have me mistaken for someone else. I switched when Apple went PPC. My first Mac was a 601. I run OS X at home, and at work, I run XP; what my employer dictates. I make my living fixing Windows problems. Sometimes linux, sometimes AIX, whatever makes my house payments.
Sometimes I worry that Apple will abandon me - on my G5, PPC-based Mac, just as they abandoned the "Old World" PPC Macs. I expect my macs to last 3-5 years. I upgraded my 7100 to a G3, because Apple made my software choices difficult. Not because the machine wore out. I upgraded my G3, because they limited my software choices (via iDVD - no "built-in" DVD burner - technically, my expansion, an external firewire DVD burner should work just fine - the choice was free iDVD, or $999 DVD Studio Pro. I would have paid probably $100 for a working iDVD. But Apple wanted me to buy new hardware. So I did. I bought a G5, and got out of it, what I expected. But I expect another 2 years of reliable, and FLEXIBLE utilization out of it. I hope that Apple will not cut me off because I'm not running a box with an intel chip, or I'm not running a box with the latest bootstrap scheme of the day. I'm not hopeful, because I've been burned twice before.
So I'm no Apple fanboi.
But I'm not going to switch to Windows. Or Linux. I know the pitfalls. Intimately. I have been constantly painted into corners by vender-lock-in for 15 years in my career. Among these three choices; Apple is the least troublesome. Though - Linux comes in a VERY close second. (vendor lock-in, not a problem. Software flexibility - a problem, for me).
But anyway - weren't we talking about Symantec? Oh never mind.
hm. Ya ever think that a dictator who needed the support of the conservative faction of the military ever needed to appease them to stay in power and avoid a coup? Ya ever think that maybe the bluster was empty saber rattling designed for domestic consumption? (much like Bush's).
To put this in perspective, let's say that there's a suspected child molester in your town. The police have been tipped off that he might have molested someone's kid, but they can't get any evidence of that actually happening, and the suspect will not allow police to search his property. An angry coalition of parents descends on his house, and burns his house to the ground.
Well, they should just vote the fucker out of office. . .
Um. He did allow inspections.
That's how Clinton knew which buildings to bomb.
Then, before the 2003 invasion, while Bush was claiming Saddam wasn't allowing inspectors, Saddam had allowed inspectors. Of course, the inspectors were forced to leave when Bush invaded.
Gee. I dunno. Sounds fishy to me.
Nobody disputes that Saddam wasn't working programs after 1991, but BEFORE 1996 when Clinton bombed the crap out of his sites using intelligence from spies we planted among the weapons inspectors.
If the article was specific about those papers - that they were, in fact, definitely from a current (2002-ish) program, instead of a discontinued legacy (1996) - (ie. NOT AN IMMANENT THREAT) program, then I'd be more likely to believe it. But frankly, it sounds like the same old doublespeak scaremongering we've heard for the last 4 years.
And frankly: Fuck. That. Shit.
Unfortunately, it is not specific about which documents were from 1990, and which were from 2002. The manifest of toilet paper purchase for public buildings in 2002 probably would not constitute much of a threat.
If you read the weasel-words in the quoted text, it sure sounds like we're being misled to believe that Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program in 2002. They IMPLY it, without actually saying so - because if they did, they'd probably have to provide proof, which they probably don't have. Considering the proven lies we've heard on this topic before - I would be more likely to believe such an assertion if the writer was more clear and concise, and definite.
Honestly, in the 10 years since I've been a "Mac man" - Symantec has done far more harm (in the form of instability, hangs, kernel panics, and impossible-to-remove software) to my home computer systems than any virus ever did.
Why was Geordi's visor more technologically-advanced than Data's vision-system?
Aw crap. I'm still bitter about being turned down as a writer for TNG. . .
Ironically - MY customer wants all of their systems to uniformly display time in UTC (what they call "Zulu-time". - UTC is a good enough approximation for what it really is).
But over the years they've switched back and forth, because certain high level (military) officials still couldn't show up at certain events on time because they couldn't figure out Zulu. You'd think they taught this stuff at OCS. Yeah, working for the DoD sucks sometimes.
Eventually, we just installed dual-clock display software, that displays the time in both UTC and local. Unfortunately, that doesn't help with COTS software that's only designed to display one or the other. (And some with bugs that don't display it correctly).
Yes - there WERE some actual technical issues related to Y2K that needed fixing.
But by and large, the whole phenomenon was a media circus working off the rightwing-thinktank-generated meme of: "all this science and technology is scary, and these liberal academic elites have put us all at risk, because we've turned away from our traditions and conservative way of life, you know, when America was great, like in the 1950's. When everyone knew their place. And scientists didn't run everything."
You know the meme I'm talking about. The media hype is really just a lot of scaremongering.
Responsible folks recognized the problem, and took action to make sure civilization didn't collapse. End of story. There's no reason my grandma needed to worry about it. Unless my grandma was in charge of the budget for an IT department.
And of course, the dark secret is that plenty of people today still die due to bad medical care or air disasters.
So - when your Regulator doesn't do his or her job, then you fire the fucker, and hire someone competent.
But "Libertarians" would rather use it as an excuse to do away with all regulation altogether.
Which is why you should not put people into office, who do not believe in government. They'll fail on purpose.
. . . and don't forget, you have to deal with the "monopoly" on satellite launching.
Where the fuck were well-reasoned arguments like these back in 1997-2003 when the Anarcho-Capitalists were on FoxNews trying to brainwash everyone into believing all government is always bad?
Yeah - what is up with that stupid government, regulating how fast I can drive my 18-wheeler on the highway?
It cuts into my profits, and it's the other drivers' responsibility to stay outta my way!
The prohibitions of murder and bank robbery are state regulations; therefore, all business is state regulated to some degree.
Reminds me of how the Mafia Dons used to say "I'm just a legitimate businessman."
Murder, racketeering, bribery, and extortion laws are just inconvenient regulation of their business.
(Of course Prohibition was very profitable for them).
Can anyone draw any obvious parallels to "legitimate businessmen" today?
They reject infallibility of scripture.
These are obviously cherry-picked, but when you read them, you'll get the general idea of the attitude in their minds.
Jefferson was so unhappy with the New Testament as-defined by the early church, that he made his own version. (Called the Jefferson Bible).
In any case, the whole point of a Constitution, and our system of government with separation of powers, is designed specifically to protect a minority (presumably non-Christians) from a tyranny of the majority (Christians) - or vice-versa if their numbers were ever to be reversed for any reason (new religions, population shifts, etc.).
I honestly don't know where the idea came from, that our Founding Fathers were all conservative Southern Baptists. They weren't. Not even close. There's ample evidence to the contrary - and frankly, it looks like the "big lie" tactic all over again. It would be very convenient for America's Clergy to propagate this idea in support of striking down our freedoms, in particular, the Establishment Clause. It's bad enough that churches are tax-exempt.
Some additional Jefferson material:
God, I'm so sick of making this argument over and over with the wannabe Ayatollahs who can't get over the FACT that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and MOST of the rest of our Founding Fathers were Deists, and their ideas came from the principles of the Enlightenment - none of which espoused any kind of bullshit about allowing a religious majority to inflict their notion of morality on the rest of us.
There's ample literature to support this view, the writings of Thomas Jefferson being a good example, but really, just a small part of the overall material available. Saying that the Establishment Clause was a fluke Supreme Court creation based on taking Jefferson out of context is really a stupid and misinformed position.
The only reason that PSYOPS is not allowed to work within domestic areas is Posse Comitatus.
And they were working on shorting that out during the whole "Illegal Immigrant" debate (to justify use of troops to protect our borders).
But frankly, given the Unitary Exeuctive theory, and Bush's signing statements, I don't see how they couldn't make a strong argument for using PSYOPS domestically.
No, I think he's saying the best means of combating propaganda is with your own propaganda machine
WRONG. The best means of combating propaganda is open, honest, transparent, reasoned debate.
Since we can't have that in this country, we adopt the next best thing - our own propaganda machine.
Surely we can outspend them, right? Because China will keep lending us the money.
I just worry what will happen when we need to outspend China on their propaganda machine. . .
(ie. learn to speak Mandarin, now)
Many Americans may have lost wealth - but they have not lost THE ILLUSION of wealth (a.k.a. easy credit).
Nobody was really suffering until the interest rates started to go up (in response to Energy-cost-driven inflation).
Most of us are still blissfully unaware of the massive debt, both private, and public, we've accumulated through our gluttony.
Obviously I'm familiar with Goebbels "Peoples Radio" project which was designed to provide Germans with cheap, mass produced radios in order to better enable them to listen to Nazi propaganda and, even then, the cost of these radios was still more than the average family's monthly disposable income.
Heh, sounds similar to Dr. Porsche's "Peoples Car" (ie. Volkswagen beetle). A German worker could dedicate a certain percentage of his wages to "coupons" and save up to buy one of these cars, which was actually pretty reasonably priced (given it's extremely well-engineered economical design). Unfortunately, the plant to build these cars was devoted to building the German version of the Jeep instead (later sold under the name "Thing"). I forget the name of those, but the amphibious version was the "Schwimwagen". So for all the workers who financed building these combat vehicles, none of them ever got their Volkswagen beetle.
The thing is - Porsche didn't support Hitler, politically. He just saw this as a technical challenge, and a way to use engineering and mass production to benefit people. The design was perverted into a weapon of war, and after the war, the French offered him a job designing cars, and when we went to interview, they arrested him and jailed him as a war criminal - and he spent several years in prison designing farm tractors (yes, there are Porsche farm tractors out there).
Fascism is a con-job, designed to concentrate wealth into few hands, at the expense of everyone else.
The German citizens of Berlin did quite well under the fascist state.
That is - until their power-hungry dictator overextended their military in a foolish "take over the world" scheme, and got his ass kicked by the Soviets, who rolled into downtown Berlin with tanks and reduced the city to rubble.
My grandmother-in-law was a wealthy business owner in Berlin at that time, had several homes, servants, two Mercedes, the works. She fled Berlin, and lost everything (including her husband and brothers) her family had built up over many generations of hard work. My father-in-law is Sicilian (poor farmers though), and his family also fled to America after the fascists got their village burned to the ground.
Any economic benefits to fascism are pretty much temporary. Because fascism comes from hubris. And hubris leads to ruin, eventually. (That's why Franklin called it "Temporary Security").
Fascism is fine and dandy - but if you want sustainable prosperity, most of Europe is already working in that direction. They learned this lesson the hard way after two world wars.
Too bad we Americans can't be smarter about this. Especially since so many of us left Europe to get away from this crap.