Windows 1.0 Windows 2.0 Windows 3.0 Windows 3.1 Windows 3.11 Windows NT 3.1 Windows NT 3.1 CSD001 Update i386 Windows NT 3.1 Kernel32 Update to SP-1 i386 Windows NT 3.1 Service Pack 3 i386 Windows NT 3.5 Windows NT 3.51 Windows NT 3.51 SP1 Windows NT 3.51 SP2 Windows NT 3.51 SP3 Windows NT 3.51 SP4 Windows NT 3.51 SP5 Windows NT 4.0 Windows NT 4.0 SP1 Windows NT 4.0 SP2 Windows NT 4.0 SP3 Windows NT 4.0 SP4 Windows NT 4.0 SP5 Windows NT 4.0 SP6 Windows NT 4.0 SP6a Windows 95a Windows 95b Windows 95b-oem-2.1-USB Windows 98 Windows 98 SE Windows ME Windows 2000 Windows 2000 SP1 Windows 2000 SP2 Windows 2000 SP3 Windows XP Windows XP SP1 Windows XP SP1a
I get 37, and I'm not even including internet explorer versions, which are legitimately part of the OS, according to Microsoft themselves. That would EASILY double that number, I think.
>The Second Ammendment doesn't grant the people the right to bear arms, it implicitly acknowledges that right, and prohibits infringements upon it.
Good point. Then there should be no complaints if the government chooses to limit what arms an individual can own, right?
As long as they, for example, were to provide an exception in the Brady law (is that what it's called? It's been a while since I've paid attention to such issues -- I have no interest in owning or using a weapon -- It's my protest against such items) for all well regulated militias, then we'd all be cool, right?
>The strawman that you use: The "weapon that could destroy every person in the country including the wielder", if it existed today, would most likely be in the possession of the Federal Government... and that would have horrified them even more, I am certain.
Calling out the "straw man" is always an easy way to avoid arguments you don't like.
I do not distort the picture. The Bill of Rights says "arms". It does not define what type. The original poster feels that the idea of arms ownership and "militia regulation" should be wholly separate, and completely enforced, as separate items. Since the BoR lacks an arms definition, it's logical to extend it to include all arms, which would clearly include WMD-type arms.
To support only one form of arms, and not all, is really not to support that section of the constituion whatsoever, is it?
The fact is the "regulation" and "militia" section of the sentence is there to prevent crazed individuals (and there's more of them on earth than any of us think, just surf slashdot at -1 one day) from owning such horrible arms.
Certainly, I think the US founding fathers would not want the US citizen to be less armed than the country, but at the same time, they wouldn't not want a crazed individual (which exsited even in their time) from being able to destroy us all.
That's the idea of the "well regulated militia". And, if a group of well regulated citizens were to gain themselves access to such technology, I'd be somewhat scared as a non-American myself, but it would be their right.
However, there's no way at all the founding fathers would want the Unabomber (for example) to have had any arms at all. He, as an example I'm just pulling out of thin air, isn't covered by this section of the constitution, as he was neither well-regulated, nor a militia. Just a crazed individual with a really insane agenda.
>The idea of restrictions on arms in general at the Federal level would have horrified them, I think (as would the size and power of the US Federal government today, I am sure).
Perhaps so, but, unfortunately, from what we've heard of many a badly organized, unregulated militia being able to arm themselves to the teeth, I think they'd be doubly scared.
>he is a moron who likes to put a modern spin on ideas so that it falls in line with his beliefs. ignore him.
Actually, you're just a moron who won't bother to realise the truth. That ignoring parts of the constitution for your own means makes you look like an idiot.
See the comment I replied to earlier. I think you'll see I'm very correct. If you'd like to provide scans of dictionaries older than 1828 to disprove me, feel free. I know I'm right though, so, feh. You won't be able to find any.
>The Bill of Rights was written before your dictionary was written (or do you think a time warp was involved).
*YAWN*
1828 webster's, which is pretty much as old as I can get, and should be old enough to satisfy you.
COMMA, n.
1. In writing and printing, this point [,] denoting the shortest pause in reading, and separating a sentence into divisions or members, according to the construction. Thus, There is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. Virtue, wit, knowledge, are excellent accomplishments. Live soberly, righteously, and piously, in the present world.
SEM'ICOLON, n. [semi and colon.] In grammar, and punctuation, the point [;] the mark of pause to be observed- in reading or speaking, of less duration than the colon, double the duration of the comma, or half the duration of the period. It is used to distinguish the conjunct members of the sentence.
and, now we need to know, what is conjunct (old dictionaries always suck like this):
CONJUNCT, a. [L. See Conjoin.] Conjoined; united; concurrent.
Without a semicolon, rather than a comma, it remains a single thought. For example, that for example is necessarialy connected to this thought; but, for example, this part-sentence reads perfectly well without the info before the semicolon.
For more help on this, here's the dictionary's definitions:
Grammar. A punctuation mark ( , ) used to indicate a separation of ideas or of elements within the structure of a sentence.
While the idea that a well regulated militia is mentioned, it is still intended to be read as part of the sentence, and certainly not intended to be separated as a poetic comma.
>the stance of the ACLU is that the PEOPLE have no constitutional right to own firearms. that is false.
Yes, but your stance is that the second amendment gives individuals the right to own arms. Or am I wrong on that? Perhaps you are also misreading it to say firearms, and not just plain "arms". If so, then I must say, it's a shaky foundation to accuse others of doing that which you do yourself.
>there is not even a logical argument you could construct that would support such an idea.
Sure there is.
The founders of the USA never did expect arms, such as biological and nuclear, to exist. A canon, the most serious weapon from their time (that I can think of), in a maniac's hands, could only kill a few dozen people before the person is brought to justice.
Biological weapons could conceivably kill everyone that could possibly bring him justice. And Nuclear Arms could cause an even worse fate.
That being said, is it therefore logical to support posession of arms that clearly weren't intended to be owned by individuals, even by the writers of the constitution? I am 100% sure there's no way the founders of America would support ownership of a weapon that would destroy every single individual in the country, along with the suicide of the owner.
Perhaps we should be more intelligent about this, and note that there is a strong reason why only a well regulated militia may have complete access to arms in the US. Because a well regulated militia, with so many people being involved, wouldn't want to blow themselves up. But crazed individual such as the Unabomber really couldn't care less.
The only question left is "Who does the regulating?"
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act United States Code Annotated Title 15 Commerce and Trade Chapter 50 Consumer Product Warranties 15 Section 2302
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the commission if:
1) The warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and
2) The Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest.
Their interpretation is clearly wrong:
This means that printer manufacturers cannot void the warranty on your printer because you use supplies and products manufactured by a third party manufacturer.
No, it means that printer manufacturers cannot void the warranty on your printer *ONLY* if they are unable to prove that such third party supplies will/have cause/d the printer to malfunction.
With the amount of consumer testimony to clogged inkjets, etc, this would be a piece of cake.
But, IANAL. However, this 3rd party supplier agrees.
Okay. I'll give you those. However, the vast majority of the problems are still present.
Listed problems still not fixed:
- Video does not size to users screen
- Grey on grey non-standard scheme decreases ability to use application by older users
- All controls still appear unavailable
- Lack of clarity as to what is a clickable item, and what isn't
- Preferences menu still has multiple selections for the exact same dialog
- Program help requires internet connection
- Multiple about boxes
New problems not fixed:
- Popup "Purchase pro" box has no "NEVER" option
- Fix to "drawer" problem means one cannot see at what point one is in the media while adjusting sound controls
- Pointless and possibly confusing use of extra controls to adjust combo boxes (see movie information).
- UI causes menus to switch from enabled to disabled look (but they are still functional) when mouse passes over them
- Pointlessly adds system load during boot with auto-start taskbar "q", which must be disabled manually after installation
- Opening new media requires opening a separate player instance, rather than opening it in the current player
It wouldn't be such a magnet for complaints if they'd simply use the standard windows interface on windows, which had years of military research behind it (no, no joke there -- ever wonder why windows XP can still be used without a mouse?) and is familiar to all users using Quicktime for windows.
>You can get a riding lawnmower from sears for $899.00.
Yup, but you can't get one for $100. And, AFAIK, it isn't made in China...
>And geez imagine the damage that can do, especially if you're really stupid.
Only if you purposely misuse it. I haven't seen blades fall off new lawnmowers when used properly, have you? Then again, most lawnmowers aren't assembled in China...
>They could easily be $1000 dollar items. It is clear that the price point is due to relative lack of volume, but the assembly and manufacture of these things could be done very cheaply.
Right, but cheap assembly leads to mistakes. In the case of a computer part, that means a failed part, even perhaps a destroyed computer.
In the case of a 50 watt laser, it could lead to blindness and permanent scarring. Maybe worse if you're really stupid.
How is receiving a satellite signal going to irradiate you more or less than not receiving it, assuming you don't stand behind the dish?:-)
Technically, I suppose receiving the signal will expose you to _less_ radiation. Not that the levels are particularly high anyways, considering how little power satellites have available to them in the first place.
If your cable TV cable is actually emitting any measurable signals from anywhere but the termination point, phone the FCC. It won't emit them for very much longer, you can rest assured.
I'll bet you think there's no such word as irregardless, and that double spacing between paragraphs is wrong -- a tab should show the start of one.
Unlike latin, english isn't a dead language. Virii are more than one computer virus. Don't like it? Speak latin. Then you don't have to worry about evolving changes in language.
A plethora of computer techies call it virii. So there.
Gateway application on the server. Which is how any reasonably sized network should deal with anything so horridly insecure. This way you (network administrator) can properly filter said traffic.
Of course, such craplication would need re-writing. Which is good, because nobody, and I mean nobody, should be allowing incoming connections into their network like that. If people did that, and added proper email filtering (zero executables), and used virus scanners, virii like blaster would rarely be a problem.
Of course, one could choose to use a secure OS. Too bad there aren't any...
NAT just makes denying incoming connections really easy. A properly set up firewall does make NAT redundant, but it can't hurt to have an extra layer of security.
>After having worked building and repairing pc's I REFUSE to ever buy an AMD again while they still use the old press like theres no tomorrow latch.
The secret?
Don't use a screwdriver. Use a nut driver that fits well instead. It's far more secure -- never had a slip on even one board this way. Ever. Even on the crappy heatsinks without the side guards. In fact, the driver will even end up a bit stuck sometimes. Try it.
P4? The boxes seem designed to ruin the pins before you get them open. At least you _have_ to use a knife to open the AMD retail boxes...:-S
Sure. You want an eMac level quality monitor? I think I can do that for about $140 CDN (ssssh! I don't normally sell that crappy of a monitor!). Yes, I've used an eMac, the monitor is pretty fuzzy... I can't imagine the lifetime of it will be much over 5 years, and that's being optomistic.
Now, iMac level monitor, that's going to cost more. Then again, iMacs cost a *lot* more than eMacs as well...
>Where's the mouse? Where's the keyboard?
Hmmm, another $40 CDN for some nice MS quality ones.
>Don't I get some multimedia speakers - even a cheap 5$ pair?
If you're paying the price I quoted there, I'll throw them in for no cost!:-D
It's still *way* cheaper than an entry level Mac. Way, way, way cheaper. And equal, or better quality components, too.
Nothing bugs me more than that silly Q sitting in my taskbar doing nothing but wasting memory. Yes, I know I can turn it off, but why should it do this in the first place?
What, exactly, does quicktime have to do with playing music? Am I wrong in thinking it's mainly meant to play movies?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks! :-)
I need to spin their discs again...
>What's the penalty under the law for putting a backdoor in an open-sourced software project?
Ohhh, I can think of some.
Fraud and destruction/misuse of private property come to mind. And those are pretty much universal...
>There are about 6 version of Windows.
Oh, that number is mightly low...
Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows 3.11
Windows NT 3.1
Windows NT 3.1 CSD001 Update i386
Windows NT 3.1 Kernel32 Update to SP-1 i386
Windows NT 3.1 Service Pack 3 i386
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 3.51
Windows NT 3.51 SP1
Windows NT 3.51 SP2
Windows NT 3.51 SP3
Windows NT 3.51 SP4
Windows NT 3.51 SP5
Windows NT 4.0
Windows NT 4.0 SP1
Windows NT 4.0 SP2
Windows NT 4.0 SP3
Windows NT 4.0 SP4
Windows NT 4.0 SP5
Windows NT 4.0 SP6
Windows NT 4.0 SP6a
Windows 95a
Windows 95b
Windows 95b-oem-2.1-USB
Windows 98
Windows 98 SE
Windows ME
Windows 2000
Windows 2000 SP1
Windows 2000 SP2
Windows 2000 SP3
Windows XP
Windows XP SP1
Windows XP SP1a
I get 37, and I'm not even including internet explorer versions, which are legitimately part of the OS, according to Microsoft themselves. That would EASILY double that number, I think.
>The Second Ammendment doesn't grant the people the right to bear arms, it implicitly acknowledges that right, and prohibits infringements upon it.
Good point. Then there should be no complaints if the government chooses to limit what arms an individual can own, right?
As long as they, for example, were to provide an exception in the Brady law (is that what it's called? It's been a while since I've paid attention to such issues -- I have no interest in owning or using a weapon -- It's my protest against such items) for all well regulated militias, then we'd all be cool, right?
Or not?
>The strawman that you use: The "weapon that could destroy every person in the country including the wielder", if it existed today, would most likely be in the possession of the Federal Government... and that would have horrified them even more, I am certain.
Calling out the "straw man" is always an easy way to avoid arguments you don't like.
However, you're wrong on this.
I do not distort the picture. The Bill of Rights says "arms". It does not define what type. The original poster feels that the idea of arms ownership and "militia regulation" should be wholly separate, and completely enforced, as separate items. Since the BoR lacks an arms definition, it's logical to extend it to include all arms, which would clearly include WMD-type arms.
To support only one form of arms, and not all, is really not to support that section of the constituion whatsoever, is it?
The fact is the "regulation" and "militia" section of the sentence is there to prevent crazed individuals (and there's more of them on earth than any of us think, just surf slashdot at -1 one day) from owning such horrible arms.
Certainly, I think the US founding fathers would not want the US citizen to be less armed than the country, but at the same time, they wouldn't not want a crazed individual (which exsited even in their time) from being able to destroy us all.
That's the idea of the "well regulated militia". And, if a group of well regulated citizens were to gain themselves access to such technology, I'd be somewhat scared as a non-American myself, but it would be their right.
However, there's no way at all the founding fathers would want the Unabomber (for example) to have had any arms at all. He, as an example I'm just pulling out of thin air, isn't covered by this section of the constitution, as he was neither well-regulated, nor a militia. Just a crazed individual with a really insane agenda.
>The idea of restrictions on arms in general at the Federal level would have horrified them, I think (as would the size and power of the US Federal government today, I am sure).
Perhaps so, but, unfortunately, from what we've heard of many a badly organized, unregulated militia being able to arm themselves to the teeth, I think they'd be doubly scared.
>he is a moron who likes to put a modern spin on ideas so that it falls in line with his beliefs. ignore him.
Actually, you're just a moron who won't bother to realise the truth. That ignoring parts of the constitution for your own means makes you look like an idiot.
See the comment I replied to earlier. I think you'll see I'm very correct. If you'd like to provide scans of dictionaries older than 1828 to disprove me, feel free. I know I'm right though, so, feh. You won't be able to find any.
>The Bill of Rights was written before your dictionary was written (or do you think a time warp was involved).
*YAWN*
1828 webster's, which is pretty much as old as I can get, and should be old enough to satisfy you.
COMMA, n.
1. In writing and printing, this point [,] denoting the shortest pause in reading, and separating a sentence into divisions or members, according to the construction. Thus, There is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. Virtue, wit, knowledge, are excellent accomplishments. Live soberly, righteously, and piously, in the present world.
SEM'ICOLON, n. [semi and colon.] In grammar, and punctuation, the point [;] the mark of pause to be observed- in reading or speaking, of less duration than the colon, double the duration of the comma, or half the duration of the period. It is used to distinguish the conjunct members of the sentence.
and, now we need to know, what is conjunct (old dictionaries always suck like this):
CONJUNCT, a. [L. See Conjoin.] Conjoined; united; concurrent.
see: Distinct.
[as in thought]
>and there are 2 clauses in that statement...
Nope, there aren't.
Without a semicolon, rather than a comma, it remains a single thought. For example, that for example is necessarialy connected to this thought; but, for example, this part-sentence reads perfectly well without the info before the semicolon.
For more help on this, here's the dictionary's definitions:
semicolon
A mark of punctuation ( ) used to connect independent clauses and indicating a closer relationship between the clauses than a period does.
comma
Grammar. A punctuation mark ( , ) used to indicate a separation of ideas or of elements within the structure of a sentence.
While the idea that a well regulated militia is mentioned, it is still intended to be read as part of the sentence, and certainly not intended to be separated as a poetic comma.
>the stance of the ACLU is that the PEOPLE have no constitutional right to own firearms. that is false.
Yes, but your stance is that the second amendment gives individuals the right to own arms. Or am I wrong on that? Perhaps you are also misreading it to say firearms, and not just plain "arms". If so, then I must say, it's a shaky foundation to accuse others of doing that which you do yourself.
>there is not even a logical argument you could construct that would support such an idea.
Sure there is.
The founders of the USA never did expect arms, such as biological and nuclear, to exist. A canon, the most serious weapon from their time (that I can think of), in a maniac's hands, could only kill a few dozen people before the person is brought to justice.
Biological weapons could conceivably kill everyone that could possibly bring him justice. And Nuclear Arms could cause an even worse fate.
That being said, is it therefore logical to support posession of arms that clearly weren't intended to be owned by individuals, even by the writers of the constitution? I am 100% sure there's no way the founders of America would support ownership of a weapon that would destroy every single individual in the country, along with the suicide of the owner.
Perhaps we should be more intelligent about this, and note that there is a strong reason why only a well regulated militia may have complete access to arms in the US. Because a well regulated militia, with so many people being involved, wouldn't want to blow themselves up. But crazed individual such as the Unabomber really couldn't care less.
The only question left is "Who does the regulating?"
Brains and meat; hey, they're all from the same animal, why not.
>Everyone says this, yet I've never seen anyone give a brand name they know that does this. anyone?
As a disappointed owner of such a product, I know Brother does this with their laser printers.
As far as inkjets go, I don't know. I haven't owned one since the Epson Stylus Color original, and I'm not interested ever to own one again.
>IANAL but isn't that illegal?
First link from google:
MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY IMPROVEMENT ACT
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act United States Code Annotated Title 15 Commerce and Trade Chapter 50 Consumer Product Warranties 15 Section 2302
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the commission if:
1) The warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and
2) The Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest.
Their interpretation is clearly wrong:
This means that printer manufacturers cannot void the warranty on your printer because you use supplies and products manufactured by a third party manufacturer.
No, it means that printer manufacturers cannot void the warranty on your printer *ONLY* if they are unable to prove that such third party supplies will/have cause/d the printer to malfunction.
With the amount of consumer testimony to clogged inkjets, etc, this would be a piece of cake.
But, IANAL. However, this 3rd party supplier agrees.
Okay. I'll give you those. However, the vast majority of the problems are still present.
Listed problems still not fixed:
- Video does not size to users screen
- Grey on grey non-standard scheme decreases ability to use application by older users
- All controls still appear unavailable
- Lack of clarity as to what is a clickable item, and what isn't
- Preferences menu still has multiple selections for the exact same dialog
- Program help requires internet connection
- Multiple about boxes
New problems not fixed:
- Popup "Purchase pro" box has no "NEVER" option
- Fix to "drawer" problem means one cannot see at what point one is in the media while adjusting sound controls
- Pointless and possibly confusing use of extra controls to adjust combo boxes (see movie information).
- UI causes menus to switch from enabled to disabled look (but they are still functional) when mouse passes over them
- Pointlessly adds system load during boot with auto-start taskbar "q", which must be disabled manually after installation
- Opening new media requires opening a separate player instance, rather than opening it in the current player
It wouldn't be such a magnet for complaints if they'd simply use the standard windows interface on windows, which had years of military research behind it (no, no joke there -- ever wonder why windows XP can still be used without a mouse?) and is familiar to all users using Quicktime for windows.
>At least it's an attractive interface, as opposed to Real's jumble'o'buttons...
LOL!
>And here we have another racist moron pissed at chinese because they can consistently do cheaper AND better things than you.
No, they can't.
Since you give no evidence, I don't see why I should.
>You can get a riding lawnmower from sears for $899.00.
Yup, but you can't get one for $100. And, AFAIK, it isn't made in China...
>And geez imagine the damage that can do, especially if you're really stupid.
Only if you purposely misuse it. I haven't seen blades fall off new lawnmowers when used properly, have you? Then again, most lawnmowers aren't assembled in China...
>They could easily be $1000 dollar items. It is clear that the price point is due to relative lack of volume, but the assembly and manufacture of these things could be done very cheaply.
Right, but cheap assembly leads to mistakes. In the case of a computer part, that means a failed part, even perhaps a destroyed computer.
In the case of a 50 watt laser, it could lead to blindness and permanent scarring. Maybe worse if you're really stupid.
How is receiving a satellite signal going to irradiate you more or less than not receiving it, assuming you don't stand behind the dish? :-)
Technically, I suppose receiving the signal will expose you to _less_ radiation. Not that the levels are particularly high anyways, considering how little power satellites have available to them in the first place.
If your cable TV cable is actually emitting any measurable signals from anywhere but the termination point, phone the FCC. It won't emit them for very much longer, you can rest assured.
I'll bet you think there's no such word as irregardless, and that double spacing between paragraphs is wrong -- a tab should show the start of one.
Unlike latin, english isn't a dead language. Virii are more than one computer virus. Don't like it? Speak latin. Then you don't have to worry about evolving changes in language.
A plethora of computer techies call it virii. So there.
>Solution?
Gateway application on the server. Which is how any reasonably sized network should deal with anything so horridly insecure. This way you (network administrator) can properly filter said traffic.
Of course, such craplication would need re-writing. Which is good, because nobody, and I mean nobody, should be allowing incoming connections into their network like that. If people did that, and added proper email filtering (zero executables), and used virus scanners, virii like blaster would rarely be a problem.
Of course, one could choose to use a secure OS. Too bad there aren't any...
NAT just makes denying incoming connections really easy. A properly set up firewall does make NAT redundant, but it can't hurt to have an extra layer of security.
>After having worked building and repairing pc's I REFUSE to ever buy an AMD again while they still use the old press like theres no tomorrow latch.
:-S
The secret?
Don't use a screwdriver. Use a nut driver that fits well instead. It's far more secure -- never had a slip on even one board this way. Ever. Even on the crappy heatsinks without the side guards. In fact, the driver will even end up a bit stuck sometimes. Try it.
P4? The boxes seem designed to ruin the pins before you get them open. At least you _have_ to use a knife to open the AMD retail boxes...
>Um - where's the monitor?
:-D
Sure. You want an eMac level quality monitor? I think I can do that for about $140 CDN (ssssh! I don't normally sell that crappy of a monitor!). Yes, I've used an eMac, the monitor is pretty fuzzy... I can't imagine the lifetime of it will be much over 5 years, and that's being optomistic.
Now, iMac level monitor, that's going to cost more. Then again, iMacs cost a *lot* more than eMacs as well...
>Where's the mouse? Where's the keyboard?
Hmmm, another $40 CDN for some nice MS quality ones.
>Don't I get some multimedia speakers - even a cheap 5$ pair?
If you're paying the price I quoted there, I'll throw them in for no cost!
It's still *way* cheaper than an entry level Mac. Way, way, way cheaper. And equal, or better quality components, too.
>A bank president makes a thosand times as much money as a bank clerk.
:-)
Yes, because without a president, there is no bank. Without a clerk, it takes a little longer to get served.
>There might be some people who try to rationalize this disparity
Like me.
>but I doubt that there's a lot of people who'd actively and explicitly support such a scheme, if they were given a choice.
I would support it. The more important and useful you are to society, the more you are paid. Seems perfectly fair to me.
>Unless those people happen to be bank presidents.
If only!
iTunes will install quicktime without asking.
Nothing bugs me more than that silly Q sitting in my taskbar doing nothing but wasting memory. Yes, I know I can turn it off, but why should it do this in the first place?
What, exactly, does quicktime have to do with playing music? Am I wrong in thinking it's mainly meant to play movies?