Highest year on record was 1998. 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, in order, are: 2002, 2003, 2004.
So, um, sorry to disturb you with reality, but for the last three years we *have* been moving toward minima.
Check back with me in another three years. If global temperatures have resumed their upward climb, I'll be quite willing to accept that it looks like the solar theorists have got it wrong, and start seriously looking at staking land claims in Nunavut. If, on the other hand, temperatures continue their downward trend, will you be willing to accept that the evidence is mounting that the solar theorists are right and the anthropogenic theorists are wrong?
Nonetheless, the best-predicting climate models currently show that the most important role is played by humans.
Actually, precisely the opposite is true. The GCM models that claim human agency is important are getting damned near everything absolutely wrong. The observed lack of polar warming over the last four decades -- as their models predict should be the most evident consequence -- being the most blatantly irrefutable proof that their models ain't shit. Second most blatantly irrefutable proof is that GCM models claim long wave radiation should be decreased by anthropogenic greenhouse gases; but, wonder of wonders, satellites tell us that tropical long wave radiation has actually INCREASED. Funny, that.
We could go on for a while here, but I won't beat the horse any deader, either you can look at the facts and accept that the IPCC models that the media likes to claim is a "consensus" are actually near-completely-useless nonsense; or you've got blinkered religious faith in what the media tells you and you won't accept the actual observed reality since it disturbs your comfortable prejudices too much. Hey, your choice.
Now, on the other hand, the solar-magnetic people's claims that we've just undergone a phase change akin to the 1130-ish Medieval Climate Optimum and that's where the last century's warming came from, nothing much if anything to do with anthropogenic gas emissions, here's what they predicted successfully:
My climate forecasts based on solar motion cycles stood the test as well. I correctly forecast the end of the Sahelian drought three years before the event, the last four extrema in global temperature anomalies, the maximum in the Palmer drought index for U.S.A. around 1999, extreme river Po discharges around the beginning of 2001, and the last three El Niños as well as the course of the last La Niña (Landscheidt, 1983-2002). This forecast skill, solely based on cycles of solar activity, is irreconcilable with the IPCC's allegation that it is unlikely that natural forcing can explain the warming in the latter half of the 20th century.
Quite a record to stack up against the anthropgenic theorists, that.
In any case, we'll know whether the solar people are right soonish; they claim peak heating is already passed and very soon there's going to be a marked downslope in global temperature until the next Gleissburg minimum in 2030-odd; not only that, there's disturbing signs it could turn out to be a seriously deep one, leading to Little Ice Age style deepfreezes.
On the one hand, I kinda hope the solar guys are right, because laughing at all the lefties about just how completely wrong and religiously intolerant of the truth they were over this whole global warming scare would be immensely funny. On the other hand, a new Little Ice Age would REALLY SUCK for anyone outside the tropics.
So... where to buy my retirement home? The site of future beachfront resorts on the Arctic Ocean, or the site of future temperate forests once all the jungle dies off in the Amazon basin? Decisions, decisions...
I think a lot of the cultural dislike of prostitutes was enforced by women. Women with boyfriends don't like women without. That's not true of course, but do you see what I'm getting at? Prostitutes are the ultimate "single" women.
Yep, mod parent up. In my experiences with various organizational forms of hedonism, it's sure not the men that have any disrespect for the party girls; it's OTHER WOMEN who get all territorial and competitive and jealous. Even in allegedly 'open'/'polyamorous'/whatever relationships where lack of monogamy is supposedly a mutually agreed ground rule.
Be sure to lie to them about the stability, though, or else they're not going to give you any money.
Actually, the exact opposite; you give them an ID on your bug tracking system and tell them that they're getting alpha-quality software, and they'll have to do the work of the QA department you can't afford and work with you to resolve bugs.
If that's a problem, then your product is not uniquely compelling enough. Go back and try again.
Your grasp of business ethics is really impressive. What company do you work for again? *poises pen over black-list*
Your grasp of the purpose of those URL links below one's name on a post is really impressive. Snicker.
A particular example of the fast/cheap process I describe, once you find enough brain cells to figure out where a good place to click to find out my work history might be, is Totally Hip's LiveStage. If you care enough to check up on my statements, they might still have support forum archives going back to the development of 1.0 (or if not, have fun with the WayBackMachine, everything was public) and you will be able to see for yourself quite clearly that all the paying customers were under no illusions that the software they were getting was stable or fully functional. Their revenue literally saved the company, and if you go to the website today you'll see LiveStage front and center, up to version 4.5 and counting, and still completely owning the interactive-QuickTime-movie editing niche that I created with it.
That, I say, is undeniable proof that fast/cheap can be a company-saving strategy. And, contrary to your assertion, no one was lied to about the complete lack of stability and wildly inconsistent functionality, because they were willing to accept that to participate in what was then an utterly novel opportunity. Unfortunately, the vast improvements in Flash since then and near-complete stagnation of interactive QuickTime have made the particular niche it addresses rather more constrained than the opportunity looked when I conceived the project, but hey.
I disagree. There's been several projects I've led where fast and cheap brought in enough money to keep the company going and have a chance to think about the 'good' part a bit while still keeping the mortgage paid up.
The necessary condition for this is that your product serves an uncompetitive product niche, or creates its own from scratch. Find one of those with customers who need/want it enough to put up with a product that can't go an hour without crashing -- hey, you're golden. Toss it out there and start planning how to make 2.0 suck less.
Well, Apple as an institution might not...... but Steve Jobs quite certainly DOES.
Now, you might reasonably have quibbles with His Steveness' definition of "good", but to imply that an Apple under his control isn't largely product-driven would be incorrect.
If Apple cares about their customers enough, they can release firmware updates to allow iPods to play WMA. (Well, assuming firmware updates are possible with iPods... maybe I've just been spoiled by my Neuros.)
Judging by the "iTunes-wma.icns" icon sitting right out in the open in the iTunes/Resources folder, I suspect that if Apple ever decides that WMA has become important enough that a monetarily significant portion of the consumer market gives a shit, it won't even take a firmware update.
Same for the also present "iTunes-ogg.icns", for that matter...
How come we bash Microsoft's monopolizing tactics but praise Apple for doing pretty much the same thing with iPods and iTMS?
For it to be 'pretty much the same thing', Apple would have to be bullying record labels into not providing their catalogues to competitive music services. As far as I know, nothing along those lines is even hinted at.
But merely tying Apple's service offering to Apple's hardware offering, while the actual product (ie music) is completely fungible and completely available to anyone who cares to put together a competitive service/hardware package... that I at least do not consider to be 'pretty much the same thing', and Apple has no moral obligation whatsoever to allow people to pick and choose which of those complementary offerings they want to compete with. If they have the same access to product that Apple does, and can't put together a competively compelling end to end experience out of it... well sucks to be them then doesn't it.
You could not be talking about Byzantium, because the Crusades originated in the Western half of what used to be the Roman Empire, and not in Byzantium.
On the contrary, that's exactly what I'm talking about. As I had already pointed out before this silly post of yours, but I'll expand on this particular point for your edification.
The cause of the Crusades was the Islamic Seljuk empire. Specifically, Togrul Beg's successors Alp Arslan and Malik Shah, who brought Syria and Palestine under Seljuk control. The individual event we can assign most direct consequentiality to is the battle of Manzikert, where Arslan quite thoroughly kicked Byzantine ass, leading to Byzantium's loss of control in Asia Minor. Byzantium was essentially in chaos as a result of this until Emperor Alexius I ascended. In 1095, he was ready to attack, but needed soldiers. Being unable to draft them or buy them, he sent envoys to Urban's Council at Piacenza, asking them to come fight for the Christian faith, since he had no better reason. And Urban ran with it.
So, friend, not only is Byzantium exactly what I'm talking about, when you say "originated in the Western half", you are in fact utterly wrong, as they originated with Alexius I of Byzantium as the Byzantine response to the depradations of the Islamic Seljuk Empire.
I can't really be bothered wasting the time to deal with any other substantive points that may be hiding behind your incoherent prose, but I trust demonstrating the complete falsity of this particular point is sufficient for anyone reading this who actually cares to make a sound judgement of the merit of our relative positions.
The Byzantine Empire was what the part with historical claims to the region was called at the time. The Crusades came into being because the Byzantine Emperor called for help against the Seljuk Turks' depredations, and he had nothing to call with except an appeal to shared Christian heritage against the Muslim invasions.
Come on dude, this is _trivial_ to look up. If you seriously don't know what the Byzantine Empire is and how the invasion of it is what caused the Crusades, you really should go away and shut up until you have enough basic knowledge to form an opinion that isn't an utter waste of our time.
Well, actually, that is my standard answer IRL whenever anyone wants to know my position on homosexual marriage (usually with the expectation I'll denounce it so they can act all self-righteous by intolerating my 'intolerance', since they're stupid enough to figure that my well-known appreciation of a capitalistic society must obviously necessarily entail fundamentalist Christian beliefs), "Why the fuck does the government have anything to do with marriage? I should be able to marry three or four women, I should be able to marry my sister, or a pet, or a household appliance, and if my religion allows it there's no reason the government should find it any of their business, is it now? Are you as open-minded and tolerant as I am?"
That ties them in knots real good. They won't approve of all those things, but they're (generally) smart enough to realize that if they voice disapproval of any I'll be on the logical disconnect between allowing gay marriage and not any other non-traditional-Western forms like a flash, so they generally just shut up there.
look at the crusades if want evidence of the misery and suffering brought about by christianity.
Hmmm? The Crusades were a defense of territory historically owned by the Roman Empire peacefully for over a thousand years against its invasion and subjugation by Islamic hordes conquering and plundering their way out of Arabia.
If you think that an empire defending its territory against invasion is "brought about by christianity"... you need to learn a little more history there, friend.
So infertile couples and old folks shouldn't be allowed to marry, eh?
You apparently think this is a clever jest -- but actually, historically this is correct; fertility was a necessary condition for a sacramental marriage union.
Allowing nonfertile heterosexual couples to wed was, indeed, the first true break with the original Christian theological concept of marriage. Homosexual weddings are just a difference of degree rather than kind.
The non-theological historical purpose of marriage, of course, was to unify economic interests. In that it can be regarded as the precursor to the limited liability partnership for commercial scale ventures, and to a properly enforced will for personal property.
Just as a matter of interest, why do you single out Bush etc. here and completely ignore virtually identical statements made in the Clinton era, particularly around the Desert Fox (more tonnage of bombs than any other action since WWII) Iraq action?
Not trolling to start a fight here, seriously. I really do want to hear a coherent answer to that one particular question, why is it an article of faith to people like you that Bush is uniquely duplicitous when Desert Fox was justified by the Clinton administration using the same arguments that Bush used four years later for Iraqi Freedom? Whether those arguments are true or whether the attacks were justified I'm not interested in here, I just want to know why your sort thinks that the Clinton administration was truthful and the Bush administration lied when what they said was identical. It seems very strange indeed. But being Canadian and all, perhaps there's some subtlety I'm missing here...
For reference, I don't have problems with virii, my system never crashes, and all of my main programs (mainly design programs from Adobe and Macromedia) run very nicely. So what would I gain from switching?
That you can tie internal functions of Adobe and Macromedia and most other professional applications into workflow scripts using the applications' AppleScript dictionaries in ways that just aren't possible using any non-AppleScript technology would strike any true geek as a compelling reason to be using OS X, my friend.
It's a physics based fact that keeping a mass, such as an air car, airborne consumes more energy than a ground based rolling car.
Yeah? So when I fly my paraglider for a decent XC, say 65k in around three hours, that consumed more energy than a car would take to carry my 200+ pounds that same distance? Wow, wonder how on earth that happens without a motor?
Perhaps you're overlooking a little something here. Can't quite put my finger on it...
Well, the downside there is that anyone who in future might have greenlighted a scifi movie that doesn't suck will have one more good-to-them reason not to take any chances.
So you could look at it as sucking down the apparent mess they've made of this is your little contribution towards maybe having something more worthwhile than Legally Bridget Jones Congeniality Part XXVIII in the theatres a few years down the road...
From what I understand, Sin City is a triumph in regards to "telling the tale".
My viewing companion who's familar with the books backs that opintion up yes.
Me, with no foreknowledge or preconceptions whatsoever, I just thought it was way fucking cool. To coin a phrase. Didn't get any I'm-missing-something vibe at all.
Here's another firsthand story. A friend of mine came home with his wife one night. Wife goes out to the garage. He hears her scream. Runs out, finds thug rooting around the garage. Grabs a handy piece of pipe and advances threateningly. (Friend being some 220 pounds of solid muscle, that's pretty threatening.) Thug laughs, says "Ha ha, you can't touch me" and casually strolls on out.
They sold the house and moved to a more upscale area.
Personally, my conversation would have gone like this:
ME: Oh yes I can, because I'm in imminent fear of you using deadly force against me with that big knife in your hand.
I don't have any online references handy, but yes I can assure you this is most certainly true, and not just in theory, people get convicted for defending their property and/or using excessive force to defend their person on a regular basis. A recent example I know of personally is a fellow who came home to catch a burglar toting his expensive stereo kit out the window. As I would deem perfectly moral and reasonable, he tackled the guy to stop his stuff being carted off.
He now has a criminal record for assault, at least for seven years which is the earliest you can apply for a pardon. Burglar walked. (well, suspended sentence to be exact, but unless he's unlucky enough to get caught again within a year, that's not a criminal record for employment/passport/etc. purposes.)
One you might be able to Google easily is a 74-year old in Ontario who bopped a 28-year old burglar approximately two and a half times his weight from behind with a fire poker without warning him. This was deemed by the constabulary and judiciary to be unreasonable force, since the burglar had not threatened the old guy with physical harm at that point; and the old coot did jail time while the thug walked. That particular one was so obviously insane to anyone with even the most tenuous grasp on reality that it made the news quite a bit.
Guess what! Does your average joe-six pack run an Apache server? No! If they did, I'm sure Apache would be riddled with problems.
Um, if we redefine that to average Mac OS X joe-six pack, yes as a matter of fact, they DO.
"Something else you'll notice about Mac OS X Personal Web Sharing: as server software goes, it's about as stable as a block of granite. That's because it's built on the Apache web server..."
As far as I'm aware there is no conclusive evidence that shows Macs are inherently more secure and would not suffer the virus problem that Windows does if it had Windows' market share.
The conclusive evidence is that OS X is a flavour of *BSD.
If that doesn't strike you as conclusive, then feel free to explain how it is that Apache running on *BSD has such a better security record than IIS running on Windows, despite the fact that the Apache setup has, always has had, and most likely always will have too, a market share far greater than that of IIS.
That certainly strikes *me* as being a pretty compelling counterargument to the greater market share theory of hacker victimization, anyway...
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps because the fellow who wrote that is now dead?
http://sharpgary.org/landscheidt.html
You are incorrect.
Highest year on record was 1998. 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, in order, are: 2002, 2003, 2004.
So, um, sorry to disturb you with reality, but for the last three years we *have* been moving toward minima.
Check back with me in another three years. If global temperatures have resumed their upward climb, I'll be quite willing to accept that it looks like the solar theorists have got it wrong, and start seriously looking at staking land claims in Nunavut. If, on the other hand, temperatures continue their downward trend, will you be willing to accept that the evidence is mounting that the solar theorists are right and the anthropogenic theorists are wrong?
Take a gander at this for instance.
t ml
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/Landscheidt-1.h
Actually, precisely the opposite is true. The GCM models that claim human agency is important are getting damned near everything absolutely wrong. The observed lack of polar warming over the last four decades -- as their models predict should be the most evident consequence -- being the most blatantly irrefutable proof that their models ain't shit. Second most blatantly irrefutable proof is that GCM models claim long wave radiation should be decreased by anthropogenic greenhouse gases; but, wonder of wonders, satellites tell us that tropical long wave radiation has actually INCREASED. Funny, that.
We could go on for a while here, but I won't beat the horse any deader, either you can look at the facts and accept that the IPCC models that the media likes to claim is a "consensus" are actually near-completely-useless nonsense; or you've got blinkered religious faith in what the media tells you and you won't accept the actual observed reality since it disturbs your comfortable prejudices too much. Hey, your choice.
Now, on the other hand, the solar-magnetic people's claims that we've just undergone a phase change akin to the 1130-ish Medieval Climate Optimum and that's where the last century's warming came from, nothing much if anything to do with anthropogenic gas emissions, here's what they predicted successfully:
Quite a record to stack up against the anthropgenic theorists, that.
In any case, we'll know whether the solar people are right soonish; they claim peak heating is already passed and very soon there's going to be a marked downslope in global temperature until the next Gleissburg minimum in 2030-odd; not only that, there's disturbing signs it could turn out to be a seriously deep one, leading to Little Ice Age style deepfreezes.
On the one hand, I kinda hope the solar guys are right, because laughing at all the lefties about just how completely wrong and religiously intolerant of the truth they were over this whole global warming scare would be immensely funny. On the other hand, a new Little Ice Age would REALLY SUCK for anyone outside the tropics.
So
I think a lot of the cultural dislike of prostitutes was enforced by women. Women with boyfriends don't like women without. That's not true of course, but do you see what I'm getting at? Prostitutes are the ultimate "single" women.
Yep, mod parent up. In my experiences with various organizational forms of hedonism, it's sure not the men that have any disrespect for the party girls; it's OTHER WOMEN who get all territorial and competitive and jealous. Even in allegedly 'open'/'polyamorous'/whatever relationships where lack of monogamy is supposedly a mutually agreed ground rule.
Funny, that...
Be sure to lie to them about the stability, though, or else they're not going to give you any money.
Actually, the exact opposite; you give them an ID on your bug tracking system and tell them that they're getting alpha-quality software, and they'll have to do the work of the QA department you can't afford and work with you to resolve bugs.
If that's a problem, then your product is not uniquely compelling enough. Go back and try again.
Your grasp of business ethics is really impressive. What company do you work for again? *poises pen over black-list*
Your grasp of the purpose of those URL links below one's name on a post is really impressive. Snicker.
A particular example of the fast/cheap process I describe, once you find enough brain cells to figure out where a good place to click to find out my work history might be, is Totally Hip's LiveStage. If you care enough to check up on my statements, they might still have support forum archives going back to the development of 1.0 (or if not, have fun with the WayBackMachine, everything was public) and you will be able to see for yourself quite clearly that all the paying customers were under no illusions that the software they were getting was stable or fully functional. Their revenue literally saved the company, and if you go to the website today you'll see LiveStage front and center, up to version 4.5 and counting, and still completely owning the interactive-QuickTime-movie editing niche that I created with it.
That, I say, is undeniable proof that fast/cheap can be a company-saving strategy. And, contrary to your assertion, no one was lied to about the complete lack of stability and wildly inconsistent functionality, because they were willing to accept that to participate in what was then an utterly novel opportunity. Unfortunately, the vast improvements in Flash since then and near-complete stagnation of interactive QuickTime have made the particular niche it addresses rather more constrained than the opportunity looked when I conceived the project, but hey.
I disagree. There's been several projects I've led where fast and cheap brought in enough money to keep the company going and have a chance to think about the 'good' part a bit while still keeping the mortgage paid up.
The necessary condition for this is that your product serves an uncompetitive product niche, or creates its own from scratch. Find one of those with customers who need/want it enough to put up with a product that can't go an hour without crashing -- hey, you're golden. Toss it out there and start planning how to make 2.0 suck less.
Well, Apple as an institution might not ... ... but Steve Jobs quite certainly DOES.
Now, you might reasonably have quibbles with His Steveness' definition of "good", but to imply that an Apple under his control isn't largely product-driven would be incorrect.
If Apple cares about their customers enough, they can release firmware updates to allow iPods to play WMA. (Well, assuming firmware updates are possible with iPods... maybe I've just been spoiled by my Neuros.)
/Resources folder, I suspect that if Apple ever decides that WMA has become important enough that a monetarily significant portion of the consumer market gives a shit, it won't even take a firmware update.
... that I at least do not consider to be 'pretty much the same thing', and Apple has no moral obligation whatsoever to allow people to pick and choose which of those complementary offerings they want to compete with. If they have the same access to product that Apple does, and can't put together a competively compelling end to end experience out of it ... well sucks to be them then doesn't it.
Judging by the "iTunes-wma.icns" icon sitting right out in the open in the iTunes
Same for the also present "iTunes-ogg.icns", for that matter...
How come we bash Microsoft's monopolizing tactics but praise Apple for doing pretty much the same thing with iPods and iTMS?
For it to be 'pretty much the same thing', Apple would have to be bullying record labels into not providing their catalogues to competitive music services. As far as I know, nothing along those lines is even hinted at.
But merely tying Apple's service offering to Apple's hardware offering, while the actual product (ie music) is completely fungible and completely available to anyone who cares to put together a competitive service/hardware package
You could not be talking about Byzantium, because the Crusades originated in the Western half of what used to be the Roman Empire, and not in Byzantium.
On the contrary, that's exactly what I'm talking about. As I had already pointed out before this silly post of yours, but I'll expand on this particular point for your edification.
The cause of the Crusades was the Islamic Seljuk empire. Specifically, Togrul Beg's successors Alp Arslan and Malik Shah, who brought Syria and Palestine under Seljuk control. The individual event we can assign most direct consequentiality to is the battle of Manzikert, where Arslan quite thoroughly kicked Byzantine ass, leading to Byzantium's loss of control in Asia Minor. Byzantium was essentially in chaos as a result of this until Emperor Alexius I ascended. In 1095, he was ready to attack, but needed soldiers. Being unable to draft them or buy them, he sent envoys to Urban's Council at Piacenza, asking them to come fight for the Christian faith, since he had no better reason. And Urban ran with it.
So, friend, not only is Byzantium exactly what I'm talking about, when you say "originated in the Western half", you are in fact utterly wrong, as they originated with Alexius I of Byzantium as the Byzantine response to the depradations of the Islamic Seljuk Empire.
I can't really be bothered wasting the time to deal with any other substantive points that may be hiding behind your incoherent prose, but I trust demonstrating the complete falsity of this particular point is sufficient for anyone reading this who actually cares to make a sound judgement of the merit of our relative positions.
What empire, Rome had fallen long before.
The Byzantine Empire was what the part with historical claims to the region was called at the time. The Crusades came into being because the Byzantine Emperor called for help against the Seljuk Turks' depredations, and he had nothing to call with except an appeal to shared Christian heritage against the Muslim invasions.
Come on dude, this is _trivial_ to look up. If you seriously don't know what the Byzantine Empire is and how the invasion of it is what caused the Crusades, you really should go away and shut up until you have enough basic knowledge to form an opinion that isn't an utter waste of our time.
Well, actually, that is my standard answer IRL whenever anyone wants to know my position on homosexual marriage (usually with the expectation I'll denounce it so they can act all self-righteous by intolerating my 'intolerance', since they're stupid enough to figure that my well-known appreciation of a capitalistic society must obviously necessarily entail fundamentalist Christian beliefs), "Why the fuck does the government have anything to do with marriage? I should be able to marry three or four women, I should be able to marry my sister, or a pet, or a household appliance, and if my religion allows it there's no reason the government should find it any of their business, is it now? Are you as open-minded and tolerant as I am?"
That ties them in knots real good. They won't approve of all those things, but they're (generally) smart enough to realize that if they voice disapproval of any I'll be on the logical disconnect between allowing gay marriage and not any other non-traditional-Western forms like a flash, so they generally just shut up there.
look at the crusades if want evidence of the misery and suffering brought about by christianity.
... you need to learn a little more history there, friend.
Hmmm? The Crusades were a defense of territory historically owned by the Roman Empire peacefully for over a thousand years against its invasion and subjugation by Islamic hordes conquering and plundering their way out of Arabia.
If you think that an empire defending its territory against invasion is "brought about by christianity"
So infertile couples and old folks shouldn't be allowed to marry, eh?
You apparently think this is a clever jest -- but actually, historically this is correct; fertility was a necessary condition for a sacramental marriage union.
Allowing nonfertile heterosexual couples to wed was, indeed, the first true break with the original Christian theological concept of marriage. Homosexual weddings are just a difference of degree rather than kind.
The non-theological historical purpose of marriage, of course, was to unify economic interests. In that it can be regarded as the precursor to the limited liability partnership for commercial scale ventures, and to a properly enforced will for personal property.
So in your lights the 15% or so of police officers that have fired their weapons in the line of duty are all guilty of attempted murder?
Interesting position, that...
Just as a matter of interest, why do you single out Bush etc. here and completely ignore virtually identical statements made in the Clinton era, particularly around the Desert Fox (more tonnage of bombs than any other action since WWII) Iraq action?
Not trolling to start a fight here, seriously. I really do want to hear a coherent answer to that one particular question, why is it an article of faith to people like you that Bush is uniquely duplicitous when Desert Fox was justified by the Clinton administration using the same arguments that Bush used four years later for Iraqi Freedom? Whether those arguments are true or whether the attacks were justified I'm not interested in here, I just want to know why your sort thinks that the Clinton administration was truthful and the Bush administration lied when what they said was identical. It seems very strange indeed. But being Canadian and all, perhaps there's some subtlety I'm missing here...
For reference, I don't have problems with virii, my system never crashes, and all of my main programs (mainly design programs from Adobe and Macromedia) run very nicely. So what would I gain from switching?
That you can tie internal functions of Adobe and Macromedia and most other professional applications into workflow scripts using the applications' AppleScript dictionaries in ways that just aren't possible using any non-AppleScript technology would strike any true geek as a compelling reason to be using OS X, my friend.
It's a physics based fact that keeping a mass, such as an air car, airborne consumes more energy than a ground based rolling car.
Yeah? So when I fly my paraglider for a decent XC, say 65k in around three hours, that consumed more energy than a car would take to carry my 200+ pounds that same distance? Wow, wonder how on earth that happens without a motor?
Perhaps you're overlooking a little something here. Can't quite put my finger on it...
Bzzzt ... wrong.
It was actually done in Performer on an SE/30. Even better, their first video was produced on that same SE/30. Yep, 9" B&W screen and all.
He didn't get a Quadra until Downward Spiral. A 950, to be exact.
Well, the downside there is that anyone who in future might have greenlighted a scifi movie that doesn't suck will have one more good-to-them reason not to take any chances.
So you could look at it as sucking down the apparent mess they've made of this is your little contribution towards maybe having something more worthwhile than Legally Bridget Jones Congeniality Part XXVIII in the theatres a few years down the road...
From what I understand, Sin City is a triumph in regards to "telling the tale".
My viewing companion who's familar with the books backs that opintion up yes.
Me, with no foreknowledge or preconceptions whatsoever, I just thought it was way fucking cool. To coin a phrase. Didn't get any I'm-missing-something vibe at all.
Here's another firsthand story. A friend of mine came home with his wife one night. Wife goes out to the garage. He hears her scream. Runs out, finds thug rooting around the garage. Grabs a handy piece of pipe and advances threateningly. (Friend being some 220 pounds of solid muscle, that's pretty threatening.) Thug laughs, says "Ha ha, you can't touch me" and casually strolls on out.
They sold the house and moved to a more upscale area.
Personally, my conversation would have gone like this:
ME: Oh yes I can, because I'm in imminent fear of you using deadly force against me with that big knife in your hand.
THUG: Huh? I don't have any knife in my hand.
ME: By the time the police get here, you WILL.
I don't have any online references handy, but yes I can assure you this is most certainly true, and not just in theory, people get convicted for defending their property and/or using excessive force to defend their person on a regular basis. A recent example I know of personally is a fellow who came home to catch a burglar toting his expensive stereo kit out the window. As I would deem perfectly moral and reasonable, he tackled the guy to stop his stuff being carted off.
He now has a criminal record for assault, at least for seven years which is the earliest you can apply for a pardon.
Burglar walked. (well, suspended sentence to be exact, but unless he's unlucky enough to get caught again within a year, that's not a criminal record for employment/passport/etc. purposes.)
One you might be able to Google easily is a 74-year old in Ontario who bopped a 28-year old burglar approximately two and a half times his weight from behind with a fire poker without warning him. This was deemed by the constabulary and judiciary to be unreasonable force, since the burglar had not threatened the old guy with physical harm at that point; and the old coot did jail time while the thug walked. That particular one was so obviously insane to anyone with even the most tenuous grasp on reality that it made the news quite a bit.
Guess what! Does your average joe-six pack run an Apache server? No! If they did, I'm sure Apache would be riddled with problems.
/
Um, if we redefine that to average Mac OS X joe-six pack, yes as a matter of fact, they DO.
"Something else you'll notice about Mac OS X Personal Web Sharing: as server software goes, it's about as stable as a block of granite. That's because it's built on the Apache web server..."
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/websharing
As far as I'm aware there is no conclusive evidence that shows Macs are inherently more secure and would not suffer the virus problem that Windows does if it had Windows' market share.
The conclusive evidence is that OS X is a flavour of *BSD.
If that doesn't strike you as conclusive, then feel free to explain how it is that Apache running on *BSD has such a better security record than IIS running on Windows, despite the fact that the Apache setup has, always has had, and most likely always will have too, a market share far greater than that of IIS.
That certainly strikes *me* as being a pretty compelling counterargument to the greater market share theory of hacker victimization, anyway...