Considering that every trailer they release uses more and more obscure codecs making them actively hard to play on anything other than QuickTime itself (AAC anybody?)
Umm, AAC is a MPEG standard. And considering they ship music with their consumer products encoded in MP3 and their own audio application encodes only into MP3 I'd have to say your comments are pretty far off.
Black Eyed Peas Blackalicious DJ Shadow GZA Jurassic 5 Planet Asia Rahzel Redman The Roots
Sure there is manufactured crap, but there is also some true talent on Universal or their subsidiaries. (You can probably tell what style of music I'm listening to, but the same holds true for every genre.)
I don't suppose that ridding them of the dictator that caused the armed conflicts in the first place, along with the "brutal sanctions" counts for anything
In the 1980s the United States supported Saddam's totalitarian regime and showed little concern for its victims. American exports helped launch Iraq's biological weapons program. Saddam's horrific violations of international law, such as his use of poison gas on the battlefield, had minimal effect on US-Iraqi cooperation. And while the tilt toward Saddam began with Jimmy Carter ("We see no fundamental incompatibility of interests between the US and Iraq" -- National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, April 1980), it was the Reagan and Bush I administrations that brought it to full flower.
All of this has long been a matter of public record. US shipments of deadly biological agents to Iraq, for example, were detailed in a 1994 Senate Banking Committee report and a follow-up letter from the Centers for Disease Control in 1995. They showed that Iraq was allowed to purchase batch after batch of lethal pathogens -- anthrax, botulism, E. coli, West Nile fever, gas gangrene, dengue fever. At a time when Washington knew that Iraq was using chemical weapons to kill thousands of Iranian troops, the CDC was shipping germ cultures directly to the Iraqi unconventional weapons facility in al-Muthanna.
Ignoring reality is something American's do best. Toppling Saddam's reign wasn't an act of kindness to the Iraqi people, it was making up for a 25 year old mistake.
USA owes everyone in Iraq more than you could ever imagine. Unfortunately, this is only the beginning. On to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, etc...
"Prove it. I want to see definitave proof. I don't believe any of your beliefs any soon than I would a preacher walking down the street."
Wow, the same think could've been said about Bush's claims of WMD before the invasion of Iraq. In fact, the entire concept of the Patiot Act is not needing definitive proof.
How do you know what the US needs to spend on defense? Do you work for the NSC or Pentagon? No? I thought not. Your ignorance is appalling and you best serve society by remaining quiet than by spouting your ill-informed rhetoric.
Not so ignorant. What freedoms are the military protecting right now if you believe everyone who has something negative to say should just be quiet? Some people just amaze me.
Huge militaries are relative to huge security needs. Norway, Canada and Belgium have relatively little threatening them and very little international interests. The US has huge interests and is the single most threatened nation in the world (in terms of power). Apples and Oranges.
My point wasn't to stop all military and defense actions. Just to budget it better. I hardly think the $396,100,000,000.00 spent on military (52% of the total budget) is really as nessesary as the government would like you to believe.
Nothing is ever perfect, but what you are proposing is just as short sighted as the parent post. I don't agree with everything the Bush administration is doing, but I at least realize they have access to all the information and I do not.
You have almost all of the information at your finger tips. And blindly following the administration because "they have access to all the information and I do not" is such a sad thing to hear in this day and age I don't really want to respond to it.
Think about this: for this war, Bush and Blair privately met with all the other leaders of major UN countries. They provided reasoning and proof for it, yet only Australia (whose Free-Trade agreement has since then been accelerated) decided to support the movement. Either the US actually doesn't have any proof whatsoever, or, ummm... well I guess that was actually it. Only after Bush declared war did some smaller countries hop aboard (all without actually dedicating troops or resources to the mission, hmmm...).
My post was most definately not anti-war. In fact, I believe if the case had been made for Iraqi stability, Canada would have been involved. It wasn't, and the US now looks like a huge bully to the rest of the world. The other countries in the "coalition of the willing" are there because they saw this as an opportunity to improve US relations in hopes that their local economy will prosper (already Australia's free-trade agreement has been accelerated).
The catalyst for discussion was anti-american terrorism and its causes. Helping Saddam gain power in Iraq 20 years ago, then having 12 years of bombing runs then "liberating" the Iraqi people will not improve stability in the middle east. Destroying democracy in Iran and supporting a dictator will not improve stability. Destroying democracy in Saudi Arabia and supporting a monarchy will not improve stability. Destroying democracy in Kuwait and supporting a dictator will not improve stability. You see a theme here?
The biggest problem the antiwar protesters have is that they have no credible alternative plan to deal with the problem.
Actually, that would be the government's responsibility. The protestors don't agree with the war, which is their right. The government has acted harshly and irrationally. There has been no diplomacy on this, neither has there been any real thought. By refusing to even wait for the UN's vote, the US has proven that they are not open to other resolves. Bush wants blood. That does not bring stability to the middle east.
*groan* Where to start on this ultra-liberal nonsense...
I'm not sure if you live in the US or not, but if so, why not move to Norway, Sweden, etc? Live there all your life, then tell us that those are the "best" places in the world to live. Until then, you have no basis for comparison. (either do I, for that matter)
I currently live in Canada, my roots are Flemish (Belgium and English). I have lived in USA and have stayed in Norway for extended periods of time. I feel that even if you haven't been to all of these places, you can still see the benefits of their systems.
Cut the military and spend more on education, healthcare, and welfare? Of course! It's so simiple! Why don't we sell all our weapons to other countries and use that money for more welfare, too? In fact, why don't we make all weapons illegal and sell those too! The police don't need guns. That will surely lead us to the utopian, welfare-based, socialist society you invision!
I never said be rid of the military. Thats just foolish. But do the tax payers of America need to spend billions of dollars a day in order to keep a full arsenal of nuclear weapons? No. Cut that in half and already you have more money to spend on resources that will actually be used. Why are you making such an extreme? I never said that all weapons should be sold or destroyed. It's not all or nothing. The reason I brought up those other countries were as proof that a huge military isn't necessary for a successful country. Quit being so shortsighted.
Like it or not, humans are violent and prone to war. Ignoring that will not make it go away, the only way to survive is to mitigate violence the best we can......but we've survived this long and it's surely better than the alternatives.
Better than what alternatives? The ones that the top 5 countries in the world are using. They certainly have a better system than America.
We may not be handling it perfectly,
Your damn right its not being handled perfectly. There is room for improvement, so why deny Americans of it? Your mentality of "If it ain't broke don't fix it." may have some bearing somewhere, but not with a country currently involved in a war, under threat of terrorists and with an economy in a downward spiral.
I am not anti-american. I am just saying there is a need for some change that will benefit the country along with the rest of the world.
Man, I didn't want to get into this... here goes an -1 Off-topic.
Isn't deposing Saddam helping to free a number of Arabs from oppression, and help the Kurds with discrimination? The US supports the World Bank, which does as much as it can to help reduce poverty. I'm not sure what the USA can be expected to do beyond that.
That is so sad that there are people out there, supporting the current government and believing that they are doing everything in their power for the well being of other countries. News Flash: Operation Iraqi Freedom has nothing to do with liberating the Iraqi people. When Bush went to gain support from other UN countries, not once did he mention freedom for the oppressed Iraqis. He mentioned nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction and terrorists. The reason countries like Canada decided not to support this war (which should have been your first clue, considering their participation in Operation Apollo) was because every reason Bush was presenting to the UN had no proof. It was all lies. (I'm not saying they don't have those weapons, I'm saying the Bush and Powell claimed they could prove it without actually presenting any proof). Two weeks before the war started there was zero support outside of GB and US and they all changed gears. Now this is about liberation. Well, sorry to break it to everyone, but the Iraqis haven't forgotten about the last 20 years. I suggest you go out and watch an excellent documentary called "A Generation of Hate". You'll soon realize that those Iraqis that cheer for the American troops are only putting on a face. They are not about to pledge allegiance. They don't like Saddam, but they hate America more.
What should America be doing? Stop the protection of state funded terrorism from Israel. Stop the support of other dictators in third world countries. Stop the support on the oppressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia. Cut some funding for the military and place that excess money into education, healthcare and welfare. Claim responsibility for its past mistakes and look at real ways to finding solutions.
Privacy invasion should never be an issue. It is mearly a weak excuse by a government in order to retain control without actually doing any work.
Think about this: The top 5 countries in the world to live (according to the UN rating) is Norway, Australia, Canada, Sweden and Belgium. None of these countries have a huge military. They don't have terrorist threats (although Australia's recent decision to help USA in this war might change that). Their economy is faring better than USA's right now. They have better healthcare and education systems. Canada is the most multicultural country in the world. Norway and Sweden have very little poverty.
To all of America, wake up. You don't live in the greatest country in the world. Instead of trying to change every other country to suit your own, start at home first. Privacy, freedom, true democracy: These are the key ingredients to a prosperous and content homeland.
You hope, but we all know the exact opposite will happen. You'll see the signs "All digital sound! All digital picture!" and they'll charge you $15 for a ticket.
What are you talking about. IBM didn't "open" their architecture to other companies. Quick history lesson:
From ExtremeTech.com: Compaq, on the other hand, was the first "PC clone" company. It's a term that sounds rather quaint today. At the time, though, Compaq sent a shudder through the industry. Compaq reverse-engineered the IBM PC BIOS without ever looking at the BIOS code. That was harder than you might think, because IBM actually published the assembly code for the PC BIOS in its technical reference manuals. Compaq was able to prove that its engineers never looked at the code or disassembled the original BIOS to come up with their own.
This would probably never happen in today's lawsuit-happy technology industry. Today's IBM might sue a Compaq just to run the clock out. But back then, IBM--perhaps still skittish after its own set of antitrust battles with the Justice Department--kept quiet. Compaq opened the floodgates, and a host of PC compatibles soon hit the streets, and the PC industry was never quite the same small, insular community.
IBM didn't want this to happen.
Apple's hardware, on the other hand, is pretty open. The firmware, the motherboards, and a lot more. The only thing you can't use is their ROM without their permission. And they will sue the second someone tries to.
Re:Apple is going to have to abandon PPC anyway
on
Beige Box Apple Clone?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Same thing could have been said about Intel's chips in 1997-98 when the PowerPC chip was way further ahead in MHz and raw speed.
The industry fluctuates. Just because one company leads doesn't mean they will forever. Quit being so short sighted.
Mac Price / Mac Upgrade Cycle = PC Price / PC Upgrad Cycle
Not only that, but right now a PowerMac from 2 years ago isn't significantly faster than a present one. A PC is, so an upgrade is warranted.
That being said though, Apple parts (at least used to) have a reputation of being able to last longer than your run-of-the-mill PC parts. You pay more, and the quality is generally higher. The same goes for the PC world.
Linus never set a date for support for that kernel branch. He hasn't stated that he'll continue to work on it and support it until mid-2003.
Every kernel released after 1.3 can be considered in some part a security upgrade. They are free. To upgrade NT now you must pay for Win2000, XP, 2003, etc.
I'm not bashing MS on this, its just that your comparison doesn't make much sense.
Actually, a lot is coming from the suburbs around Toronto (thanks to the booming success of grow houses). They are saying that most of the weed is getting traded for cocaine and guns. In my neighborhood alone there are weekly grow house busts (I drove by one yesterday on the way home from work).
Its funny actually, because these growers hear about the busts before they happen, so sometimes if you buy really dank weed that hasn't been dried properly (because it was rushed to the market) you will know that within the next week you'll hear about a house raid.
Breathing supports terrorism. Scientists have just discovered that if you breath oxygen, you are in fact taking away necessary, life giving resources, namely oxygen from those who fight the terrorists.
The public is now being asked to refrain from breathing so that the counter-terrorists do not run out of oxygen (although is was also recommended that if you are around any terrorist you should try to use as much oxygen as possible, because we believe that terrorists also use oxygen to live).
Ironically, I hate talking about politics, and this is the first time I've entered into one of these threads...
Wow, I should feel so privileged. =)
Iraq does sell chemical weapons to known terrorist groups, though. This is what must stop, whether you are for war or against. Iraq must not have any weapons of mass destruction, because they cannot be trusted to use those responsibly.
Considering the US's long history of doing the same, I don't think this is a viable reason.
Bush isn't bad, just a Texan. I'm not going to blame Bush for wanting to get it over with. It's something that is wasting the US governments time, and the rest of the world. It has the potential to hurt a lot of people, if Iraq isn't "reformed."
I never said that Bush was bad. He seems to understand only one thing, and that is aggression. The economy is in shambles and its only getting worse. There are a lot of issues on the table right now, but only Iraq is getting looked at. Before that all attention was on terrorism and before that (within the first week of his being in office) it was drugs. He just hasn't proven himself a worthy leader. Memorable? Yes. Patriotic? To an extreme. Worthy? Far from it.
because he does have a competent military advisory board. Mr. Powell is more than able to advise and manage the Iraqi conflict.
Personally, I think Powell may be one of the last people I'd have as any sort of advisor on this matter, but I guess its all a matter of opinion.
Sorry for bringing you into this discussion (since you hate it and all), but an exchange in ideas is occasionally a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that every trailer they release uses more and more obscure codecs making them actively hard to play on anything other than QuickTime itself (AAC anybody?)
Umm, AAC is a MPEG standard. And considering they ship music with their consumer products encoded in MP3 and their own audio application encodes only into MP3 I'd have to say your comments are pretty far off.
Black Eyed Peas
Blackalicious
DJ Shadow
GZA
Jurassic 5
Planet Asia
Rahzel
Redman
The Roots
Sure there is manufactured crap, but there is also some true talent on Universal or their subsidiaries. (You can probably tell what style of music I'm listening to, but the same holds true for every genre.)
I don't suppose that ridding them of the dictator that caused the armed conflicts in the first place, along with the "brutal sanctions" counts for anything
Ignoring reality is something American's do best. Toppling Saddam's reign wasn't an act of kindness to the Iraqi people, it was making up for a 25 year old mistake.
USA owes everyone in Iraq more than you could ever imagine. Unfortunately, this is only the beginning. On to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, etc...
"Prove it. I want to see definitave proof. I don't believe any of your beliefs any soon than I would a preacher walking down the street."
Wow, the same think could've been said about Bush's claims of WMD before the invasion of Iraq. In fact, the entire concept of the Patiot Act is not needing definitive proof.
Steven Seagal did WHAT?
The misconception that is happening here is that people are thinking that this is a $5 carrying case that Burton turned into a bag.
It's not. It's a Burton bag (that usually costs between $120 an $250) that now has a small compartment for an iPod and a built-in remote.
$200 is a lot of money for a bag to most of us, but those who buy Burton bags are used to it.
Yup, just like anyone who finds it necessary to put the name of their preferred computing platform in their Slashdot nickname
Hey, you don't know, he just might be Scottish.
How do you know what the US needs to spend on defense? Do you work for the NSC or Pentagon? No? I thought not. Your ignorance is appalling and you best serve society by remaining quiet than by spouting your ill-informed rhetoric.
Not so ignorant. What freedoms are the military protecting right now if you believe everyone who has something negative to say should just be quiet? Some people just amaze me.
Huge militaries are relative to huge security needs. Norway, Canada and Belgium have relatively little threatening them and very little international interests. The US has huge interests and is the single most threatened nation in the world (in terms of power). Apples and Oranges.
My point wasn't to stop all military and defense actions. Just to budget it better. I hardly think the $396,100,000,000.00 spent on military (52% of the total budget) is really as nessesary as the government would like you to believe.
Nothing is ever perfect, but what you are proposing is just as short sighted as the parent post. I don't agree with everything the Bush administration is doing, but I at least realize they have access to all the information and I do not.
You have almost all of the information at your finger tips. And blindly following the administration because "they have access to all the information and I do not" is such a sad thing to hear in this day and age I don't really want to respond to it.
Think about this: for this war, Bush and Blair privately met with all the other leaders of major UN countries. They provided reasoning and proof for it, yet only Australia (whose Free-Trade agreement has since then been accelerated) decided to support the movement. Either the US actually doesn't have any proof whatsoever, or, ummm... well I guess that was actually it. Only after Bush declared war did some smaller countries hop aboard (all without actually dedicating troops or resources to the mission, hmmm...).
My post was most definately not anti-war. In fact, I believe if the case had been made for Iraqi stability, Canada would have been involved. It wasn't, and the US now looks like a huge bully to the rest of the world. The other countries in the "coalition of the willing" are there because they saw this as an opportunity to improve US relations in hopes that their local economy will prosper (already Australia's free-trade agreement has been accelerated).
The catalyst for discussion was anti-american terrorism and its causes. Helping Saddam gain power in Iraq 20 years ago, then having 12 years of bombing runs then "liberating" the Iraqi people will not improve stability in the middle east. Destroying democracy in Iran and supporting a dictator will not improve stability. Destroying democracy in Saudi Arabia and supporting a monarchy will not improve stability. Destroying democracy in Kuwait and supporting a dictator will not improve stability. You see a theme here?
The biggest problem the antiwar protesters have is that they have no credible alternative plan to deal with the problem.
Actually, that would be the government's responsibility. The protestors don't agree with the war, which is their right. The government has acted harshly and irrationally. There has been no diplomacy on this, neither has there been any real thought. By refusing to even wait for the UN's vote, the US has proven that they are not open to other resolves. Bush wants blood. That does not bring stability to the middle east.
*groan* Where to start on this ultra-liberal nonsense...
...but we've survived this long and it's surely better than the alternatives.
I'm not sure if you live in the US or not, but if so, why not move to Norway, Sweden, etc? Live there all your life, then tell us that those are the "best" places in the world to live. Until then, you have no basis for comparison. (either do I, for that matter)
I currently live in Canada, my roots are Flemish (Belgium and English). I have lived in USA and have stayed in Norway for extended periods of time. I feel that even if you haven't been to all of these places, you can still see the benefits of their systems.
Cut the military and spend more on education, healthcare, and welfare? Of course! It's so simiple! Why don't we sell all our weapons to other countries and use that money for more welfare, too? In fact, why don't we make all weapons illegal and sell those too! The police don't need guns. That will surely lead us to the utopian, welfare-based, socialist society you invision!
I never said be rid of the military. Thats just foolish. But do the tax payers of America need to spend billions of dollars a day in order to keep a full arsenal of nuclear weapons? No. Cut that in half and already you have more money to spend on resources that will actually be used. Why are you making such an extreme? I never said that all weapons should be sold or destroyed. It's not all or nothing. The reason I brought up those other countries were as proof that a huge military isn't necessary for a successful country. Quit being so shortsighted.
Like it or not, humans are violent and prone to war. Ignoring that will not make it go away, the only way to survive is to mitigate violence the best we can...
Better than what alternatives? The ones that the top 5 countries in the world are using. They certainly have a better system than America.
We may not be handling it perfectly,
Your damn right its not being handled perfectly. There is room for improvement, so why deny Americans of it? Your mentality of "If it ain't broke don't fix it." may have some bearing somewhere, but not with a country currently involved in a war, under threat of terrorists and with an economy in a downward spiral.
I am not anti-american. I am just saying there is a need for some change that will benefit the country along with the rest of the world.
Man, I didn't want to get into this... here goes an -1 Off-topic.
Isn't deposing Saddam helping to free a number of Arabs from oppression, and help the Kurds with discrimination? The US supports the World Bank, which does as much as it can to help reduce poverty. I'm not sure what the USA can be expected to do beyond that.
That is so sad that there are people out there, supporting the current government and believing that they are doing everything in their power for the well being of other countries. News Flash: Operation Iraqi Freedom has nothing to do with liberating the Iraqi people. When Bush went to gain support from other UN countries, not once did he mention freedom for the oppressed Iraqis. He mentioned nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction and terrorists. The reason countries like Canada decided not to support this war (which should have been your first clue, considering their participation in Operation Apollo) was because every reason Bush was presenting to the UN had no proof. It was all lies. (I'm not saying they don't have those weapons, I'm saying the Bush and Powell claimed they could prove it without actually presenting any proof). Two weeks before the war started there was zero support outside of GB and US and they all changed gears. Now this is about liberation. Well, sorry to break it to everyone, but the Iraqis haven't forgotten about the last 20 years. I suggest you go out and watch an excellent documentary called "A Generation of Hate". You'll soon realize that those Iraqis that cheer for the American troops are only putting on a face. They are not about to pledge allegiance. They don't like Saddam, but they hate America more.
What should America be doing? Stop the protection of state funded terrorism from Israel. Stop the support of other dictators in third world countries. Stop the support on the oppressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia. Cut some funding for the military and place that excess money into education, healthcare and welfare. Claim responsibility for its past mistakes and look at real ways to finding solutions.
Privacy invasion should never be an issue. It is mearly a weak excuse by a government in order to retain control without actually doing any work.
Think about this: The top 5 countries in the world to live (according to the UN rating) is Norway, Australia, Canada, Sweden and Belgium. None of these countries have a huge military. They don't have terrorist threats (although Australia's recent decision to help USA in this war might change that). Their economy is faring better than USA's right now. They have better healthcare and education systems. Canada is the most multicultural country in the world. Norway and Sweden have very little poverty.
To all of America, wake up. You don't live in the greatest country in the world. Instead of trying to change every other country to suit your own, start at home first. Privacy, freedom, true democracy: These are the key ingredients to a prosperous and content homeland.
You hope, but we all know the exact opposite will happen. You'll see the signs "All digital sound! All digital picture!" and they'll charge you $15 for a ticket.
Apple's hardware, on the other hand, is pretty open. The firmware, the motherboards, and a lot more. The only thing you can't use is their ROM without their permission. And they will sue the second someone tries to.
Same thing could have been said about Intel's chips in 1997-98 when the PowerPC chip was way further ahead in MHz and raw speed.
The industry fluctuates. Just because one company leads doesn't mean they will forever. Quit being so short sighted.
Mac Price / Mac Upgrade Cycle = PC Price / PC Upgrad Cycle
Not only that, but right now a PowerMac from 2 years ago isn't significantly faster than a present one. A PC is, so an upgrade is warranted.
That being said though, Apple parts (at least used to) have a reputation of being able to last longer than your run-of-the-mill PC parts. You pay more, and the quality is generally higher. The same goes for the PC world.
Two things wrong with your statement.
I'm not bashing MS on this, its just that your comparison doesn't make much sense.
Yeah, Apple isn't going to intentionally kill an application in a security update.
Hmmm, that story I linked to has now changed Bush's IQ from 95 to 91.
Well, now its half of what Clinton's is. Funny, in a sad sort of way.
bush is smarter than gore
Bush isn't smarter than the average American.
Well, in recent history, about 87 I.Q. points.
You can't be redemed by previous works.
Lucas fans seem to think so.
My first was using Lynx through telnet to a local community college... ... the porn sucked.
Actually, a lot is coming from the suburbs around Toronto (thanks to the booming success of grow houses). They are saying that most of the weed is getting traded for cocaine and guns. In my neighborhood alone there are weekly grow house busts (I drove by one yesterday on the way home from work).
Its funny actually, because these growers hear about the busts before they happen, so sometimes if you buy really dank weed that hasn't been dried properly (because it was rushed to the market) you will know that within the next week you'll hear about a house raid.
This just in:
Breathing supports terrorism. Scientists have just discovered that if you breath oxygen, you are in fact taking away necessary, life giving resources, namely oxygen from those who fight the terrorists.
The public is now being asked to refrain from breathing so that the counter-terrorists do not run out of oxygen (although is was also recommended that if you are around any terrorist you should try to use as much oxygen as possible, because we believe that terrorists also use oxygen to live).
Ironically, I hate talking about politics, and this is the first time I've entered into one of these threads...
Wow, I should feel so privileged. =)
Iraq does sell chemical weapons to known terrorist groups, though. This is what must stop, whether you are for war or against. Iraq must not have any weapons of mass destruction, because they cannot be trusted to use those responsibly.
Considering the US's long history of doing the same, I don't think this is a viable reason.
Bush isn't bad, just a Texan. I'm not going to blame Bush for wanting to get it over with. It's something that is wasting the US governments time, and the rest of the world. It has the potential to hurt a lot of people, if Iraq isn't "reformed."
I never said that Bush was bad. He seems to understand only one thing, and that is aggression. The economy is in shambles and its only getting worse. There are a lot of issues on the table right now, but only Iraq is getting looked at. Before that all attention was on terrorism and before that (within the first week of his being in office) it was drugs. He just hasn't proven himself a worthy leader. Memorable? Yes. Patriotic? To an extreme. Worthy? Far from it.
because he does have a competent military advisory board. Mr. Powell is more than able to advise and manage the Iraqi conflict.
Personally, I think Powell may be one of the last people I'd have as any sort of advisor on this matter, but I guess its all a matter of opinion.
Sorry for bringing you into this discussion (since you hate it and all), but an exchange in ideas is occasionally a good thing.
Peace.