Nobody is going to make the mistake Apple made when they went to PowerPC and had most apps (and for years, most of the OS) running in software emulation.
That wasn't a mistake; in fact I challenge you to name a more flawless example of a major technology transition. 99.99999% of the old m68k apps ran just fine on a powerpc, even better as the speed of the chips increaed. Neither did the legacy code noticably slow down most operations, that came from the lack of protected memory.
The Rev A. doesn't use PC100, my bad. So it'd be about $42 for 128, again off of pricewatch.
lso for the average mac user (cringes at opening their computer) upgrading the memory in a tray loading iMac is an extremely hard chore
Its not that bad. Anyone who's ever built a lego set could install it. BTW, the factory's ram goes underneath the processor, so you can just use the top slot. Now installing the Gamewizard, that was a bitch. After pulling the motherboard rack out of the case, you have to unscrew it, remove the hard drive and cdrom, squeez the custom voodoo 2 card into a very small space, then put everthing back together.:)
His plugin "G-Force" existed BEFORE nVidia's video card "GeForce".
If thats true then he's less lame.
Aside from the fact that he was first with the name, your comment might have some relevance if the two products were actually spelled the same way - which they are not.
Its very relevant, cretin. The only difference between the two names is a - in place of an e. It would be very easy for someone who doesn't follow video cards, is a bad speller, or doesn't look closely to get the two mixed up. Like Divx and DiVx (or whatever capitalization the gay lamer uses).
This theme editor stuff sounds pretty lame, but to make a rebuttal to the rest of your post:
First, they promised this OS for years, and have finally delivered a product that requires a person to upgrade for $100 to OS 9.something in order to run their "Classic" applications, then spend $100 on the new OS.
OS 9.1 (what you need to run classic apps) is included in the OS X box. You don't need to purchase it seperatly.
Not to mention that the average Apple sold in the last few years is a DIMM or two short of the requisite 128mb of RAM.
If you select the cheap option, sure. Other OEM's do the same thing.
I priced upgrading my Rev. A iMac a week or two ago because of how everyone on Slashdot raves about OS X. I'm looking at probably $500 in software and memory just to make sure I don't lose a lot more than I gain.
Only if you pay Apple's exorborant markups for memory. Just walk over to pricewatch, buy a 256 meg stick of PC100 for $45, slap it in your iMac and go nuts.
o apparently "Think Different" doesn't mean "Different" except in terms of "Make sure different people have the money in your wallet". For $500 I can buy a whole new Wintel box
Or you could do a couple seconds worth of research on Apple's products and shop around for a better deal on add-on hardware. But then you'd miss out on all the cheap karma from the Apple-hating moderators on Slashdot.
Why couldn't he use a different name for his pluggin? I saw the story, and my first thought was that it had something to do with some Nvidia product. It's as moronic as naming your home grown video codec Divx when it was also the name of a lame system for renting movies.
If you can't come up with something that sounds cool, just pull some word out of your ass like Intel does (Itanium), but try to be a little unique.
It is pretty cool that we're arguing at the same time, I just posted my message about two minutes ago.:)
I'd leave it up to the car buyers and sellers to decide whether airbags are worth the extra cost in dollars and risk.
The regulations are in there for The Big Picture. Not including airbags may look cheaper at first, until you consider that more airbags = few severe injuries (or deaths) = lower medical bills = lower insurance rates = good for everybody, not just the person who was saved by the airbag.
. For instance, if you always wear your seatbelt there is essentially no benefit to having an airbag too; an airbag can be thought of as a substitute seatbelt
Airbags have never been intended as a substitute for seatbelts. Airbags are meant to work with seatbelts.
only helps you in a single-impact front-on crash.
Thats prolly why they thought of side air bags.:)
Lives saved by airbags are generally lives of people who didn't wear seatbelts. Which isn't to say it's a small group being protected, but it's a selective group; you know if you're in it when you buy the car.
Where airbags really do their stuff is in nasty front end collisions. Your seat belt will keep you from being thrown into the front of (or out of your car), but the air bag will keep your head from merging with the steering wheel.
Not the lenders fault is it. You did it, you live with it. That's why there are programs for higher risk people.
Maybe I didn't state my point clearly enough. There are virtually no limits on the sale of personal information in the US. And there are damn few penalties for the abuse of such data or if it is grossly inaccurate.
I think there was a YRO story this spring (searched but couldn't find a link) about how basically anyone can tell a credit company that you have a bad credit history, and they'll accept it with little or no verification. You may end up spending thousands fighting credit bureau's just to get a small loan, but you still might have a bad rating.
There's little incentive for credit bureau's to do even basic fact checking, as holding them accountable for messing up your history is basically impossible.
Laws that require cars to have certain safety features often make consumers less safe. One obvious example is the airbag requirement that killed a few dozen kids who otherwise would have survived their minor fender-benders.
If the kid is too small, yes, they can be injured by an airbag. But if they're that small, they should be in the backseat anyway. There were also some elderly people who were also hurt.
But is it worth not having airbags in cars so a handfull of people aren't seriously injured or killed by airbags each year, or having the airbags in place and saving thousands of other lives?
As for the 5 point harness being illegal, that just sounds really lame. Like most of our drug laws......
I made this post farther up, but I see I should have saved it for your's.
The purpose of our goverment is to make and enforce laws, maintain our infrastucture, economy, military and generally serve our greater needs. You might not like some of the things they do (people fuck up, and as our government is made out of people it will fuck up from time to time), but thats what our gvt is for.
The one and only purpose of business is to make money. The only "morals" or "ethics" that businesses have either come from laws, enforced by our government, or from competition. The only reason why your local grocery store gives a shit about you as a customer is so you don't shop at their compeditors on the other side of town. The only thing stopping the mine 20 miles up the river from dumping poison into is environmental regulations.
Look at the rioting in Cincinati. If policing were private, that would not have happened.
B U L L S H I T.
A cops salary comes from taxes, so he is beholden to the people. If the cities police department is privatized, his responsiblity is to the corporation that pays his salary. There can be racist cops in either case, but do you think a bigot is more or less likely to shoot someone when he isn't directly responsible for them?
It exists to advance a political agenda and control every detail of our lives.
Aside from this being a crock, our government is what keeps us out from under the thumb of organized religion.
You say that cars weren't as safe before government regulations, and you're partly right. Cars were 1/2 the price back then. And if you thought safety was important, you could buy a Volvo. But people didn't buy Volvos in droves, because they didn't want to pay a 100% premium for safety. Now, Big Government feels that you shouldn't be able to opt-out of having 5000$ worth of airbags and safety systems in every car. Effectively increasing the price of cars in a significant way. Instead of the less fortunate being able to afford recent yet less safe cars, they have to purchase old piles of mobile rust.
Great, 5 people pay $5,000 less on their car, but when one of those people gets in minor fender bender, he has $200,000 worth of medical bills because his car has no air bags, no seat belts, and crumbles like a pop can.
Yeah, our society would save so much money! Lets get rid of all car saftey regulations!
The purpose of our goverment is to make and enforce laws, maintain our infrastucture, economy, military and generally serve our greater needs. You might not like some of the things they do (people fuck up, and as our government is made out of people it will fuck up from time to time), but thats what our gvt is for.
The one and only purpose of business is to make money. The only "morals" or "ethics" that businesses have either come from laws, enforced by our government, or from competition. The only reason why your local grocery store gives a shit about you as a customer is so you don't shop at their compeditors on the other side of town. The only thing stopping the mine 20 miles up the river from dumping poison into is environmental regulations.
Incorrect, any corporation, organization, or business that keeps a detailed file on a citizen of the USA, that is outside the normal requirements for that bus., org, corp can be held liable for the release of that information.
But corporations can say just about any information is within "normal requirements". An insurance company will look at the results of your DNA tests to look for "pre-existing conditions" and deny you coverage. You might be denied a loan for a house because you had problems paying off your student loans, even though you made the last payment 3 years ago.
Any attempts to restrict this kind of information exchange, and impose penalties on violates, have been shot down buy our beloved Republican Congress.
The last version of the old Mac OS is version 9. Hmm.....
8, 9......10? What seems so illogical about that? And I think totally ripping the guts of the old os and replacing it with a Unix base is worthy of a major revision number.
And I thou doust whine too much about the beta, it was only $30. Sure, MS charging for an WinMe beta is lame as it isn't that different from Win98, not much of a change. It would be a different story if they ripped out the old Win9x codebase and replaced it with Unix though.
Conservatives judge their arguments based on how successfully they put their points across, much like a game of chess.
Now compare the primary talking points of Republicans to those of Democrats. In order for Democrats to obtain power, they have to resort to demonization of their opponents. Their opponents aren't merely wrong, they are an evil entity.
I wasn't going to respond to any more of your partisan musings, but I burst out laughing at this. HELLO, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN THE LAST DECADE!
How about the Republican speaker of the house passing around a big list of words to use when describing democates? Vile, disgusting, unamerican, etc.
How about how the leaders of the Republican party manufacured Gore's "fibs"? "If he invented Internet, I invented the paper clip" (Lott, I think). Or when an ass (Republican party chair) and a team of mules drove a wagon into a Tennesee city to question Gore's assertion that he worked hard on a farm as a kid......when he had.
Or how about the irrational hatred of President Clinton? They couldn't nail him on any criminal investigation, so their little pet Starr manufactured a purgery case against him by asking Clinton personal questions when no other American would have answer, or even be asked in the first place?
Or the made up stories over Hillary's "bridal registry", or the cow the press and the GOP had over her book deal, complaining that her fellow democrates didn't raise an eyebrow, when they forced Gengrich to give up his advance a few years earlier. Conveinently forgetting to mention that Hillary's book was sold off to the highest bidder, when Gengrich got a sweet deal from Rupert Murdoch (what a liberal he is). They also forgot that Gengrich forced out a democratic speaker of the house over his own questionable book deal, and was just taking what he had dished out as a minority whip.
I sincerely hope you are just trolling, and aren't actually this blind.
For a while I contemplated not dignifying your post with a response, seeing as how it would only lend credence to any notion that your arguement (a term, in this case, I use in the loosest of interpretations) was poignient, or even comprehendable. Nevertheless, I will answer the issues you address, if only to prove that I am indeed an equal opportunity rhetoritician; I do not back down from a challenge, regardless of my opponent's abilities or disabilities.
More blather. I should have simplified my point: you are a hypocrite. A big one. You attack Jaime for making bogus, hostile generalizations about the Republicans, then turn around and give the tired old conservative bullshit about the evils of liberalism. Just look at your first post and the one I'm replying to.
If you want to get in a flame war with liberals, great! Just don't have illusions of principled superiority while you're doing it.
Of the Republican and Democratic parties, which group believes in greater government intervention in your life?
Why the Democrats, of course....unless you are pregnant, homosexual, or of a minority religion. We don't need Christian churches taking over the governments social services, and we all know that "prayer in schools" means "Christian prayer in schools".
There is the Democratic Party, which bears no resemblence to its ancestors of two hundred years ago.
I for one am glad that the Democratic party is no longer the party of southern white slave owners, aren't you?
Which of the two parties has the philosophy of "Small Government"? If you think small government consists of just fewer government employees, then you're fooling yourself. Small Government is not just a policy, it is a philosophy.
Which in the end just means cutting programs they don't like. Thank god massive increases in military spending and forcing our country in to debt doesn't count (Reagen).
Perhaps you would like to tell me just how Right Wing Tipper Gore and Joseph Liberman are?
Whoop dee doo, there are a couple of Democrates who do favor censorship. Doesn't mean that the rest are gung ho for it as well.
Just to jog your memory, Democrats are the the people who believe in a "living" (IE changeable) Constitution.
Your point being what.
If you're hunting for "extremists" who plan to take away your freedoms, you would have done a better job at looking at our former Attourney General, a woman whose values are equally (if not more) extreme than Mr Ashcroft's.
Name some.
Unlike the author of this story, I broker my argument on logic, rather than ignorance and flailing emotionalism.
Sure, and you did a great job....until you got past the subject line and started ranting like everybody else.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody is going to make the mistake Apple made when they went to PowerPC and had most apps (and for years, most of the OS) running in software emulation.
That wasn't a mistake; in fact I challenge you to name a more flawless example of a major technology transition. 99.99999% of the old m68k apps ran just fine on a powerpc, even better as the speed of the chips increaed. Neither did the legacy code noticably slow down most operations, that came from the lack of protected memory.
Classic Quake Arena is a mod for Quake 3 that changes the physics so they're pretty close to Quake 1's.
Parents never question, nor even apparentely LOOK in kid's bedroom, where reportedly massive evidence was lying in plain sight
The day they actually went to go kill everybody, yes. Their parents actually respected their privacy, which is most of the time a very good thing.
If you consistently expose people to sex and violence they grow to accept it. It's as obvious as anything. It's conditioning.
Its genetic. People like sex because kinda ensures the survival of our species.
You're mixing cause with effect.
The Rev A. doesn't use PC100, my bad. So it'd be about $42 for 128, again off of pricewatch.
:)
lso for the average mac user (cringes at opening their computer) upgrading the memory in a tray loading iMac is an extremely hard chore
Its not that bad. Anyone who's ever built a lego set could install it. BTW, the factory's ram goes underneath the processor, so you can just use the top slot. Now installing the Gamewizard, that was a bitch. After pulling the motherboard rack out of the case, you have to unscrew it, remove the hard drive and cdrom, squeez the custom voodoo 2 card into a very small space, then put everthing back together.
His plugin "G-Force" existed BEFORE nVidia's video card "GeForce".
If thats true then he's less lame.
Aside from the fact that he was first with the name, your comment might have some relevance if the two products were actually spelled the same way - which they are not.
Its very relevant, cretin. The only difference between the two names is a - in place of an e. It would be very easy for someone who doesn't follow video cards, is a bad speller, or doesn't look closely to get the two mixed up. Like Divx and DiVx (or whatever capitalization the gay lamer uses).
If you don't run classic you could get away with 64. If you're a masochist with a fast hard drive for swapping, you could prolly get away with 32.
It will run ok with 96, but launching apps (esp classic) will be slow. X is very happy with 192 megs or more of memory (but so are most other os's).
This theme editor stuff sounds pretty lame, but to make a rebuttal to the rest of your post:
First, they promised this OS for years, and have finally delivered a product that requires a person to upgrade for $100 to OS 9.something in order to run their "Classic" applications, then spend $100 on the new OS.
OS 9.1 (what you need to run classic apps) is included in the OS X box. You don't need to purchase it seperatly.
Not to mention that the average Apple sold in the last few years is a DIMM or two short of the requisite 128mb of RAM.
If you select the cheap option, sure. Other OEM's do the same thing.
I priced upgrading my Rev. A iMac a week or two ago because of how everyone on Slashdot raves about OS X. I'm looking at probably $500 in software and memory just to make sure I don't lose a lot more than I gain.
Only if you pay Apple's exorborant markups for memory. Just walk over to pricewatch, buy a 256 meg stick of PC100 for $45, slap it in your iMac and go nuts.
o apparently "Think Different" doesn't mean "Different" except in terms of "Make sure different people have the money in your wallet". For $500 I can buy a whole new Wintel box
Or you could do a couple seconds worth of research on Apple's products and shop around for a better deal on add-on hardware. But then you'd miss out on all the cheap karma from the Apple-hating moderators on Slashdot.
Why couldn't he use a different name for his pluggin? I saw the story, and my first thought was that it had something to do with some Nvidia product. It's as moronic as naming your home grown video codec Divx when it was also the name of a lame system for renting movies.
If you can't come up with something that sounds cool, just pull some word out of your ass like Intel does (Itanium), but try to be a little unique.
Guess this is why we have trademark laws.
It is pretty cool that we're arguing at the same time, I just posted my message about two minutes ago. :)
:)
I'd leave it up to the car buyers and sellers to decide whether airbags are worth the extra cost in dollars and risk.
The regulations are in there for The Big Picture. Not including airbags may look cheaper at first, until you consider that more airbags = few severe injuries (or deaths) = lower medical bills = lower insurance rates = good for everybody, not just the person who was saved by the airbag.
. For instance, if you always wear your seatbelt there is essentially no benefit to having an airbag too; an airbag can be thought of as a substitute seatbelt
Airbags have never been intended as a substitute for seatbelts. Airbags are meant to work with seatbelts.
only helps you in a single-impact front-on crash.
Thats prolly why they thought of side air bags.
Lives saved by airbags are generally lives of people who didn't wear seatbelts. Which isn't to say it's a small group being protected, but it's a selective group; you know if you're in it when you buy the car.
Where airbags really do their stuff is in nasty front end collisions. Your seat belt will keep you from being thrown into the front of (or out of your car), but the air bag will keep your head from merging with the steering wheel.
Not the lenders fault is it. You did it, you live with it. That's why there are programs for higher risk people.
Maybe I didn't state my point clearly enough. There are virtually no limits on the sale of personal information in the US. And there are damn few penalties for the abuse of such data or if it is grossly inaccurate.
I think there was a YRO story this spring (searched but couldn't find a link) about how basically anyone can tell a credit company that you have a bad credit history, and they'll accept it with little or no verification. You may end up spending thousands fighting credit bureau's just to get a small loan, but you still might have a bad rating.
There's little incentive for credit bureau's to do even basic fact checking, as holding them accountable for messing up your history is basically impossible.
Laws that require cars to have certain safety features often make consumers less safe. One obvious example is the airbag requirement that killed a few dozen kids who otherwise would have survived their minor fender-benders.
If the kid is too small, yes, they can be injured by an airbag. But if they're that small, they should be in the backseat anyway. There were also some elderly people who were also hurt.
But is it worth not having airbags in cars so a handfull of people aren't seriously injured or killed by airbags each year, or having the airbags in place and saving thousands of other lives?
As for the 5 point harness being illegal, that just sounds really lame. Like most of our drug laws......
I'd argue that, at least the "always has been" part. Apple became huge just selling Apple ][s.
:) But minus the "always" part, I think my point is still valid.
If you want to pick a nit, you are right, the Mac OS didn't come out until '84.
Right. Just like IBM isn't going to ditch OS/2.
OS/2 wasn't the crown jewel of IBM. You could arguably say that the Mac OS is and always has been the crown jewel of Apple.
If IBM suddenly ditched the server business and decided their future lay with digital camera's, then we'll talk.
I made this post farther up, but I see I should have saved it for your's.
The purpose of our goverment is to make and enforce laws, maintain our infrastucture, economy, military and generally serve our greater needs. You might not like some of the things they do (people fuck up, and as our government is made out of people it will fuck up from time to time), but thats what our gvt is for.
The one and only purpose of business is to make money. The only "morals" or "ethics" that businesses have either come from laws, enforced by our government, or from competition. The only reason why your local grocery store gives a shit about you as a customer is so you don't shop at their compeditors on the other side of town. The only thing stopping the mine 20 miles up the river from dumping poison into is environmental regulations.
Look at the rioting in Cincinati. If policing were private, that would not have happened.
B U L L S H I T.
A cops salary comes from taxes, so he is beholden to the people. If the cities police department is privatized, his responsiblity is to the corporation that pays his salary. There can be racist cops in either case, but do you think a bigot is more or less likely to shoot someone when he isn't directly responsible for them?
It exists to advance a political agenda and control every detail of our lives.
Aside from this being a crock, our government is what keeps us out from under the thumb of organized religion.
Ours is the same one that mandated airbags that were so powerful, they killed people.
Kill a few, save a hundred.
You say that cars weren't as safe before government regulations, and you're partly right. Cars were 1/2 the price back then. And if you thought safety was important, you could buy a Volvo. But people didn't buy Volvos in droves, because they didn't want to pay a 100% premium for safety. Now, Big Government feels that you shouldn't be able to opt-out of having 5000$ worth of airbags and safety systems in every car. Effectively increasing the price of cars in a significant way. Instead of the less fortunate being able to afford recent yet less safe cars, they have to purchase old piles of mobile rust.
Great, 5 people pay $5,000 less on their car, but when one of those people gets in minor fender bender, he has $200,000 worth of medical bills because his car has no air bags, no seat belts, and crumbles like a pop can.
Yeah, our society would save so much money! Lets get rid of all car saftey regulations!
The purpose of our goverment is to make and enforce laws, maintain our infrastucture, economy, military and generally serve our greater needs. You might not like some of the things they do (people fuck up, and as our government is made out of people it will fuck up from time to time), but thats what our gvt is for.
The one and only purpose of business is to make money. The only "morals" or "ethics" that businesses have either come from laws, enforced by our government, or from competition. The only reason why your local grocery store gives a shit about you as a customer is so you don't shop at their compeditors on the other side of town. The only thing stopping the mine 20 miles up the river from dumping poison into is environmental regulations.
Incorrect, any corporation, organization, or business that keeps a detailed file on a citizen of the USA, that is outside the normal requirements for that bus., org, corp can be held liable for the release of that information.
But corporations can say just about any information is within "normal requirements". An insurance company will look at the results of your DNA tests to look for "pre-existing conditions" and deny you coverage. You might be denied a loan for a house because you had problems paying off your student loans, even though you made the last payment 3 years ago.
Any attempts to restrict this kind of information exchange, and impose penalties on violates, have been shot down buy our beloved Republican Congress.
The last version of the old Mac OS is version 9. Hmm.....
8, 9......10? What seems so illogical about that? And I think totally ripping the guts of the old os and replacing it with a Unix base is worthy of a major revision number.
And I thou doust whine too much about the beta, it was only $30. Sure, MS charging for an WinMe beta is lame as it isn't that different from Win98, not much of a change. It would be a different story if they ripped out the old Win9x codebase and replaced it with Unix though.
Conservatives judge their arguments based on how successfully they put their points across, much like a game of chess.
Now compare the primary talking points of Republicans to those of Democrats. In order for Democrats to obtain power, they have to resort to demonization of their opponents. Their opponents aren't merely wrong, they are an evil entity.
I wasn't going to respond to any more of your partisan musings, but I burst out laughing at this. HELLO, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN THE LAST DECADE!
How about the Republican speaker of the house passing around a big list of words to use when describing democates? Vile, disgusting, unamerican, etc.
How about how the leaders of the Republican party manufacured Gore's "fibs"? "If he invented Internet, I invented the paper clip" (Lott, I think). Or when an ass (Republican party chair) and a team of mules drove a wagon into a Tennesee city to question Gore's assertion that he worked hard on a farm as a kid......when he had.
Or how about the irrational hatred of President Clinton? They couldn't nail him on any criminal investigation, so their little pet Starr manufactured a purgery case against him by asking Clinton personal questions when no other American would have answer, or even be asked in the first place?
Or the made up stories over Hillary's "bridal registry", or the cow the press and the GOP had over her book deal, complaining that her fellow democrates didn't raise an eyebrow, when they forced Gengrich to give up his advance a few years earlier. Conveinently forgetting to mention that Hillary's book was sold off to the highest bidder, when Gengrich got a sweet deal from Rupert Murdoch (what a liberal he is). They also forgot that Gengrich forced out a democratic speaker of the house over his own questionable book deal, and was just taking what he had dished out as a minority whip.
I sincerely hope you are just trolling, and aren't actually this blind.
For a while I contemplated not dignifying your post with a response, seeing as how it would only lend credence to any notion that your arguement (a term, in this case, I use in the loosest of interpretations) was poignient, or even comprehendable. Nevertheless, I will answer the issues you address, if only to prove that I am indeed an equal opportunity rhetoritician; I do not back down from a challenge, regardless of my opponent's abilities or disabilities.
More blather. I should have simplified my point: you are a hypocrite. A big one. You attack Jaime for making bogus, hostile generalizations about the Republicans, then turn around and give the tired old conservative bullshit about the evils of liberalism. Just look at your first post and the one I'm replying to.
If you want to get in a flame war with liberals, great! Just don't have illusions of principled superiority while you're doing it.
Of the Republican and Democratic parties, which group believes in greater government intervention in your life?
Why the Democrats, of course....unless you are pregnant, homosexual, or of a minority religion. We don't need Christian churches taking over the governments social services, and we all know that "prayer in schools" means "Christian prayer in schools".
There is the Democratic Party, which bears no resemblence to its ancestors of two hundred years ago.
I for one am glad that the Democratic party is no longer the party of southern white slave owners, aren't you?
Which of the two parties has the philosophy of "Small Government"? If you think small government consists of just fewer government employees, then you're fooling yourself. Small Government is not just a policy, it is a philosophy.
Which in the end just means cutting programs they don't like. Thank god massive increases in military spending and forcing our country in to debt doesn't count (Reagen).
Perhaps you would like to tell me just how Right Wing Tipper Gore and Joseph Liberman are?
Whoop dee doo, there are a couple of Democrates who do favor censorship. Doesn't mean that the rest are gung ho for it as well.
Just to jog your memory, Democrats are the the people who believe in a "living" (IE changeable) Constitution.
Your point being what.
If you're hunting for "extremists" who plan to take away your freedoms, you would have done a better job at looking at our former Attourney General, a woman whose values are equally (if not more) extreme than Mr Ashcroft's.
Name some.
Unlike the author of this story, I broker my argument on logic, rather than ignorance and flailing emotionalism.
Sure, and you did a great job....until you got past the subject line and started ranting like everybody else.
his name is Robert Palson, his name is Robert Palson........
There was actually one death, but still a good point.
I think it was more of a hey-lets-agree-not-to-get-in-a-stupid-patent-fight deal and not about the transfer of buckage for using said patents.