I don't know about that. There's about 300m-400m websites depending on how you class them.
1) Yahoo can ask the owners to self categorize. Yahoo has the reputation that they might be able to get fairly good compliance. But lets assume not.
2) If we assume classifying a website takes an experienced classifier 5 minutes then a person can do 20k websites in a man-year easily. Which means 400m can be done by 20,000 man years or at 25k / man year (since this work can go abroad and it is only semi-skilled) $500m. Evan adding 20% for project management and organization we are still at $600m which Yahoo can easily afford. I can use USA librarians, graduate students, out of work people with master's degrees... at $40k / yr / each and still be close to $1b for the bulk of the internet.
3) Now that gets every site in there a few times. So for example wikipedia is under encyclopedias. But I want more than that. I want thousands of links from wikipedia, NYTimes... So for example the 4000k periodicals in the Dow Jones index should be brought over. Wikipedia's categories should be brought over. Lets assume there are about 100k sites like that. I can do a data conversion moving their index into my new yahoo index at no more than 1 man month per site. That's 8k man years at say $50k year or $400m.
I can't see how this project runs over $1.5b anyway I slice it.
Knoppix interesting. What's special about Knoppix from a BEOS comparison?
As far as filesystems and metadata the Linux kernel has support for metadata though most compiles turn it off. In addition most of the major filesystems: ext2, ext3, ext4, JFS, ReiserFS, XFS, Btrfs and OCFS2 support it. Linux also has HFS and HFS+ which has multiple resource forks per file. The big issue is that most linux user space programs don't do anything with forks, so while they can exist they can't really be useful. But at least nothing much you would need to do at the kernel level.
Anyway I'm still unclear what is the BEOS killer feature.
OK, probably not as useful if implemented today - but the original directory based search was awesome at the time.
Speak for yourself. I'd love a really good directory based search. The web is just much larger. Imagine being able to type in something like, "mail systems api" or "sound file formats" and getting a directory of 6-25 sites all on that topic rather than having to hunt.
To me, an emotional decision is a proactive one taken with no rational basis.
I'm not sure there are many decisions people ever make like that. That's a definition of emotion far too high. Certainly since you are talking about Apple fans, they have ration basis for their preferences. From better service plans, to simplicity of the shopping experience, to better quality software to... there are clear rational reasons. So if you set the bar for emotion that high, that is no reason at all. You no longer are even addressing the issue at hand, the supposed difference between Gnome2 loyalty and Apple loyalty.
Humans use emotion, morals, social expectations, reason, conceptual frameworks, culture together to arrive at decisions. All these places where you say "I prefer" and then explaining the process by which you achieved objectives are places where emotion is leaking in. There is no claim you were emotional in your means, it was the ends. And getting back to the topic, making a reasonable decision to trust a particular product line based on a company's long history of performance in dozens of areas are reasons. What you were trying to establish is that despite those reasons there is still something totally different about the process Apple fans go through. Which was the bulk of what I addressed above, that there were debates about the issues Apple people do care about.
Rivers are a different situation, the volumes of water are much lower. Pesticides I could imagine, at very low concentrations, because again diffusion by volume.
During brewing most of the caffeine is extracted. The strongest grounds are 150mg of caffeine per tbsp. Generally it is 1 tbsp per 8 oz of water. But again I'll be generous and assume they all use the strongest grounds and 2x as much grounds as they should. OK that gets them up to 6x my numbers. Now what?
An 8 oz cup of coffee is 236.5 ml and has 49mg of caffeine. Assume the entire thing was thrown away undrunk at all. The population of portland is about 600k. If we assume that everyone in portland throws away one full cup of coffee every day for 100 years and that every drop ends up in the ocean, that's 21.9b cups of coffee or approx 1 billion grams of caffeine.
100 years is plenty of time to diffuse. Its also plenty of times for caffeine to break down but less assume this were magic caffeine and so lasted the 100 years perfectly intact. Since they say the pacific ocean lets say none of it leaves the pacific for the other oceans. The pacific ocean is 7.721473366 × 10^21 liters. So cross multiplying (7.721473366 × 10^21× ) x (.049 g) / (.2365 l) us that that we are 1.6x10^20 grams so your billion grams falls 1.6x10^11 short. OK well lets assume that in addition to not breaking down it also doesn't diffuse. The Pacific is 361.1m kilometers in area. So lets assume that all the coffee hangs out for the entire century in the 2 kilometers nearest Portland, we still are short by 3 full orders of magnitude.
There is no way a bunch of 600k humans use enough coffee for the ocean to notice.
If 3 people get together to form a company, that conglomerate is a person when they want it to be, and a piece of paper when they want it to be, with a special legal class above regular citizens
Technically remember the states allow individuals to form corporations. The permission is always granted but the government has the right to disallow their formation for force them to disband.
But if those three people then talk politics together, then they are subject to massive governmental regulation
No they aren't. If the 3 people form a political party which runs candidates for offices of privilege and power in the united states than those activities become subject to regulation.
The freedom to associate doesn't exist if the moment you discuss putting forth a candidate or supporting one, your "free association" is ended.
Individuals are free to discuss putting for a candidate. Once they go beyond discussing it to have the power to just do it then they are subject to regulation.
Nuclear = excellent on 3 & 4 ao so on 1 & 2 Solar = excellent on 2, 4 good on 3 less good on 1 (depending on where in the USA) Coal = Excellent on 1,3, 4 terrible on 2 etc...
; my favorite example of this being an RSS reader which can open a web page in a browser, where both the RSS reader and browser are from different distributions./b.
I can see that working because generally the RSS reader and the browser are very cross platform and using very abstracted and stable APIs to talk to one another. And it may be that the vast majority of desktop software in practice looks like that.
Anyway next time wants to try something like that, and it comes up regularly, I'll pass on Bedrock Linux. If it does really solve the problem 90% of the time, I could see Bedrock becoming a variant in lots of mainstream distributions.
I doubt the number one developer complaint about symbian would be anything having to do with performance, so many other things to take the #1 slot:) Anyway I don't know.
But when an arbitrary decision like "no Nitro for YOU" gets in the way of me fully enjoying my webview wrapper of choice on a device I paid money for, I, as a consumer have a right to say something about it.
What makes you think that's arbitrary? Apple has been very clear on the why and it sure doesn't sound arbitrary. Any browser hitting secure javascript would need to have a security layer like Safari's. If you don't know how how to hack your webkit to point to the high speed engine then you don't know enough about webkit security to judge. You may disagree with Apple on that theory but it is not arbitrary at all. Apple has never been a "you can have it your way" for customers that don't have developer access. They have never offered that kind of flexibility.
Ultimately you have it Steve's way (or Tim's way) with the choices they offer you. I disagreed with the move to Intel processors, still do and they still don't care.
How about iOS developers that need high perfomance javascript in their webviews?
Apple to Apple for a access to a lower level service go through the process and get it granted. There have been about a 1/2 dozen successful applications where apps have asked for higher levels of access.
Or users that would like to use Opera as their default to open links?
1) Jail brake 2) Change the default via. developer SDK 3) Have your company change the default via the enterprise / university SDK 4) Keep wanting 5) Pick a different phone.
I see so in practice you don't think they'll end up forking too much in terms of dependencies. I think you're wrong there but at we'll know in a few years. I've had huge problems between supposedly identical Linux systems like RHEL 6 and Cent 6 on things like their minor differences on Java libraries. I know Slackware had horrible problems with Gnome.
Your answer about the overhead from virtualization pretty much answered my question. What I was asking is there are non Unix systems which are excellent at running multiple different versions of OSes with little overhead. And they are better about forking memory. We are down to a fundamental "will it work"? If your system works it provides a wonderful way to get advantages from multiple distributions making the "which distribution should I use" question much more moot. So for example I could use a fun desktop linux while developing for social networking while developing (non virtual) on an enterprise Linux.
So anyway project sounds cool. I know there are people who really really want to be able to combine features from different distributions.
Thanks for answering questions here. Funny enough I was in an discussion last week with someone who was asking for pretty much exactly what you propose to do.
OK now that was a good explanation. But I'm still unclear on more complex stuff.
So I lets I have (a) Debian Stable Gnome 2... (b) Mint with Cinnamon bindings to Gnome 3. (c) Knoppix with pure Gnome 3 (no cinammon bindings).
I load up my X. Do I load X11R6 or R7? Presumably I can pick. I'm not sure there isn't kernel stuff here but lets assume not. So I pick R7 and that doesn't work with my Gnome 2 which was built around R6. etc.... Lets say I solve that problem. I go to to use DBUS and which binding do I get? All my apps in Mint are compiled around the later version.
I guess my question to you would be why use Linux as the base here? Why not us an OS which just spins off these various distributions as virtual?
However it is not comparable with "the debate" over loyalty arising over Unity or Gnome 3. Those are, as you say, debates. There does not seem much debate among Apple fans when each new product comes out - they just love it.
That's not true at all. Let me give you an example of where there was a pretty substantial debate. The shift from Final Cut Pro to Final Cut Pro X. There was a modernization of the workflow and interface. Another way of looking at this was the product moved from "Adobe Premiere for Mac" (when Premiere was primarily a windows solution) to "iMovie advanced". That is a shift from the professional market to the skilled amateur market. There was a ton of debate. And some of these people have in fact dropped out of using Final Cut Pro.
There is some quite a bit of debate about the shift in the pro line. With the Classic Macbook Pro being much more like the old Macbook with nicer graphics, faster processors... and the Macbook Pro retina being a Pro version of the Macbook air. Everyone is pretty clear that the direction of Apple is going towards laptops with no user upgradable parts in exchange for reduced weight, size and cost of manufacture. There is debate on whether that is a good thing or not.
There is also more friendly debate: Adobe Lightroom vs. Adobe Photoshop vs. Apple's Aperture.
I could give 100 examples. The Apple community has debates. What I think leads to the impression is that it is uniform is that Apple people are more or less unified about things that outsides believe the community should be agitated about. So for example there much internal agitation whether Apple should be running a closed garden, though there is debate about specific policies. Outsiders are upset no such much about exact policies, they generally don't know or understand them, but rather the idea that Apple is allowed that sort of overall authority with respect to the platform.
It was not an emotional thing, and there was no brand loyalty.
Was it really easier to switch to Mepis then set up a repository and "sudo apt-get install mate-desktop-environment"? You sure there wasn't a bit of emotion there, when you switched? But even if so, that isn't everyone. For many people there was brand loyalty to Ubuntu and Gnome and it was quite emotional. Just reads the threads here. There is real anger. I switch between LCDE, XFCE, Gnome2, Gnome 3, KDE easily. Though I use WindowsMaker the most. I'm indifferent.
Which basically summarized is, fracking is a huge economic benefit and the we need to evaluate safety procedures in terms of their costs to keep them down for the oil and gas industry while protecting the long term viability of fracking as an energy source. Both parties are pro-fracking. The debate is over the amount of regulation ranging from the Republican position of almost none to the Democratic position of some but not enough to threaten the growth of this process.
I like how you try to tag the racist elements as being "Democratic" party
You may want to check your paranoia a bit. I'm not tagging them the Democratic party, the case was about, according to the defense the integrity of the "white Democratic Primary". Allwright was a Democratic official (elections judge). \ And the Democratic party didn't kick their racist elements to the curb, they lost them reluctantly but unavoidably when Johnson & Goldwater made the civil rights act a centerpiece of the campaign. In the late 1940s the southern Democratic party was firmly supporting racism and the Republican party was generally open and slightly opposed. In 2012 the Democratic party is opposed to most racism and the Republican party mixed though leaning towards weak opposition.
I think the Democrats deserve credit for the stance they take today. I think they deserve tons of credit for the stance they took in the 1960s and 70s when it really mattered. And I think people like Thomas Dewey deserve credit for putting civil rights in the Republican platform in '48 and keeping it on the agenda all through the 1950s. And despite your imaginary version of history racism was not a side issue for the Democratic party they were winning elections on it.
I didn't say anything about shutting down fracking forever. The only person whose been talking about shutting down fracking is you. If you want my actual proposals:
1) That fracking chemicals no longer be consider trade secrets and instead are matters of public record, subject to regulation 2) That a permanent geological group be established in the EPA to evaluate effects of fracking with budget to conduct and fund research 3) Other than that I'd like to encourage the US to move as quickly to as much fracking as possible starting now, despite the risks.
Where is that coming from? I would suggest you start reading actual environmentalists and not FOXNews' version of environmental debates. Sheila Jackson gives speeches on these topics all the time. Pull some of the transcripts.
No, that is an Apple enthusiast, not a technolgy enthusiast. If they were technology enthusiasts, they would be following the trends and happenings of more than just Apple along with other technologies that Apple does not make or use in its own products.
Most of them do. The most common being Adobe enthusiasts, but other software companies like Omni have followings. Quite a few follow Nikon or Canon. Avid and Microsoft products get mentioned.
And I'd consider a Ford Mustang enthusiast to be a car enthusiast. There is no way you can know a lot about the Mustang without knowing a lot about cars.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about that. There's about 300m-400m websites depending on how you class them.
1) Yahoo can ask the owners to self categorize. Yahoo has the reputation that they might be able to get fairly good compliance. But lets assume not.
2) If we assume classifying a website takes an experienced classifier 5 minutes then a person can do 20k websites in a man-year easily. Which means 400m can be done by 20,000 man years or at 25k / man year (since this work can go abroad and it is only semi-skilled) $500m. Evan adding 20% for project management and organization we are still at $600m which Yahoo can easily afford. I can use USA librarians, graduate students, out of work people with master's degrees... at $40k / yr / each and still be close to $1b for the bulk of the internet.
3) Now that gets every site in there a few times. So for example wikipedia is under encyclopedias. But I want more than that. I want thousands of links from wikipedia, NYTimes... So for example the 4000k periodicals in the Dow Jones index should be brought over. Wikipedia's categories should be brought over. Lets assume there are about 100k sites like that. I can do a data conversion moving their index into my new yahoo index at no more than 1 man month per site. That's 8k man years at say $50k year or $400m.
I can't see how this project runs over $1.5b anyway I slice it.
Knoppix interesting. What's special about Knoppix from a BEOS comparison?
As far as filesystems and metadata the Linux kernel has support for metadata though most compiles turn it off. In addition most of the major filesystems: ext2, ext3, ext4, JFS, ReiserFS, XFS, Btrfs and OCFS2 support it. Linux also has HFS and HFS+ which has multiple resource forks per file. The big issue is that most linux user space programs don't do anything with forks, so while they can exist they can't really be useful. But at least nothing much you would need to do at the kernel level.
Anyway I'm still unclear what is the BEOS killer feature.
Great comment, you deserve a mod up.
Could BEOS be used as an alternate GUI for a Unix based system. With Ubuntu moving to Wayland there may be an opening for non-X solutions.
OK, probably not as useful if implemented today - but the original directory based search was awesome at the time.
Speak for yourself. I'd love a really good directory based search. The web is just much larger. Imagine being able to type in something like, "mail systems api" or "sound file formats" and getting a directory of 6-25 sites all on that topic rather than having to hunt.
Well the final part is the shore of Portland. So I'm assuming that Seattleites throws there's out a bit to the north.
To me, an emotional decision is a proactive one taken with no rational basis.
I'm not sure there are many decisions people ever make like that. That's a definition of emotion far too high. Certainly since you are talking about Apple fans, they have ration basis for their preferences. From better service plans, to simplicity of the shopping experience, to better quality software to... there are clear rational reasons. So if you set the bar for emotion that high, that is no reason at all. You no longer are even addressing the issue at hand, the supposed difference between Gnome2 loyalty and Apple loyalty.
Humans use emotion, morals, social expectations, reason, conceptual frameworks, culture together to arrive at decisions. All these places where you say "I prefer" and then explaining the process by which you achieved objectives are places where emotion is leaking in. There is no claim you were emotional in your means, it was the ends. And getting back to the topic, making a reasonable decision to trust a particular product line based on a company's long history of performance in dozens of areas are reasons. What you were trying to establish is that despite those reasons there is still something totally different about the process Apple fans go through. Which was the bulk of what I addressed above, that there were debates about the issues Apple people do care about.
The article mentions something like 70 nanograms of caffeine per liter of water
Which I wouldn't consider pollution, at that concentration.
Rivers are a different situation, the volumes of water are much lower. Pesticides I could imagine, at very low concentrations, because again diffusion by volume.
During brewing most of the caffeine is extracted. The strongest grounds are 150mg of caffeine per tbsp. Generally it is 1 tbsp per 8 oz of water. But again I'll be generous and assume they all use the strongest grounds and 2x as much grounds as they should. OK that gets them up to 6x my numbers. Now what?
Not buying it.
An 8 oz cup of coffee is 236.5 ml and has 49mg of caffeine. Assume the entire thing was thrown away undrunk at all. The population of portland is about 600k. If we assume that everyone in portland throws away one full cup of coffee every day for 100 years and that every drop ends up in the ocean, that's 21.9b cups of coffee or approx 1 billion grams of caffeine.
100 years is plenty of time to diffuse. Its also plenty of times for caffeine to break down but less assume this were magic caffeine and so lasted the 100 years perfectly intact. Since they say the pacific ocean lets say none of it leaves the pacific for the other oceans. The pacific ocean is 7.721473366 × 10^21 liters. So cross multiplying (7.721473366 × 10^21× ) x (.049 g) / (.2365 l) us that that we are 1.6x10^20 grams so your billion grams falls 1.6x10^11 short. OK well lets assume that in addition to not breaking down it also doesn't diffuse. The Pacific is 361.1m kilometers in area. So lets assume that all the coffee hangs out for the entire century in the 2 kilometers nearest Portland, we still are short by 3 full orders of magnitude.
There is no way a bunch of 600k humans use enough coffee for the ocean to notice.
Is that what he meant? My responses below?
If 3 people get together to form a company, that conglomerate is a person when they want it to be, and a piece of paper when they want it to be, with a special legal class above regular citizens
Technically remember the states allow individuals to form corporations. The permission is always granted but the government has the right to disallow their formation for force them to disband.
But if those three people then talk politics together, then they are subject to massive governmental regulation
No they aren't. If the 3 people form a political party which runs candidates for offices of privilege and power in the united states than those activities become subject to regulation.
The freedom to associate doesn't exist if the moment you discuss putting forth a candidate or supporting one, your "free association" is ended.
Individuals are free to discuss putting for a candidate. Once they go beyond discussing it to have the power to just do it then they are subject to regulation.
Nuclear = excellent on 3 & 4 ao so on 1 & 2
Solar = excellent on 2, 4 good on 3 less good on 1 (depending on where in the USA)
Coal = Excellent on 1,3, 4 terrible on 2
etc...
; my favorite example of this being an RSS reader which can open a web page in a browser, where both the RSS reader and browser are from different distributions. /b.
I can see that working because generally the RSS reader and the browser are very cross platform and using very abstracted and stable APIs to talk to one another. And it may be that the vast majority of desktop software in practice looks like that.
Anyway next time wants to try something like that, and it comes up regularly, I'll pass on Bedrock Linux. If it does really solve the problem 90% of the time, I could see Bedrock becoming a variant in lots of mainstream distributions.
I doubt the number one developer complaint about symbian would be anything having to do with performance, so many other things to take the #1 slot :) Anyway I don't know.
But when an arbitrary decision like "no Nitro for YOU" gets in the way of me fully enjoying my webview wrapper of choice on a device I paid money for, I, as a consumer have a right to say something about it.
What makes you think that's arbitrary? Apple has been very clear on the why and it sure doesn't sound arbitrary. Any browser hitting secure javascript would need to have a security layer like Safari's. If you don't know how how to hack your webkit to point to the high speed engine then you don't know enough about webkit security to judge. You may disagree with Apple on that theory but it is not arbitrary at all. Apple has never been a "you can have it your way" for customers that don't have developer access. They have never offered that kind of flexibility.
Ultimately you have it Steve's way (or Tim's way) with the choices they offer you. I disagreed with the move to Intel processors, still do and they still don't care.
I do. I often like the way searches come back on the app vs. website searches.
How about iOS developers that need high perfomance javascript in their webviews?
Apple to Apple for a access to a lower level service go through the process and get it granted. There have been about a 1/2 dozen successful applications where apps have asked for higher levels of access.
Or users that would like to use Opera as their default to open links?
1) Jail brake
2) Change the default via. developer SDK
3) Have your company change the default via the enterprise / university SDK
4) Keep wanting
5) Pick a different phone.
I see so in practice you don't think they'll end up forking too much in terms of dependencies. I think you're wrong there but at we'll know in a few years. I've had huge problems between supposedly identical Linux systems like RHEL 6 and Cent 6 on things like their minor differences on Java libraries. I know Slackware had horrible problems with Gnome.
Your answer about the overhead from virtualization pretty much answered my question. What I was asking is there are non Unix systems which are excellent at running multiple different versions of OSes with little overhead. And they are better about forking memory. We are down to a fundamental "will it work"? If your system works it provides a wonderful way to get advantages from multiple distributions making the "which distribution should I use" question much more moot. So for example I could use a fun desktop linux while developing for social networking while developing (non virtual) on an enterprise Linux.
So anyway project sounds cool. I know there are people who really really want to be able to combine features from different distributions.
Thanks for answering questions here. Funny enough I was in an discussion last week with someone who was asking for pretty much exactly what you propose to do.
OK now that was a good explanation. But I'm still unclear on more complex stuff.
So I lets I have
(a) Debian Stable Gnome 2...
(b) Mint with Cinnamon bindings to Gnome 3.
(c) Knoppix with pure Gnome 3 (no cinammon bindings).
I load up my X. Do I load X11R6 or R7? Presumably I can pick. I'm not sure there isn't kernel stuff here but lets assume not. So I pick R7 and that doesn't work with my Gnome 2 which was built around R6. etc.... Lets say I solve that problem. I go to to use DBUS and which binding do I get? All my apps in Mint are compiled around the later version.
I guess my question to you would be why use Linux as the base here? Why not us an OS which just spins off these various distributions as virtual?
However it is not comparable with "the debate" over loyalty arising over Unity or Gnome 3. Those are, as you say, debates. There does not seem much debate among Apple fans when each new product comes out - they just love it.
That's not true at all. Let me give you an example of where there was a pretty substantial debate. The shift from Final Cut Pro to Final Cut Pro X. There was a modernization of the workflow and interface. Another way of looking at this was the product moved from "Adobe Premiere for Mac" (when Premiere was primarily a windows solution) to "iMovie advanced". That is a shift from the professional market to the skilled amateur market. There was a ton of debate. And some of these people have in fact dropped out of using Final Cut Pro.
There is some quite a bit of debate about the shift in the pro line. With the Classic Macbook Pro being much more like the old Macbook with nicer graphics, faster processors... and the Macbook Pro retina being a Pro version of the Macbook air. Everyone is pretty clear that the direction of Apple is going towards laptops with no user upgradable parts in exchange for reduced weight, size and cost of manufacture. There is debate on whether that is a good thing or not.
There is also more friendly debate: Adobe Lightroom vs. Adobe Photoshop vs. Apple's Aperture.
I could give 100 examples. The Apple community has debates. What I think leads to the impression is that it is uniform is that Apple people are more or less unified about things that outsides believe the community should be agitated about. So for example there much internal agitation whether Apple should be running a closed garden, though there is debate about specific policies. Outsiders are upset no such much about exact policies, they generally don't know or understand them, but rather the idea that Apple is allowed that sort of overall authority with respect to the platform.
It was not an emotional thing, and there was no brand loyalty.
Was it really easier to switch to Mepis then set up a repository and "sudo apt-get install mate-desktop-environment"? You sure there wasn't a bit of emotion there, when you switched? But even if so, that isn't everyone. For many people there was brand loyalty to Ubuntu and Gnome and it was quite emotional. Just reads the threads here. There is real anger. I switch between LCDE, XFCE, Gnome2, Gnome 3, KDE easily. Though I use WindowsMaker the most. I'm indifferent.
No actually that is the mainstream opinion.
Let me quote the President BLM: http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=293917
Which basically summarized is, fracking is a huge economic benefit and the we need to evaluate safety procedures in terms of their costs to keep them down for the oil and gas industry while protecting the long term viability of fracking as an energy source. Both parties are pro-fracking. The debate is over the amount of regulation ranging from the Republican position of almost none to the Democratic position of some but not enough to threaten the growth of this process.
Even the Sierra Club is pushing for more regulation not a halt to the process: http://www.sierraclub.org/naturalgas/rulemaking/
FoxNews is not reality. No one (in any large measure) is against this.
I like how you try to tag the racist elements as being "Democratic" party
You may want to check your paranoia a bit. I'm not tagging them the Democratic party, the case was about, according to the defense the integrity of the "white Democratic Primary". Allwright was a Democratic official (elections judge). \ And the Democratic party didn't kick their racist elements to the curb, they lost them reluctantly but unavoidably when Johnson & Goldwater made the civil rights act a centerpiece of the campaign. In the late 1940s the southern Democratic party was firmly supporting racism and the Republican party was generally open and slightly opposed. In 2012 the Democratic party is opposed to most racism and the Republican party mixed though leaning towards weak opposition.
I think the Democrats deserve credit for the stance they take today. I think they deserve tons of credit for the stance they took in the 1960s and 70s when it really mattered. And I think people like Thomas Dewey deserve credit for putting civil rights in the Republican platform in '48 and keeping it on the agenda all through the 1950s. And despite your imaginary version of history racism was not a side issue for the Democratic party they were winning elections on it.
I didn't say anything about shutting down fracking forever. The only person whose been talking about shutting down fracking is you. If you want my actual proposals:
1) That fracking chemicals no longer be consider trade secrets and instead are matters of public record, subject to regulation
2) That a permanent geological group be established in the EPA to evaluate effects of fracking with budget to conduct and fund research
3) Other than that I'd like to encourage the US to move as quickly to as much fracking as possible starting now, despite the risks.
Where is that coming from? I would suggest you start reading actual environmentalists and not FOXNews' version of environmental debates. Sheila Jackson gives speeches on these topics all the time. Pull some of the transcripts.
No, that is an Apple enthusiast, not a technolgy enthusiast. If they were technology enthusiasts, they would be following the trends and happenings of more than just Apple along with other technologies that Apple does not make or use in its own products.
Most of them do. The most common being Adobe enthusiasts, but other software companies like Omni have followings. Quite a few follow Nikon or Canon. Avid and Microsoft products get mentioned.
And I'd consider a Ford Mustang enthusiast to be a car enthusiast. There is no way you can know a lot about the Mustang without knowing a lot about cars.
You can't have it both ways. US debt is denominated in dollars. If the dollar crashes the US doesn't have a serious debt problem anymore.