Re:Bush's Reality Distortion Field rivals Steve Jo
on
State of the Union
·
· Score: 1
Not really. I'm blessed right now. I have the ability financially to make a significant difference in my retirement circumstance. MY example was that of people who do not. I used that person, a person I knew well, as an example. I'm sure most of us have had someone rather recently pave the way, and work hard for virtually nothing to ensure you had a brighter future. Not in the amount of cash they could leave you, but by the example they set and the sacrifice.
My concern is for those people who are the bearers and do the "menial" jobs. They don't make enough to support this. I don't and won't make any apologies for being concerned with the welfare of my neighbor versus my desire to have a few more cents in my pocket.
As I recall, in the late 90's when Clinton began to bang the war drum slowly, a lot of this rhetoric was flying around. And I remember when Madeline Albright and Bill Cohen went before an audience of students in a town hall meeting at Ohio State University to make the case for war. Keep in mind Clinton wasn't talking about boots on the ground; he was talking about his usual: Cruise missles and bombs.
What had saddam done? harassed and attempted to shoot down US and British jets in the no fly zone, and kicked out the inspectors.
The scene at OSU was near riotous. No one drank the Kool Aid. We didn't go to war.
Two years later, 9/11 happens. We knew it was not Iraq behind this, but bin Laden. Bush dusted off plans for an invasion of Afghanistan (don't fool yourselves; the near exact plan used was devised under the Clinton Administration). Using American air power and Northern Alliance boots (with a few CIA ops and special forces) on the ground, destabilized the Taliban. We didn't invade Afghanistan.
But if you ask the average American, they'd tell you we did. Keep all this in mind as I briefly digress.
Iraq had taken a back seat the last year of Clinton's term; North Korea was more pressing. Also, about the same time/just prior to 9/11 Saddam allowed the return of weapons inspectors albeit he was playing some of the games he did before. No one found anything. yet U.S. intelligence kept saying the same things they'd said since Clinton's time. The stuff being quoted by republicans and democrats alike.
Back on point, the administration early on from 9/11 created a political deception that would allow intent for an invasion of Iraq to take place. Before then they had no, for lack of a better term, capital to spend to get this done. Playing on a suspecting and wounded populace, made his case based on the SAME information Clinton did, with a few new twists.
They throughly took advantage of the American people. No matter what kind of rhetoric being said by whomever of WHATEVER political party, this was dead wrong to do. And the person/organization that most of this information came from was Geogre Tenet's CIA. Tenet was CIA Director under Clinton, and Bush. If you want to play the partisan game, dont bother. There's your guy. Tenet.
Politicians for the most part only quote what they are told; Clinton was smart enough to put this out to the American publinc in making his case, while saying the rhetoric. And the desire not to go to war won out. Why? cause Americans didnt see anything as a threat. The first WTC attack was an annoyance. Hell, a fella from the midwest up to that point had committed the largest terrorism incident on US soil (I don't recall any invasion of Idaho/Nebraska/Oklahoma to root out those terrorists, do you?). After 9/11, Fear from the other side of the globe reigned. Bush exploited it.
And to add insult to injury, It has now been 3.5 years since 9/11. Osama Bin Laden is still at large. If you want to call Iraq free, fine. And let's not talk about Bush's rhetoric toward Iran, considering Iran is a democracy. Maybe not the way we understand, but it is. Yet the U.S. has a history of exporting illiberal democracy... read Fahreed Zakaria's The Future of Freedom.
Re:Bush's Reality Distortion Field rivals Steve Jo
on
State of the Union
·
· Score: 1
Whatever you want to call it. but at the crux of what I said is this:
" Add to that the fact that Americans are notoriously poor savers, so now you're going to force people who full may not understand the dynamics of money, and in some cases don't make enough to save to plan for a retirement future? Everyone in society isn't going to grow up an be a millionaire.. Society requires people to perform different duties at different levels of compensation. Social pension makes sense when you consider that."
So essentially your thought is... let them fend for themselves?
Re:Typical assinine name-calling
on
State of the Union
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And when is the last time he's listened to anyone that wasn't with his plan? Heck, name a potential voice of dissent in his administration? I'm not some bleeding heart liberal, but for a guy who says he believes in bipartisanship, you'd think his cabinet would reflect that. And there's precedent for it.
Case in point: Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense in his second term was Bill Cohen. He's a Republican. In his first term, he was occused of not having enough "grown-ups" in his decision making team. He sought out well-respected Warren Christopher to round out his cabinet.
This guy promoted from within, replaced from within and just handed out medals like hotcakes. He also, as someone has said here has devastated the surplus (blame that all you want on the ressessive slowdown of 2000-2003, but there's no way we're in this deep a hole if he doesn't), Cut taxes.. DURING a time of war...
And, I'm going to trust his judgement with this?
Re:Bush's Reality Distortion Field rivals Steve Jo
on
State of the Union
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I've heard that one from a few of my coworkers as well. I'm not opposed to those who are "not indigent or needy" (wait 'til you get to be 70 after this administration is done, you might be more likely to be one of the two) OPTING out of the system. If you make enough money and think you can do a better job of it, sure.
I don't think though, that's what most people are thinking. The thought seems to be "I'm tired of PAYING for the poor or elderly." at times it smacks of selfish greed. Social Security is equated as a tax for welfare. It's not. It's a form of pension. In principle, it's not much different than drawing a pension from a company. A certain amount of current wages go INTO that pension plan to pay the retirees.
That's the way the system is. Today's workers pay the pension of yesterdays workers, as tomorrow's workers will pay the pension of ours. It's not a tax. Besides, what protection to people who DON't have big fat 401k's and IRA's and are working for next to minimum wage have?
Add to that the fact that Americans are notoriously poor savers, so now you're going to force people who full may not understand the dynamics of money, and in some cases don't make enough to save to plan for a retirement future? Everyone in society isn't going to grow up an be a millionaire.. Society requires people to perform different duties at different levels of compensation. Social pension makes sense when you consider that.
My grandmother worked in a steel mill in the midwest, and for TRW, only to watch her pensions evaporate. In her later years she had to depend on cleaning the homes of those who sure as hell didn't have to worry about retirement to supplement her income from SS. Otherwise she'd have been working til she was 80, or to death just to live.
Those are the fears I have, that the latter will become much more common not by the insolvency of SS, but by privitization.
Re:Typical assinine name-calling
on
State of the Union
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Yeah, but you've got 30 years to get it right. this, is NOT getting it right, unless you absolutely adhere to "some action, even the wrong action is better than no action".
This administration sure believes that.
Bush's Reality Distortion Field rivals Steve Jobs'
on
State of the Union
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The Bush White House intended ideas for Social Security reform (and very quietly, health care reform) is half baked, when considering, he's fiddling with an institution that will be able to 30 YEARS from now provide 80% of the benefits it's supposed to. Knowing that, one would think "ok let's make allowances for the other 20 percent, maybe add money to the Social Security trust from other areas.
Instead his solution is is private accounts. And it's promoted the same way this administration does anything: fearmongering. "LOOK! Young people, Social Security is melting down! It's not gonna be here! Everybody's gonn retire and the crush is going to ruin things! You're gonna be out on the street with no one to take care of you!"
That alone should make young people suspicious. Couple that with with the fact that I don't fully understand how social security is funded. But they don't vote, so it won't matter til 45 years from now, or until we elect someone who may try to undo this. And God help that administration, because once Social Security has been privatized there will be no getting it back. Too much of a boon for the private sector; rolling dice with your money.
What's also disturbing is that some of my tax cut happy Bush supporting co-workers (ironically divorced bitter fellows for the most part) absolutely are drinking this Kool Aid. I've even heard one or two spouting, "what's wrong with YOU paying for you? I'm tired of others getting my money." For the life of me, I can't think of any Western country without a form of SECURED government provided pension, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a lynchpin.
Just wnother thing that scares me about this guy. And I won't get started on the health care account plans... BTW: Our defense budget seems to be in good shape, and QUITE solvent.
But Seattle's progressive nature probably allows for something like this; I dont think it would fly in Nebraska, or the Midwest.
There's also the matter of having you credit card information on file; fraud need not occur at the counter; If that financial information is compromised...
Fingerprint scanners are pretty cheap. I wonder though based on this how far off inexpensive retina scan security/transactions are.
MP3tunes will use a service or tool called "MP3beamer", which Robertson said would reconcile the need to store music in a centralized file store with the ability to play back the music anywhere, on any device.
Any ideas what this might be? Google isn't very forthcoming, as I suspect there's little info available as yet. If it's a "required" (aka installed) program, will it:
* run on a Linux box?
* monitor your music habits?
* really run on any device?
Just curious.
What's interesting is the meaning of "reconcile". It doesn't imply that centralized control is going away. It's got to be an app. But I can't imagine what myself. maybe something java based, with an established account that does indeed keep track of your music habits.
It sounds like that... a commodity... or a utility. This isn't new per se, but being able to tap into that type of processor power at a fixed price point could potentially move companies like Sun and IBM toward that added avenue...? or am I missing something..?
Sounds like it almost ideal, when dealing with workstations in financial businesses/organizations that handle sensitive data. I'm sure we've all run across user X who didn't see the harm in installing "that little weather application" (I know this doesn't happen with linux specifically, but on XP/2000 this could save a lot of headache support wise) It can help ensure uniformity. From that side of things, I can immediately see the bonus.
On the flip side, I'm not interested in it on linux, just because it won't work. And it sounds like I'd have to depend on the maintainers of a distro for digitally signed binaries for anything I MAY run. I really don't like that idea.
I suspect that there's a number of Slack users here. To be honest, my forays into linux never really held my interest until I "discovered" Slack... and since then, other than for work (my employer requires any linux servers or desktops to be SUSE. It's a Novell thing, so I wouldn't understand) I've not used another linux distribution. It was almost as complete as my conversion to the Mac platform years earlier.
It seems Slack has also picked up more and more linux users and converts due to it's distro size; an ISO set of two disks for version 10, when you consider some others seem to be verging on eight, nine disks for a distro. It's not bloated, and from install pretty much has everything one might need.
Censorship we know about. Japanese rule is more like an oligarchy, just ask the Filipinos. They rewrite history, just look at what happened to that emperor that died. They threaten other countries, just look at China/The U.S/Australia/Soviet Union/French Indochina/. They destroy cultural identities that are not their own, look at Korea.
This kinda talk can go on about any nation. Regardless, China has had a harsh PURGING society. They are trying some form of Franken Commucapitalism. But personal freedoms, LIBERAL freedoms dont exist. Maybe it the sheer number of people that exist in the country, I dunno. But that doesnt absolve that government from what we percieve as it's faults, just as we... well at least I, criticize the US government. Which to me is my right as a citizen of the US.
Furthermore yes there are other online music stores but most of them use their own incompatible form of DRM, to extend my analogy they release their music on their own patented special cassette. THE WHOLE POINT of this is that incompatibility is BAD FOR THE CONSUMER!
So... say I go out and buy a Philips Brand DVD Player. Plays DivX, WMA files, mp3's, VCD. On my PC, I have tons of songs I've bought from Apple's ITMS that I'd like to be able to play on this DVD player. But I can't. So the solution to my problem is to sue Apple because the device I bought can't play Apple's AAC files (Regardless of Apple's licensing Fairplay or not)?
I don't understand that. Especially because you're argument suggests that Apple should either join the MS bandwagon and adopt WMA or, give everyone else the keys to the kingdom when there is NO true de-facto standard. Ask MS if they think Apple's solution is a standard. Ask Real Networks.
People have flocked to the iPod true, and also iTunes. But nothing stops people from buiying anything else. Other than what? They want to use ITMS? Well, they know the risks beforehand. It's not like someone is being bamboozled here, or forced into accepting something they dont like without another equally viable option.
I think we all know what customers know =) (not to take them for granted in the least!). Yet, it's not as though this is the end. Let's see how much sucess Sony has. Maybe Compaq and others will come back in time. IBM? who knows; they're too busy making power hungry processors of thier own.
>>No, I don't. I do however think that Apple royally screwed a lot of their loyal base with the hardware changes of the iMac and G3/4.
And if they don't make the changes? You're stuck with ADB, and the mini DIN serial ports, when USB offers you a ton more products, non-hardware specific? And this saves the customer money, no? The ability to NOT have to see four Mac products on the shelf? same with firewire? I have five Macs, from an SE30 to a G3 400 PB, and i've been more impressed with a Mac's viability than the changes (some welcome, some not) made to the platform.
>>No, but since the PII/3/Athlon still use the x86 ISA there is no reson to worry. When Apple made the transition from m68k to PPC, they at least had the decency to write a 68k emulator into the OS.
You were kid in third grade that was upset when those one or two kids up front caught on faster and pushed the class along, weren't you?
>>If you don't mind taking it in the pooper from Apple, all the better for you. They're not going to get any more of MY money.
To each his (or her) own.
Is Orrin Hatch the only Republican with any sense? If this is overturned, it's going to take years.
Napster and the RIAA is one story; the day will come when a good number of artists will be able to circumvent the music cartels and sell directly to the consumer via technologies such as MPEG Layer 3...
This started as a case about a platform (Linux) written as open source from the beginning, that would not have DVD support unless someone took the time to write it. And the MPAA's greedy asses aren't about to help at all. You can't have it both ways; expect me to buy the product, and then tell me how I can use it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. I'm blessed right now. I have the ability financially to make a significant difference in my retirement circumstance. MY example was that of people who do not. I used that person, a person I knew well, as an example. I'm sure most of us have had someone rather recently pave the way, and work hard for virtually nothing to ensure you had a brighter future. Not in the amount of cash they could leave you, but by the example they set and the sacrifice.
My concern is for those people who are the bearers and do the "menial" jobs. They don't make enough to support this. I don't and won't make any apologies for being concerned with the welfare of my neighbor versus my desire to have a few more cents in my pocket.
As I recall, in the late 90's when Clinton began to bang the war drum slowly, a lot of this rhetoric was flying around. And I remember when Madeline Albright and Bill Cohen went before an audience of students in a town hall meeting at Ohio State University to make the case for war. Keep in mind Clinton wasn't talking about boots on the ground; he was talking about his usual: Cruise missles and bombs.
What had saddam done? harassed and attempted to shoot down US and British jets in the no fly zone, and kicked out the inspectors.
The scene at OSU was near riotous. No one drank the Kool Aid. We didn't go to war.
Two years later, 9/11 happens. We knew it was not Iraq behind this, but bin Laden. Bush dusted off plans for an invasion of Afghanistan (don't fool yourselves; the near exact plan used was devised under the Clinton Administration). Using American air power and Northern Alliance boots (with a few CIA ops and special forces) on the ground, destabilized the Taliban. We didn't invade Afghanistan.
But if you ask the average American, they'd tell you we did. Keep all this in mind as I briefly digress.
Iraq had taken a back seat the last year of Clinton's term; North Korea was more pressing.
Also, about the same time/just prior to 9/11 Saddam allowed the return of weapons inspectors albeit he was playing some of the games he did before. No one found anything. yet U.S. intelligence kept saying the same things they'd said since Clinton's time. The stuff being quoted by republicans and democrats alike.
Back on point, the administration early on from 9/11 created a political deception that would allow intent for an invasion of Iraq to take place. Before then they had no, for lack of a better term, capital to spend to get this done. Playing on a suspecting and wounded populace, made his case based on the SAME information Clinton did, with a few new twists.
They throughly took advantage of the American people. No matter what kind of rhetoric being said by whomever of WHATEVER political party, this was dead wrong to do. And the person/organization that most of this information came from was Geogre Tenet's CIA. Tenet was CIA Director under Clinton, and Bush. If you want to play the partisan game, dont bother. There's your guy. Tenet.
Politicians for the most part only quote what they are told; Clinton was smart enough to put this out to the American publinc in making his case, while saying the rhetoric. And the desire not to go to war won out. Why? cause Americans didnt see anything as a threat. The first WTC attack was an annoyance. Hell, a fella from the midwest up to that point had committed the largest terrorism incident on US soil (I don't recall any invasion of Idaho/Nebraska/Oklahoma to root out those terrorists, do you?). After 9/11, Fear from the other side of the globe reigned. Bush exploited it.
And to add insult to injury, It has now been 3.5 years since 9/11. Osama Bin Laden is still at large. If you want to call Iraq free, fine. And let's not talk about Bush's rhetoric toward Iran, considering Iran is a democracy. Maybe not the way we understand, but it is. Yet the U.S. has a history of exporting illiberal democracy... read Fahreed Zakaria's The Future of Freedom.
Whatever you want to call it. but at the crux of what I said is this:
" Add to that the fact that Americans are notoriously poor savers, so now you're going to force people who full may not understand the dynamics of money, and in some cases don't make enough to save to plan for a retirement future? Everyone in society isn't going to grow up an be a millionaire.. Society requires people to perform different duties at different levels of compensation. Social pension makes sense when you consider that."
So essentially your thought is... let them fend for themselves?
And when is the last time he's listened to anyone that wasn't with his plan? Heck, name a potential voice of dissent in his administration? I'm not some bleeding heart liberal, but for a guy who says he believes in bipartisanship, you'd think his cabinet would reflect that. And there's precedent for it.
Case in point: Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense in his second term was Bill Cohen. He's a Republican. In his first term, he was occused of not having enough "grown-ups" in his decision making team. He sought out well-respected Warren Christopher to round out his cabinet.
This guy promoted from within, replaced from within and just handed out medals like hotcakes. He also, as someone has said here has devastated the surplus (blame that all you want on the ressessive slowdown of 2000-2003, but there's no way we're in this deep a hole if he doesn't), Cut taxes.. DURING a time of war...
And, I'm going to trust his judgement with this?
I've heard that one from a few of my coworkers as well. I'm not opposed to those who are "not indigent or needy" (wait 'til you get to be 70 after this administration is done, you might be more likely to be one of the two) OPTING out of the system. If you make enough money and think you can do a better job of it, sure.
I don't think though, that's what most people are thinking. The thought seems to be "I'm tired of PAYING for the poor or elderly." at times it smacks of selfish greed. Social Security is equated as a tax for welfare. It's not. It's a form of pension. In principle, it's not much different than drawing a pension from a company. A certain amount of current wages go INTO that pension plan to pay the retirees.
That's the way the system is. Today's workers pay the pension of yesterdays workers, as tomorrow's workers will pay the pension of ours. It's not a tax. Besides, what protection to people who DON't have big fat 401k's and IRA's and are working for next to minimum wage have?
Add to that the fact that Americans are notoriously poor savers, so now you're going to force people who full may not understand the dynamics of money, and in some cases don't make enough to save to plan for a retirement future? Everyone in society isn't going to grow up an be a millionaire.. Society requires people to perform different duties at different levels of compensation. Social pension makes sense when you consider that.
My grandmother worked in a steel mill in the midwest, and for TRW, only to watch her pensions
evaporate. In her later years she had to depend on cleaning the homes of those who sure as hell didn't have to worry about retirement to supplement her income from SS. Otherwise she'd have been working til she was 80, or to death just to live.
Those are the fears I have, that the latter will become much more common not by the insolvency of SS, but by privitization.
Yeah, but you've got 30 years to get it right. this, is NOT getting it right, unless you absolutely adhere to "some action, even the wrong action is better than no action".
This administration sure believes that.
The Bush White House intended ideas for Social Security reform (and very quietly, health care reform) is half baked, when considering, he's fiddling with an institution that will be able to 30 YEARS from now provide 80% of the benefits it's supposed to. Knowing that, one would think "ok let's make allowances for the other 20 percent, maybe add money to the Social Security trust from other areas.
Instead his solution is is private accounts. And it's promoted the same way this administration does anything: fearmongering. "LOOK! Young people, Social Security is melting down! It's not gonna be here! Everybody's gonn retire and the crush is going to ruin things! You're gonna be out on the street with no one to take care of you!"
That alone should make young people suspicious. Couple that with with the fact that I don't fully understand how social security is funded. But they don't vote, so it won't matter til 45 years from now, or until we elect someone who may try to undo this. And God help that administration, because once Social Security has been privatized there will be no getting it back. Too much of a boon for the private sector; rolling dice with your money.
What's also disturbing is that some of my tax cut happy Bush supporting co-workers (ironically divorced bitter fellows for the most part) absolutely are drinking this Kool Aid. I've even heard one or two spouting, "what's wrong with YOU paying for you? I'm tired of others getting my money." For the life of me, I can't think of any Western country without a form of SECURED government provided pension, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a lynchpin.
Just wnother thing that scares me about this guy. And I won't get started on the health care account plans... BTW: Our defense budget seems to be in good shape, and QUITE solvent.
But Seattle's progressive nature probably allows for something like this; I dont think it would fly in Nebraska, or the Midwest.
There's also the matter of having you credit card information on file; fraud need not occur at the counter; If that financial information is compromised...
Fingerprint scanners are pretty cheap. I wonder though based on this how far off inexpensive retina scan security/transactions are.
What's interesting is the meaning of "reconcile". It doesn't imply that centralized control is going away. It's got to be an app. But I can't imagine what myself. maybe something java based, with an established account that does indeed keep track of your music habits.
It sounds like that... a commodity... or a utility. This isn't new per se, but being able to tap into that type of processor power at a fixed price point could potentially move companies like Sun and IBM toward that added avenue...? or am I missing something..?
I should have said ANY organization handling sensitve data.
Sounds like it almost ideal, when dealing with workstations in financial businesses/organizations that handle sensitive data. I'm sure we've all run across user X who didn't see the harm in installing "that little weather application" (I know this doesn't happen with linux specifically, but on XP/2000 this could save a lot of headache support wise) It can help ensure uniformity. From that side of things, I can immediately see the bonus.
On the flip side, I'm not interested in it on linux, just because it won't work. And it sounds like I'd have to depend on the maintainers of a distro for digitally signed binaries for anything I MAY run. I really don't like that idea.
I suspect that there's a number of Slack users here. To be honest, my forays into linux never really held my interest until I "discovered" Slack... and since then, other than for work (my employer requires any linux servers or desktops to be SUSE. It's a Novell thing, so I wouldn't understand) I've not used another linux distribution. It was almost as complete as my conversion to the Mac platform years earlier.
It seems Slack has also picked up more and more linux users and converts due to it's distro size; an ISO set of two disks for version 10, when you consider some others seem to be verging on eight, nine disks for a distro. It's not bloated, and from install pretty much has everything one might need.
Kudos and good luck to these guys.
...until a Zeta Reticulan pilot and and the FBI are standing on your doorstep for shining one into a UFO cockpit...
Er, no thanks. In their own words:
"The current application will be terminated."
Censorship we know about. Japanese rule is more like an oligarchy, just ask the Filipinos. They rewrite history, just look at what happened to that emperor that died. They threaten other countries, just look at China/The U.S/Australia/Soviet Union/French Indochina/. They destroy cultural identities that are not their own, look at Korea.
This kinda talk can go on about any nation. Regardless, China has had a harsh PURGING society. They are trying some form of Franken Commucapitalism. But personal freedoms, LIBERAL freedoms dont exist. Maybe it the sheer number of people that exist in the country, I dunno. But that doesnt absolve that government from what we percieve as it's faults, just as we... well at least I, criticize the US government. Which to me is my right as a citizen of the US.
It's Instant Messaging :P
No seriously, It has to be the commercializtion of the internet.
So... say I go out and buy a Philips Brand DVD Player. Plays DivX, WMA files, mp3's, VCD. On my PC, I have tons of songs I've bought from Apple's ITMS that I'd like to be able to play on this DVD player. But I can't. So the solution to my problem is to sue Apple because the device I bought can't play Apple's AAC files (Regardless of Apple's licensing Fairplay or not)?
I don't understand that. Especially because you're argument suggests that Apple should either join the MS bandwagon and adopt WMA or, give everyone else the keys to the kingdom when there is NO true de-facto standard. Ask MS if they think Apple's solution is a standard. Ask Real Networks.
People have flocked to the iPod true, and also iTunes. But nothing stops people from buiying anything else. Other than what? They want to use ITMS? Well, they know the risks beforehand. It's not like someone is being bamboozled here, or forced into accepting something they dont like without another equally viable option.
I think we all know what customers know =) (not to take them for granted in the least!). Yet, it's not as though this is the end. Let's see how much sucess Sony has. Maybe Compaq and others will come back in time. IBM? who knows; they're too busy making power hungry processors of thier own.
Well... I think it looks a lot like OS X... but Apple's is preferable.
MacOS X? I woul really like to see a comparison between both future OS's...
>>No, I don't. I do however think that Apple royally screwed a lot of their loyal base with the hardware changes of the iMac and G3/4. And if they don't make the changes? You're stuck with ADB, and the mini DIN serial ports, when USB offers you a ton more products, non-hardware specific? And this saves the customer money, no? The ability to NOT have to see four Mac products on the shelf? same with firewire? I have five Macs, from an SE30 to a G3 400 PB, and i've been more impressed with a Mac's viability than the changes (some welcome, some not) made to the platform. >>No, but since the PII/3/Athlon still use the x86 ISA there is no reson to worry. When Apple made the transition from m68k to PPC, they at least had the decency to write a 68k emulator into the OS. You were kid in third grade that was upset when those one or two kids up front caught on faster and pushed the class along, weren't you? >>If you don't mind taking it in the pooper from Apple, all the better for you. They're not going to get any more of MY money. To each his (or her) own.
Is Orrin Hatch the only Republican with any sense? If this is overturned, it's going to take years. Napster and the RIAA is one story; the day will come when a good number of artists will be able to circumvent the music cartels and sell directly to the consumer via technologies such as MPEG Layer 3... This started as a case about a platform (Linux) written as open source from the beginning, that would not have DVD support unless someone took the time to write it. And the MPAA's greedy asses aren't about to help at all. You can't have it both ways; expect me to buy the product, and then tell me how I can use it.
"wearer has exceeded quota" or some ish...
Do you put these on the coatrack at work? or do you plug them into the patch bay? =) I can see it now... Destination Clothes Unreacheable...