Yes, I'm aware of the Firewire option... and I've threatened my cable provider with an FCC complaint (looks like I'll have to make good on it), since they've been required to provide firewire when requested, since July 1st, 2004. However, you can't copy anything via Firewire if it's copy protected - so there's really no point in wasting money on a D-VHS. Over The Air channels I can already record on my PC using an HDTV Tuner, so that's not an issue. The issue is premium channels, PPV and Movies On Demand. If I pay for it, I expect to be able to keep a copy for personal use, just like I've been able to do with the Standard Definition material for the last 25 years. This is a ginormous step backwards in terms of customer rights.
I have a 30" CRT Philips HDTV monitor I got about a year and a half ago. HDTV looks fantastic through the component cables, which are my only means of getting an HD signal into the monitor, seeing as the set doesn't have DVI/HDCP.
If these bozos think they're going to force me to shell out another grand or two for a new set, they've got another thing coming. I will personally break the protection if I have to (I'm a pretty smart cookie), but I will not participate in a scam of these proportions. If you have to buy a new TV to view the content, it's not just copy-protected, it's view-protected.
I have a 1080i capable TV. If I have a player that can play 1080i, why should I be required to buy a new TV just to be able to connect?
What happened to letting the market decide? It seems corporations have no problem with protectionism and market regulations when it's designed by them in order to pad their pockets. Then they get all riled up when regulations are made that protect consumers, whining about how it's costing them money. Well, this is going to cost US money. And I say we fight this tooth and nail.
These money grubbing bastards been bitching for years about the slow growth of the number of HDTV households. Then, when that number is finally up to a level where they feel it's profitable to start offering content for sale, they expect us to buy new sets in order to use it, thereby setting the number of households back dramatically. I'd be willing to bet that at least half the HDTV sets in the US don't have HDCP.
Just goes to show that executives have no clue what the hell they're talking about... let alone what they're doing.
Memo to Hollywood executives: Remember DVDs? We sidestepped your stupid protection then, and we'll do it again. Stop wasting your time. While you sit around wondering how to protect your stuff, terabytes of HD content is being freely shared online, captured off cable/satellite boxes. You'll never stop sharing - you'll only annoy legit customers with this kind of paranoid BS.
Youre talking about blood feud politics. Not the way things are done in the civilized world. Really? George W. Bush said "After all, this is a guy who tried to kill my dad at one time." about Saddam Hussein, and then said Iraq was about WMDs... no, terrorist cells... no, wait, I got it... Freedom and democracy... yeah, that's it.
Once you get mad enough about family members being killed, you kill them all. No More Feud.
Hit 'em hard enough, and they won't come back. Either because they're unable to, or because they lost their taste for messing with you. That's solving the problem.
Actually, no. If you hit them hard enough, someone else will take offense and feel the need to avenge them.
BTW, whoever said 'an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind' (and I believe it was Gandhi) missed the point. It's one eye for one eye, and _it stops there_.
Wrong again. That would be in a "perfect world" (of course in a perfect world it would never come to that anyway). Example: If your brother kills someone, and someone else kills him in retaliation, are you telling me neither you or anybody else would feel the urge to avenge his death? What if someone did? Then someone would want to avenge that killing, and so on and so forth. Revenge is a continous process. It just keeps going and going. Believing otherwise is naive at best.
I've heard your point many times... and it's still wrong - but I do understand it.
Violence only works if it's in response to violence, and even then it's just a temporary fix, not a solution. Remember, I was talking about 'solving' problems, not just making them go away for the night. Using violence as the means to an end just generates more problems. It can be beneficial in the short term, but in the long term, it always fails. The problems caused by the use of violence are usually worse than the problem fixed by violence, simply because it creates more violence. You get upset with someone, you hit them. It may stop the argument, and you may feel you've won. But that 'victory' only lasts until they find a way to get back at you - and if history has taught us anything, they always will, and then you will too. Violence begets violence.
The problems in the middle east are caused by violence (at some point, one side started it, now it goes on forever - as someone said "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind") and people have been fighting for so long they don't really know what they're fighting for, all they know is, the other side is evil and must be stopped at all cost.
The only problem bigger than violence, is people who think of violence as a viable option to get things done. Violence should always be the very last resort and only in self defense, and not as the means to an end.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Comes after therefore caused by.
A common fallacy in many, many arenas, not just this one.
Studies such as these forget to examine other factors, such as "are violent kids more likely to play violent games?", and "are there violent kids who get their aggressions out through video games?", and "what in the kids upbringing or social situation could contribute to their violent behaviour?", and "do calm and non violent kids get violent or aggressive after playing the games?", and most importantly "what is the responsibility of the parents in each situation?"
I grew up watching violent movies. Did it make me a violent person? No, quite the opposite. I detest violence. Why? Because I had a mother who actually gave a shit. She cared about what I was watching, and always made a point to tell me that it wasn't real, that it was make-believe, and that there was always someone behind the camera. She also made a point of telling me that violence didn't solve any problems, and she even made me watch movies that showed the effect of war and violence on people, such as In Cold Blood and The Deer Hunter.
If violence in video games and movies was the real cause, we should be able to compare the amount of violence in the US with that of another country and see a direct correlation with the rate of violent crimes. In Japan, movies and games are far more violent than they are here in the US. Yet the rate of violent crime is dramatically lower, and gun violence is only a tiny fraction of what it is here.
Anyone who points to video games and movies and says 'this is the cause' has not only failed to do their homework, they've completely lost sight of the issue and are just looking for an easy scape-goat.
According to the imdb history their system was created in 1990 and the website was launched in 1993. So it looks like IMDB was getting hundreds of hits a day, 3 years before these numbnuts filed their bogus patent application.
All my friends know I like to make analogies, so here goes:
This like giving someone the key to your house, but he can't enter unless he's wearing a special kind of shoes that insulate him from the electric current in the floor. Sure, he can use your house with your permission, but it won't be as enjoyable as if he had on shoes whose manufacturer you're getting the kickback from.
This is a stupid, stupid, stupid rule, and it will backfire. The average user won't even notice the popup that told them the video would look better on a particular monitor (most people click OK without even reading popups anyway), so to them, your content quality sucks and they won't do business with you again.
Component capture cards do not exist, although there are converters that can convert analog component HD into HD-SDI (serial digital) for which there are several options when it comes to capture cards. But I don't imagine you'll get one at Best Buy for $149 any time soon... if ever, because the component connector is being phased out and thus the demand for the converter will remain with high end professional services, which keeps the price high. Note that the component connector is not being phased out by market forces, but by regulation and distributor demand. Normally the market decides things like this, but not when copyright paranoia takes hold. Component is still perfectly capable of producing a picture sharp and clean enough for an enjoyable HDTV experience. Most people don't even notice a difference between DVI and component (although I can because I know what to look for). By the time there's a cheap consumer version of these high end cards and converters, if there ever will be, there will probably already be a 1TB HD TiVo that can export the files using TiVoToGo like the current SD generations can do, who knows?
You didn't actually say any of that in the post I was replying to...
My TV doesn't have HDMI and will therefore be unusable with any player using copy protected HDMI connectors only. I don't understand what the big freaking deal is about not offering component outputs. It's not like there's a recorder available anywhere with component input... Even if it would be in the future, using Macrovision to screw with that would deter at least the casual users (just like with VHS). Copy protection will never be absolute. It's impossible. Someone, somewhere is going go figure out how to strip the copy protection signal from the HDMI and offer it online... and how you can build one with off the shelf parts from Radio Shack and his open source code.
Copy protection paranoia is getting completely out of hand.
A box that strips away the copy protection of the HDMI, would be illegal under the DMCA - so don't expect to see it at your local electronics store.
You could be confusing the conversion of HDMI to DVI by changing the physical plug, with the copy protection mechanism of it, which cannot be bypassed or stripped out legally.
You're missing the point. The player would obviously have that processor built in, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about the output. The output, if reports are correct, will be through the copy protected digital interface known as HDMI, which requires your TV to have that kind of interface. Tons of HDTV sets, like mine, do not have that kind of interface, but rather use an analog interface known as component input.
If the player is unusable with my TV, then guess what... I'm not buying it.
Are you kidding? I don't even have one, and I have an HDTV!
I have a CRT Philips set, which uses component input. So, basically, Toshiba expects me to buy a third piece of hardware (a video processor) in order to use their product? Dream on. This should dramatically hurt their sales. This hyperparanoia with regard to copy protection has gotten out of hand.
Jebus! Not all of us have a Platinum AmEx, you know.
The most I've ever spent on a PC, is a grand total of $2000, over a period of 2 years. Most of the parts I can still use the next time I upgrade the mobo+cpu for another $2-300 (and I can re-use the old mobo+cpu as a render node). No Mac can beat that. First of all, you can't buy the Mac little by little. It's the whole thing or nothing at all. Sure, you can get a payment plan, but by the time you have 6 months left of payments, the system is outdated and worth little more than the remaining payments.
For what the Mac Mini brings in terms of speed and upgradability, I can build a far superior PC, for about half the price... but sadly that means I have to use Windows XP for most of the stuff that I do.
If you want a Mac, get one. If you don't, at least be honest about your reasons. So, not only am I a loser for not being able to afford a G5, now I'm a liar as well? Just who the hell do you think you are?!?
As someone who is OS agnostic, dislikes M$ but doesn't feel Linux can replace Windows completely any time soon due to lack of software (no flames please, I'm talking about Photoshop, Avid, After Effects etc), I'd love to have OS X as my system (especially since I love BSD). However, Macs are terribly expensive. I think that's mainly what has been keeping them at 3% of the market. If they can lower their prices (which I'm sure had something to do with the decision to switch), and I can run Windows, Linux and OSX natively on the same hardware, I'm switching - simple as that.
In fact, I'm sticking with my AMD64 for a little while longer until Apple announces their prices... then I'll decide.
If their prices come down enough to warrant a switch, I'll switch. Having been a PC guy for 20 years, that's big - and if even 10% of the market thinks like I do, Apple's market share can easily quadruple in a year. Now, that should be incentive enough for Apple.
Again, you're engaging in personal attacks. And again, you're not engaging in a productive argument, because you cannot back up your emptyheaded and narrowminded statements with facts or logic.
And the "Why don't you leave the country?" line is stupid. Why would you leave what you love? Patriotism means fighting FOR the future of your country, even if it means you have to fight the idiots in charge. The country is more important than it's leaders. That's true patriotism.
But, you seem to be on a trolling rampage, judging by your other posts, so go ahead... spew more stupidity my way if you must.
How old are you anyway? Based on your juvenile attitude, I'd say I moved from home long before you got hair on your ass.
Always fun to see a neocon start the personal attacks when responding to an argument.
Don't you know that when you attack the person with whom you're arguing, it means YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT!
How about responding to the fucking post instead of attacking me? None of what you said has any kind of logic or argument behind it, just more of the same empty right wing rhetoric I can hear any day of the week by tuning into Limbaugh or Hannity (i.e. inane, arrogant, stupid and lacking in logic).
The war in Iraq has about as much to do with "the cause of freedom" as your ass has to do with your keyboard functioning - then again, based on the way you're using your keyboard...
The only way we'll ever minimize the threat of terrorism (it will never, ever go away), is by changing OUR policies so that we don't create as many enemies around the world. There is a reason why these people hate us so much, and it has to do with how we've treated them... We don't give a shit about any of them, unless they have something to offer us, in the form of oil or other exports we need/want. Look at the genocide in Rwanda... Nobody cared. Look at a bunch of small African nations that are starving to death, and nobody cares enough to offer any real help... because there's no direct financial benefit. The "what's in it for me" idealism is what's fucking up this planet.
There are more terrorists now than before, not fewer - I don't know where you get that idea, unless of course you've been listening to Bush/Blair. The terrorist groups may be splintered and not as organized, but they're still there, still plotting and obviously still carrying out their plans. Where's Bin Laden? Why don't we care? Why don't we find the mofo and string him up by his balls? Why is protecting the second largest oil field in the world more important than finding the guy who masterminded the biggest terrorist attack on US Soil, when at the same time the war in question is called "the War on Terrorism"?!?
It's long overdue that the people of the US and the UK start questioning the motives and ideals of their leaders. They're not telling us the truth, and they're supposed to be working FOR us.
Bush made Blair his bitch soon after 9/11. That project should therefore be called The Blair Bitch Project.
A different plan, you say? Withdraw from Iraq and let the Iraqis rebuild their own country the way they want to (we blew it up, so we should pay for it, but with dollars, not lives). Find Bin Laden and put him on PUBLIC trial, not some closed military tribunal like Hussein. By having it public, it doesn't look to the outside world like we have something to hide. Remove NeoCons from power wherever they are found. They're fascists and imperialists, and they are a clear and present danger to world peace. They're modern day versions of Nazis and Stalinists. It's only a matter of time before they get powerful enough to start killing people they don't like (although some would argue they started that with Iraq, and Iran being next on the list). Spend serious time and money developing alternate sources of fuel. We must clean ourselves up... we're oil junkies and the middle east is our dealer. Until we break free of that addiction, there will be problems and friction between us and them.
Roundtable discussions will not work, because the terrorists are fringe groups that have splintered from what used to be legitimate political ideals. However, that doesn't mean we should just keep killing them wherever they pop up like it's a game of whack-a-mole. We MUST change the policies that create terrorists.
Actually, what better time to make the point that we were right and they were wrong, than immediately after we've just been proven right? Since the morons in charge decided to attack the wrong country, we've been saying:
that it would create more terrorists than ever before
that attacking Iraq and ignoring Bin Laden would come back to haunt us
that doing exactly what Bin Laden wanted (attack a middle eastern nation) would generate even more hatred towards the US and it's allies and would work as a recruitment tool for terrorist organizations
that boasting "mission accomplished" while people continue to die on both sides would only add fuel to the fire
that saying "bring'em on" to our enemies is not exactly an effective way of keeping people safe
that the idea of "figthing them over there so we won't have to fight them here" is a fantasy that can never work
that we WOULD get hit again (we being the western world)
that Bush and Blair took their eyes off the ball when they ignored Bin Laden and went into Iraq, and now innocent civilians are paying the ultimate price for their ignorance and arrogance.
that a "war on terrorism" is impossible to win because of the very nature of the enemy - and is thus "perpetual war" with an enemy that cannot go away, which is exactly what the NeoCons want... it takes us back to the days of the Cold War when the military industrial complex influences policymakers
What better time to say "Look, we've been trying to warn you, but you wouldn't listen, and even called us traitors for not agreeing with your methods." Methods which now seem to be the very reason for this mess. Of course sympathy for the victims and victim's families is appropriate (prayer may make you feel better, but it does nothing for them), but that doesn't mean we should ignore reality and just follow our inept leaders in lockstep. Now is the time to stand up and say "the Emperor has no clothes!"
Impeach Bush now!
And yes, I realize I'll probably get some negative mods from the Bush/Blair apologists, but I don't care. This must be said.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'm aware of the Firewire option... and I've threatened my cable provider with an FCC complaint (looks like I'll have to make good on it), since they've been required to provide firewire when requested, since July 1st, 2004.
However, you can't copy anything via Firewire if it's copy protected - so there's really no point in wasting money on a D-VHS.
Over The Air channels I can already record on my PC using an HDTV Tuner, so that's not an issue. The issue is premium channels, PPV and Movies On Demand. If I pay for it, I expect to be able to keep a copy for personal use, just like I've been able to do with the Standard Definition material for the last 25 years.
This is a ginormous step backwards in terms of customer rights.
I have a 30" CRT Philips HDTV monitor I got about a year and a half ago. HDTV looks fantastic through the component cables, which are my only means of getting an HD signal into the monitor, seeing as the set doesn't have DVI/HDCP.
If these bozos think they're going to force me to shell out another grand or two for a new set, they've got another thing coming.
I will personally break the protection if I have to (I'm a pretty smart cookie), but I will not participate in a scam of these proportions. If you have to buy a new TV to view the content, it's not just copy-protected, it's view-protected.
I have a 1080i capable TV. If I have a player that can play 1080i, why should I be required to buy a new TV just to be able to connect?
What happened to letting the market decide?
It seems corporations have no problem with protectionism and market regulations when it's designed by them in order to pad their pockets. Then they get all riled up when regulations are made that protect consumers, whining about how it's costing them money. Well, this is going to cost US money. And I say we fight this tooth and nail.
These money grubbing bastards been bitching for years about the slow growth of the number of HDTV households. Then, when that number is finally up to a level where they feel it's profitable to start offering content for sale, they expect us to buy new sets in order to use it, thereby setting the number of households back dramatically. I'd be willing to bet that at least half the HDTV sets in the US don't have HDCP.
Just goes to show that executives have no clue what the hell they're talking about... let alone what they're doing.
Memo to Hollywood executives: Remember DVDs? We sidestepped your stupid protection then, and we'll do it again. Stop wasting your time. While you sit around wondering how to protect your stuff, terabytes of HD content is being freely shared online, captured off cable/satellite boxes.
You'll never stop sharing - you'll only annoy legit customers with this kind of paranoid BS.
Youre talking about blood feud politics. Not the way things are done in the civilized world.
Really?
George W. Bush said "After all, this is a guy who tried to kill my dad at one time." about Saddam Hussein, and then said Iraq was about WMDs... no, terrorist cells... no, wait, I got it... Freedom and democracy... yeah, that's it.
Once you get mad enough about family members being killed, you kill them all. No More Feud.
Was that an attempt at humor?
In this case, it's not your fault because the summary doesn't actually link to a description of the study. I found it here
Thanks for the info.
Hit 'em hard enough, and they won't come back. Either because they're unable to, or because they lost their taste for messing with you. That's solving the problem.
Actually, no.
If you hit them hard enough, someone else will take offense and feel the need to avenge them.
BTW, whoever said 'an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind' (and I believe it was Gandhi) missed the point. It's one eye for one eye, and _it stops there_.
Wrong again. That would be in a "perfect world" (of course in a perfect world it would never come to that anyway).
Example: If your brother kills someone, and someone else kills him in retaliation, are you telling me neither you or anybody else would feel the urge to avenge his death? What if someone did? Then someone would want to avenge that killing, and so on and so forth.
Revenge is a continous process. It just keeps going and going. Believing otherwise is naive at best.
I've heard your point many times... and it's still wrong - but I do understand it.
Violence only works if it's in response to violence, and even then it's just a temporary fix, not a solution. Remember, I was talking about 'solving' problems, not just making them go away for the night.
Using violence as the means to an end just generates more problems.
It can be beneficial in the short term, but in the long term, it always fails. The problems caused by the use of violence are usually worse than the problem fixed by violence, simply because it creates more violence.
You get upset with someone, you hit them. It may stop the argument, and you may feel you've won. But that 'victory' only lasts until they find a way to get back at you - and if history has taught us anything, they always will, and then you will too. Violence begets violence.
The problems in the middle east are caused by violence (at some point, one side started it, now it goes on forever - as someone said "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind") and people have been fighting for so long they don't really know what they're fighting for, all they know is, the other side is evil and must be stopped at all cost.
The only problem bigger than violence, is people who think of violence as a viable option to get things done. Violence should always be the very last resort and only in self defense, and not as the means to an end.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Comes after therefore caused by.
A common fallacy in many, many arenas, not just this one.
Studies such as these forget to examine other factors, such as "are violent kids more likely to play violent games?", and "are there violent kids who get their aggressions out through video games?", and "what in the kids upbringing or social situation could contribute to their violent behaviour?", and "do calm and non violent kids get violent or aggressive after playing the games?", and most importantly "what is the responsibility of the parents in each situation?"
I grew up watching violent movies. Did it make me a violent person? No, quite the opposite. I detest violence. Why? Because I had a mother who actually gave a shit. She cared about what I was watching, and always made a point to tell me that it wasn't real, that it was make-believe, and that there was always someone behind the camera. She also made a point of telling me that violence didn't solve any problems, and she even made me watch movies that showed the effect of war and violence on people, such as In Cold Blood and The Deer Hunter.
If violence in video games and movies was the real cause, we should be able to compare the amount of violence in the US with that of another country and see a direct correlation with the rate of violent crimes. In Japan, movies and games are far more violent than they are here in the US. Yet the rate of violent crime is dramatically lower, and gun violence is only a tiny fraction of what it is here.
Anyone who points to video games and movies and says 'this is the cause' has not only failed to do their homework, they've completely lost sight of the issue and are just looking for an easy scape-goat.
OK, that's pretty simple.
IMDB
According to the imdb history their system was created in 1990 and the website was launched in 1993.
So it looks like IMDB was getting hundreds of hits a day, 3 years before these numbnuts filed their bogus patent application.
Well, we all know that 83.72% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Well, no.
All my friends know I like to make analogies, so here goes:
This like giving someone the key to your house, but he can't enter unless he's wearing a special kind of shoes that insulate him from the electric current in the floor. Sure, he can use your house with your permission, but it won't be as enjoyable as if he had on shoes whose manufacturer you're getting the kickback from.
This is a stupid, stupid, stupid rule, and it will backfire. The average user won't even notice the popup that told them the video would look better on a particular monitor (most people click OK without even reading popups anyway), so to them, your content quality sucks and they won't do business with you again.
Component capture cards do not exist, although there are converters that can convert analog component HD into HD-SDI (serial digital) for which there are several options when it comes to capture cards. But I don't imagine you'll get one at Best Buy for $149 any time soon... if ever, because the component connector is being phased out and thus the demand for the converter will remain with high end professional services, which keeps the price high. Note that the component connector is not being phased out by market forces, but by regulation and distributor demand. Normally the market decides things like this, but not when copyright paranoia takes hold. Component is still perfectly capable of producing a picture sharp and clean enough for an enjoyable HDTV experience. Most people don't even notice a difference between DVI and component (although I can because I know what to look for).
By the time there's a cheap consumer version of these high end cards and converters, if there ever will be, there will probably already be a 1TB HD TiVo that can export the files using TiVoToGo like the current SD generations can do, who knows?
You didn't actually say any of that in the post I was replying to...
My TV doesn't have HDMI and will therefore be unusable with any player using copy protected HDMI connectors only.
I don't understand what the big freaking deal is about not offering component outputs. It's not like there's a recorder available anywhere with component input... Even if it would be in the future, using Macrovision to screw with that would deter at least the casual users (just like with VHS).
Copy protection will never be absolute. It's impossible. Someone, somewhere is going go figure out how to strip the copy protection signal from the HDMI and offer it online... and how you can build one with off the shelf parts from Radio Shack and his open source code.
Copy protection paranoia is getting completely out of hand.
A box that strips away the copy protection of the HDMI, would be illegal under the DMCA - so don't expect to see it at your local electronics store.
You could be confusing the conversion of HDMI to DVI by changing the physical plug, with the copy protection mechanism of it, which cannot be bypassed or stripped out legally.
You're missing the point.
The player would obviously have that processor built in, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about the output.
The output, if reports are correct, will be through the copy protected digital interface known as HDMI, which requires your TV to have that kind of interface. Tons of HDTV sets, like mine, do not have that kind of interface, but rather use an analog interface known as component input.
If the player is unusable with my TV, then guess what... I'm not buying it.
Are you kidding?
I don't even have one, and I have an HDTV!
I have a CRT Philips set, which uses component input.
So, basically, Toshiba expects me to buy a third piece of hardware (a video processor) in order to use their product? Dream on.
This should dramatically hurt their sales. This hyperparanoia with regard to copy protection has gotten out of hand.
Jebus!
Not all of us have a Platinum AmEx, you know.
The most I've ever spent on a PC, is a grand total of $2000, over a period of 2 years. Most of the parts I can still use the next time I upgrade the mobo+cpu for another $2-300 (and I can re-use the old mobo+cpu as a render node). No Mac can beat that. First of all, you can't buy the Mac little by little. It's the whole thing or nothing at all. Sure, you can get a payment plan, but by the time you have 6 months left of payments, the system is outdated and worth little more than the remaining payments.
For what the Mac Mini brings in terms of speed and upgradability, I can build a far superior PC, for about half the price... but sadly that means I have to use Windows XP for most of the stuff that I do.
If you want a Mac, get one. If you don't, at least be honest about your reasons.
So, not only am I a loser for not being able to afford a G5, now I'm a liar as well?
Just who the hell do you think you are?!?
Let me put it this way:
As someone who is OS agnostic, dislikes M$ but doesn't feel Linux can replace Windows completely any time soon due to lack of software (no flames please, I'm talking about Photoshop, Avid, After Effects etc), I'd love to have OS X as my system (especially since I love BSD).
However, Macs are terribly expensive. I think that's mainly what has been keeping them at 3% of the market.
If they can lower their prices (which I'm sure had something to do with the decision to switch), and I can run Windows, Linux and OSX natively on the same hardware, I'm switching - simple as that.
In fact, I'm sticking with my AMD64 for a little while longer until Apple announces their prices... then I'll decide.
If their prices come down enough to warrant a switch, I'll switch. Having been a PC guy for 20 years, that's big - and if even 10% of the market thinks like I do, Apple's market share can easily quadruple in a year. Now, that should be incentive enough for Apple.
Again, you're engaging in personal attacks.
And again, you're not engaging in a productive argument, because you cannot back up your emptyheaded and narrowminded statements with facts or logic.
And the "Why don't you leave the country?" line is stupid.
Why would you leave what you love?
Patriotism means fighting FOR the future of your country, even if it means you have to fight the idiots in charge. The country is more important than it's leaders. That's true patriotism.
But, you seem to be on a trolling rampage, judging by your other posts, so go ahead... spew more stupidity my way if you must.
How old are you anyway?
Based on your juvenile attitude, I'd say I moved from home long before you got hair on your ass.
Always fun to see a neocon start the personal attacks when responding to an argument.
Don't you know that when you attack the person with whom you're arguing, it means YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT!
How about responding to the fucking post instead of attacking me? None of what you said has any kind of logic or argument behind it, just more of the same empty right wing rhetoric I can hear any day of the week by tuning into Limbaugh or Hannity (i.e. inane, arrogant, stupid and lacking in logic).
The war in Iraq has about as much to do with "the cause of freedom" as your ass has to do with your keyboard functioning - then again, based on the way you're using your keyboard...
If any country needs regime change, it's ours.
Very well said.
The only way we'll ever minimize the threat of terrorism (it will never, ever go away), is by changing OUR policies so that we don't create as many enemies around the world.
There is a reason why these people hate us so much, and it has to do with how we've treated them...
We don't give a shit about any of them, unless they have something to offer us, in the form of oil or other exports we need/want.
Look at the genocide in Rwanda... Nobody cared.
Look at a bunch of small African nations that are starving to death, and nobody cares enough to offer any real help... because there's no direct financial benefit. The "what's in it for me" idealism is what's fucking up this planet.
There are more terrorists now than before, not fewer - I don't know where you get that idea, unless of course you've been listening to Bush/Blair.
The terrorist groups may be splintered and not as organized, but they're still there, still plotting and obviously still carrying out their plans.
Where's Bin Laden? Why don't we care?
Why don't we find the mofo and string him up by his balls? Why is protecting the second largest oil field in the world more important than finding the guy who masterminded the biggest terrorist attack on US Soil, when at the same time the war in question is called "the War on Terrorism"?!?
It's long overdue that the people of the US and the UK start questioning the motives and ideals of their leaders. They're not telling us the truth, and they're supposed to be working FOR us.
Bush made Blair his bitch soon after 9/11.
That project should therefore be called The Blair Bitch Project.
A different plan, you say?
Withdraw from Iraq and let the Iraqis rebuild their own country the way they want to (we blew it up, so we should pay for it, but with dollars, not lives).
Find Bin Laden and put him on PUBLIC trial, not some closed military tribunal like Hussein. By having it public, it doesn't look to the outside world like we have something to hide.
Remove NeoCons from power wherever they are found. They're fascists and imperialists, and they are a clear and present danger to world peace. They're modern day versions of Nazis and Stalinists. It's only a matter of time before they get powerful enough to start killing people they don't like (although some would argue they started that with Iraq, and Iran being next on the list).
Spend serious time and money developing alternate sources of fuel. We must clean ourselves up... we're oil junkies and the middle east is our dealer. Until we break free of that addiction, there will be problems and friction between us and them.
Roundtable discussions will not work, because the terrorists are fringe groups that have splintered from what used to be legitimate political ideals. However, that doesn't mean we should just keep killing them wherever they pop up like it's a game of whack-a-mole. We MUST change the policies that create terrorists.
Since the morons in charge decided to attack the wrong country, we've been saying:
What better time to say "Look, we've been trying to warn you, but you wouldn't listen, and even called us traitors for not agreeing with your methods." Methods which now seem to be the very reason for this mess.
Of course sympathy for the victims and victim's families is appropriate (prayer may make you feel better, but it does nothing for them), but that doesn't mean we should ignore reality and just follow our inept leaders in lockstep.
Now is the time to stand up and say "the Emperor has no clothes!"
Impeach Bush now!
And yes, I realize I'll probably get some negative mods from the Bush/Blair apologists, but I don't care. This must be said.
Thanks
Gives it a whole new meaning...
I'd rather pay for a used Asus than be given a new ECS for free.
Never had anything but problems with ECS. They're a total waste of time and resources IMHO.
There is a difference between cheap and inexpensive, and ECS is cheap.