I would say a cooperative strategy is superior, in almost every case. I think the western stereotype is a badly understood Darwinian survival of the fittest model. But new research in evolution, biology and anthropology show that most diverse systems compete in a symbiotic way. Meaning that a lion is not always evolving to have bigger teeth and the antelope not always getting faster or breeding more. The prey allow for the predator and vice versa. Otherwise, both would be in an arms race of survival with little margin to tolerate scarce food and new invading parasites (for example).
Also, the concept of the Alpha male turns out to be a little wrong; while many species have a more dominant male that gets to mate more frequently, almost no packed animal groups have leaders with absolute say. Scientists have observed primates, wolves and even cows are almost democratic in deciding pack needs and that no leader can bully a pack where more than 50% want to do something different. The idea that most pack animals survive in a Democratic fashion of majority rule and that this is a trait for survival goes against conventional wisdom.
I think that a future winner of this event will submit cooperative packs that pass information to eachother about the relative "integrity" of opponents. The more sophisticated and communicative the group, the more honesty is rewarded. I wish I could remember it the mathemetician, but a few years ago I read about a man who had a very good mathematical proof of altruism. Showing that statistically, honest and principled individuals in a cooperative/competitivel society eventually win out. That "good guys" would outbreed selfish individuals.
This is a facinating competition, and I think that it could only be helped by NOT confining the rules with what you call CHEATING. By not having any rules at all, you can more closely test true strategies. There are many examples of creatures in nature that sacrifice themselves for a genetically related group (bees for one). I like things that can bust up our pre-conceived notions.
I'm going to go out on a ledge and say that this is the best idea so far.
I think that metaphorically, it has a true completeness to it and can work in many other fields; Return the by-products to the place where they originated.
Perhaps this could even work with wood pulp (feed the forest termites), plastic (pump it back into the empty oil wells), and un-detonated cluster bombs (shove them back up Rumsfelds @$$)!
I would think you'd have the same issue. Unless you used a super-conductive carbon tube on the space exhaust pipe, it would take tremendous energy to move the waste into space. So you would perhaps need two or more times the energy (at best), and produce more CO2 to remove the CO2.
I think the best options are piping the waste into the wells, or adpating current Oxydation ponds (used in current sewage treatment) and develop some super-algae that sucks up the carbon (there I go, abusing "super" again). Of course, genetic manipulation of algae should be carefully monitored. You wouldn't want something that could out-compete normal algae in the oceans. There is no better way to destroy all life on earth than evil, super algae.
I would think that the storage capacity is not the same as a healthy level. Underwater valcanoes probably add the most CO to the oceans and this must vary within a certain range over time. I wouldn't want to look at a solution that might kill off life even faster in the oceans than the current coral bleaching suggests.
I think it would be a good idea to store these gases in old oil well cavities. We currently must push pressurized and even hot water into wells now to force up oil in many wells. Perhaps we could use large turbines, but mobile generation plants. Move the plants close to the wells/mines and replace the used oil and coal with the byproducts of energy production. Who knows if in a few hundred years this might actually be useful again? But at least you can use the heat and pressure to force out the oil, and I would figure that oil chambers that leak would have leaked long ago.
The downside is what is the cost/benefit of moving a factory? Does it take a lot of energy to get oil out of deep wells? Does the heat and exhaust from a typical powerplant represent a lot of wasted energy? My thoughts are that factories could be designed to be more modular and would be much smaller if instead of expensive and large pollution controls, you designed the exhaust to be forced into the wells. Oil fields last, at a guess, about 10 or more years and you can reposition the pipes for maybe 5 to 10 miles.
I think environmental issues need a new perspective; most toxins (other than new chemicals produced) are really concentrations of material. So by moving the plants and the refuse, you reduce the amount of concentration in an area.
Another problem is mostly pollitical. It benefits energy companies to pass the buck on cleanup. Oil and Coal are cheap, because the energy companies don't have to pay for the Azthma, the environmental damage, the water purifiers and the hundreds of other things we have to do to compensate for the effects of smog. So it is much cheaper to bribe polliticians then to actually create clean-running systems.
If you factor in the cost of Zero-pollution, Wind, Solar, Hydrodynamic and other solutions start looking better. This probably won't happen until we have leaders who have the support and backbone to do what is right. Currently, our government is pretty much corporate. Like Nascar, but without all the logos on the pin stripe suits.
I don't think Blair or Bush, for that matter, are doing much in the interest of the US. They are working for multinational company interests. UNICAL and others. Look into the Carlysle group. About each and every one of these scum bags has an interest in a company under the umbrella of the Carlysle group. It has companies that profit from selling weapons, and it has companies like Halliburton that make money from cleaning up war messes. F'ing carpet baggers. It may be for a good, fundamentalist cause. Who knows. But I believe that what these people really believe in is power for themselves and their heirs. Religion is pallatable, just so long as it proves that God is on your side.
Also google James Baker. Oops, he helped get Iraq chemicals to create neuro toxins. Oops, he accidentally let Saddam invade Kuwait. Oops, he stopped the recount in Florida. Oops, he represents Saudi Arabia against the victems of 9/11. Oops, now he shows up and is in charge of debt forgiveness in Iraq. Pay close attention to this man, he is the New Ollie North.
Note how some of the same people who made "mistakes" are profiting tremendously from them. You will find a lot of connections if you look into the holding company. It won't make sense if you try and find a way these policies will help American or British citizens.
Well, in the Good Ol' Days, you had to have evidence of wrongdoing to get the warrant.
I don't think it is right for the government to destroy property of innocent people and not compensate them.
And the drug property seizures seemed to be a good idea at first, but now they trouble me. Imagine that you are a police organization, you've loaned out your bullet proof vests to support troops in Iraq and are strapped for cash (not too farfetched). Now you have a crack dealer in a shack you could raid, Cocaine dealers in the suburbs with fancy lawyers, or some Hippies with a premo farm, and a house worth half a million. OK, raid them all. With the patriot act, you don't have to worry about the yuppy lawyers either. Confiscation can quickly become an instrument of plunder. In fact, in Mexico, that is how the police get paid; fines and plunder.
My guess is that you are right. They'd have to have a warrant or something otherwise that they at least informed someone of. If not the Patriot Act, the Rackspace would have said something to reassure customers.
I can understand law inforcement not informing people of anything before they seize electronic data because it can be destroyed. But the only thing I know of that can provide no information, a gag order, and no legal recourse is the Patriot Act. Nice, huh?
Something like 518 Afghanis released from Quantonimo in the past week. No arrests. So we ended civil liberties and legal rights and pissed on the constitution to detain people that didn't do anything? Much less, apparently we also tortured these people. But anyone bringing up that point is either a terrorist sympathizer or addicted to kitty-porn.
--Brought to you by, the "Teach a Republican to Read" foundation.
I know plenty of nice Republicans who pay taxes, raise kids and are success oriented. But the hidden secret that me, and all the moderate to left people out there have been too polite to reveal, is that we are waiting for a frickin' alien to pop out of the middle of your forehead when you say; "Bush will keep us safe!"
I'm laying this out for you, because I'm not polite, and not fully a liberal. I don't really know any Republicans I don't secretly think are dupes, fools or just plain self-centered. A true Liberal would be too polite and peaceful to inform you.
--Brought to you by, the "teach a Republican to read" foundation. --I'm a human being, and I approve of this message.
Once incident does not a conspiracy make. But it is interesting that a lot of these fringe free-speach groups are getting raided for one reason or another. Mom&pop radio stations, little web sites, people that can't really afford to prove themselves innocent.
It isn't a strategically smart move, though. Because until now these groups have only been "preaching to the choir". If they can survive the cost of staying on their feet, they might actually see more traffic.
There is a lot of "freedom of trade" talk when a big corporation wants to consolidate, take more spectrum, or intrude more on our privacy.
Funny how the RNC is "standing up for the big guy." Kind of the same reason Donald Trump gets dates; it's the money, people.
Criticism is NOT anti-American. The right wing is now in power. Were they anti-American when they criticized Clinton?
Well, yes. Almost all of the bad stuff said about Clinton was made up, whole-cloth (just read the Star report, don't argue with me). So they were uninformed critique. Being uninformed and ignorant is not a correct way to participate in a Democracy. So there is a better argument that anti-American is saying something that is ignorant.
So, Bush is anti-American because he is misinforming the electorate and hindering their ability to make informed decisions by lying, consistently and steadfastly. No flip-flops on lying with Bush. Of course, the Republicans are Flop-Flippers, because the voted against the $87 Billion budget before voting for it. They needed less accountability and fewer benefits for vets in the bill, apparently.
Republicans these days are all about "Offend and Spend" it seems. We have "consultants" doing KP duty for $2000 a day. Just damn.
Anyway, all teasing aside, I think that the FBI just wanted an excuse to RAID the web site. The undercover police pictures were an excuse. If they find in their fishing expedition anything at all, we'll hear about it. The FBI is pleased that their incompetence before 9/11 has been rewarded by no firings and an increased budget. Along with the CIA, they are both playing nice for Bush.
What about the Germans, French, and Spanish? What about the Turkish, the Russians, or Japanese? Is everyone on the planet wrong?
Did you know that when Bush toured Europe and Asia, they had the largest protests most of those countries have ever seen for a US president, and in some cases the biggest protests in those countries? These protests were not on CNN or Fox.
Canadians that you have met may be critical of the US. But Canadians have fought and died for US wars. The question is; what are their issues? And, do they have a point? How does someone earn the right to be critical? I'm sure there may be envy and armchair quaterbacks, but I am also positive that you don't know all the nasty crap that corporations and our military have done in the name of the US.
I suppose you still think we invaded Iraq because Sadam was a threat. "He had evil dreams" will be the next compelling reason.
I'm in the US. I hate GB as much for his stupid policies as for the devotion of his supporters. They tend to be church-oriented or macho-oriented. The church oriented are more or less decent people, but who are used to believing things on faith. GB move to send public funds to church's and his support behind the scenes of Reverend Moon, Falwell and the rest of the US Taliban was expedient and smart. The Joe NASCAR macho-oriented supporter seems to base decisions on 6th-grader arguments. So who seems tough, and is anti-intellectual. The arguments and logic of this crowd can be summed up on bumper stickers. Driving into a brick wall is now seen as a "quality of conviction and steadfast resolve." I long for the days when we called these people "ignorant".
I am so sick of arguments, with people who seem rational, who pay taxes and raise kids but are somehow so disconnected with logic it is a wonder they can operate light switches. Every anti-Bush comment or anti-Bush news story from overseas is discounted as ratings from "Socialists". As though that was everyone. All the Terrorists and all the critics are reduced to a "them". The Terrorist hates freedom (clearly missing Holland), and the European critic (imagined as a French man who might steal your girl).
I would prefer a Socialist to a Fascist. Fascism is a government run by business--how is that different from what we have in America today? But nobody seems to understand the basic needs of a Capitalist Democracy anymore. You MUST redistribute wealth from the haves to the have-nots. That is not socialism. That is to avoid pooling of capital and it is not an absolute, but a necessary function of creating fair rules. The next is that you MUST have an educated populace. The trend is to make everyone pay a-la-carte. When vouchers are brought up for private schools (read; Religious schools), the public does not realize that there isn't enough room in private schools for more than 5% of the students. Moreover, private schools look good because they have entrance requirements. If you pick the better students, then you will HAVE better students. The "No Child Left Behind" program uses testing to decide funds to schools. Seems good. But it also means that a school can get more money by kicking out bad students. I'd rather pay more money helping poor students then to pay $36k per year to warehouse these kids in prisons. I could go on about infrastructure and healthcare. Suffice to say; the Republican philosophy on government seems to be rushing us into becoming just like Mexico. Low tax, no infrastructure, a-la-carte everything. Government is just the mob and you pay it protection. The biggest spender becomes the most rewarded by the government.
But getting back to the point, I don't think even 50% of the population even likes Bush here. We are only talking about 46% of the 45% of the people who actually DO VOTE who are eligible. Many have been turned off. Or just don't care because they think it doesn't matter. When we must institute a draft, they will care. So, perhaps 23% of citizens. Still, a big chunk.
But Bush didn't even win the 2000 election. I'd thought that it was just 528 votes in Florida. But they threw out 80,000 names (mostly black voters). And there were other irregularities in other states. Not that that sort of gerrymandering is unusual, but the Supreme Court intervened over the Florida Courts who ordered a recount and appointed Bush as president. Please note; Bush was not actually elected.
This year we have electronic voting, with no paper trail. Principally 5 different companies who have all committed large funds to the Bush campaign make the machines. The whole process and oversight is through private corporations who answer to no one. "Don't worry people, we have it all taken care of..." Most of my more Liberal friends are depressed, but not cynical enough.
So I predict that Kerry will get a landslide of the actual votes, but Bush will win the next election (just barely) and that will be in the swing states with el
I don't want to be prejudiced, but I've yet to see anyone who chose "security" as a profession be very "thoughtful". This is just a knee-jerk reaction. But that's security dweebs for you, make lots of noise and hope the bad guys run away. The photo shows nothing discernable--they should have just warned him.
Now everyone will know their using G5s to authenticate users. There goes the "security through obscurity" initiative.
Perhaps. But there might be a bit more involved to getting all those computers to work on the same problem. I'm sure Rendesvous had something to do with that. It's also interesting to note that they chose to go with OS X, rather than Yellow Dog Linux. Again, probably a configuration issue.
Possibly the high bandwidth bus may have more effect with a network of cpus than the individual performance of CPUs. Perhaps an expert would know.
Also, that 17.x terraflops is for Peak. No figures on sustained performance. But perhaps more than 5.7 TF, putting it in top 5.
I think that they are becoming a services company. But this puts them behind IBM, which figured this out a while ago.
But their stability and performance are still great. And for the big companies, this matters. Also, they are real innovators, so I expect they may invent themselves out of this mess--whereas DELL probably won't.
I think I read that Panther is going to be case sensitive and perserving--at least in command line. This is to make other UNIX software work better when ported. Personally, I think case sensitivity was always a bad idea -- I mean Bad (bad didn't work). But hey, but Apple is accomodating the real world now. It's a mature compromise.
Perhaps this may actually be the way OS X functions; A Library folder must have an equivalent instance in the ~/Library folder to be active. It would reflect an object-oriented nature of the OS, and would allow for relatively easy overrides of preferences or any setting (and this seems to be the case). The root:Library is global and sets the defaults, while the user:Library overrides the defaults. Not having the folder, means the User does not get the functionality at all. Anybody want to test this? It would be an easy way to turn of some functions for someone who wanted to make a User that was just, say a print server and turn off unneccessary functions.
I've heard everyone talk up Opera, iCab and the like. But there is always a caveat as to Javascript or CSS support or some functionality that would make me unable to use a web site. Speed of a browser is great if you are just surfing for news, but if you have to interact with a web site, then actually displaying and running code on that web page are primary concerns. Mozilla has been the best standards/code compliant Mac browser I have used. And by extension, this should include Chimera, as it is based on Mozilla.
I agree. I don't think Apple would waste time/resources with their own iBrowser. I do think, however, that they are doing more development work and support of thinks like Chimera/Mozilla and Openoffice to hedge their bets. They can't depend on Microsoft's tender mercies when even the justice department is trying their best to do what they want while pretending to put them on trial. (Excuse me, but exactly why is using Win98 Lite shareware to remove Internet Explorer not admittable evidence when it rebutts direct testimony?)
So NO to iBrowse, yes to back door support and testing resources.
I think it isn't accidental. I think they are testing support of Chimera in house. Why? Chimera is Mozilla based, but uses direct plugs to the Aqua GUI in OSX (if memory serves). So they are really leveraging what is turning out to be a very good open source code base.
Why would Apple do this? Because Macs have been slowly but surely marginalized by depending upon IE. It doesn't run half of the VBscript or even some of the server-based ASP stuff correctly--and if it remains the defacto standard, more and more users will have to get on a PC to do their banking (or whatever). For the average user it isn't worth the headache. Our website at our company can't run on a Mac--not that it couldn't, but the PC bigots write code testing for A Mac or Non-explorer browser because they don't want the hassle (or are mentally lazy) of supporting anything other than IE 5 on Windows. This situation is epidemic and the greatest concern for Macs as a platform in the future.
What I would be doing if I were Apple? Helping to add IE/Win functionality or code-morphing to translate VBscript and other MS crap into something more useful, then let all browsers lie to the server and say they are windows IE based. Help the Mozilla/Chimera effort in the wake of the inevitable.NOT incompatibilities that will "accidentally slip in".
I really hope they are worried about web compatibility. IE on the Mac is just an excuse to do very little on Microsofts part.
Automatically adding a link to the websites I create would be a HUGE problem. I create websites that get meticulous scrutiny by legal council and the NASD. Our compliance department has to know EVERY link that comes from the page for approval.
I am sure that there are other companies, like medical related and such, who will have similar issues.
I almost welcome this. One step forward, ten back. The lawsuits and recalls will cost them big bucks.
Slashdot Mirror
I would say a cooperative strategy is superior, in almost every case. I think the western stereotype is a badly understood Darwinian survival of the fittest model. But new research in evolution, biology and anthropology show that most diverse systems compete in a symbiotic way. Meaning that a lion is not always evolving to have bigger teeth and the antelope not always getting faster or breeding more. The prey allow for the predator and vice versa. Otherwise, both would be in an arms race of survival with little margin to tolerate scarce food and new invading parasites (for example).
Also, the concept of the Alpha male turns out to be a little wrong; while many species have a more dominant male that gets to mate more frequently, almost no packed animal groups have leaders with absolute say. Scientists have observed primates, wolves and even cows are almost democratic in deciding pack needs and that no leader can bully a pack where more than 50% want to do something different. The idea that most pack animals survive in a Democratic fashion of majority rule and that this is a trait for survival goes against conventional wisdom.
I think that a future winner of this event will submit cooperative packs that pass information to eachother about the relative "integrity" of opponents. The more sophisticated and communicative the group, the more honesty is rewarded. I wish I could remember it the mathemetician, but a few years ago I read about a man who had a very good mathematical proof of altruism. Showing that statistically, honest and principled individuals in a cooperative/competitivel society eventually win out. That "good guys" would outbreed selfish individuals.
This is a facinating competition, and I think that it could only be helped by NOT confining the rules with what you call CHEATING. By not having any rules at all, you can more closely test true strategies. There are many examples of creatures in nature that sacrifice themselves for a genetically related group (bees for one). I like things that can bust up our pre-conceived notions.
I'm going to go out on a ledge and say that this is the best idea so far.
I think that metaphorically, it has a true completeness to it and can work in many other fields; Return the by-products to the place where they originated.
Perhaps this could even work with wood pulp (feed the forest termites), plastic (pump it back into the empty oil wells), and un-detonated cluster bombs (shove them back up Rumsfelds @$$)!
I would think you'd have the same issue. Unless you used a super-conductive carbon tube on the space exhaust pipe, it would take tremendous energy to move the waste into space. So you would perhaps need two or more times the energy (at best), and produce more CO2 to remove the CO2.
I think the best options are piping the waste into the wells, or adpating current Oxydation ponds (used in current sewage treatment) and develop some super-algae that sucks up the carbon (there I go, abusing "super" again). Of course, genetic manipulation of algae should be carefully monitored. You wouldn't want something that could out-compete normal algae in the oceans. There is no better way to destroy all life on earth than evil, super algae.
I would think that the storage capacity is not the same as a healthy level. Underwater valcanoes probably add the most CO to the oceans and this must vary within a certain range over time. I wouldn't want to look at a solution that might kill off life even faster in the oceans than the current coral bleaching suggests.
I think it would be a good idea to store these gases in old oil well cavities. We currently must push pressurized and even hot water into wells now to force up oil in many wells. Perhaps we could use large turbines, but mobile generation plants. Move the plants close to the wells/mines and replace the used oil and coal with the byproducts of energy production. Who knows if in a few hundred years this might actually be useful again? But at least you can use the heat and pressure to force out the oil, and I would figure that oil chambers that leak would have leaked long ago.
The downside is what is the cost/benefit of moving a factory? Does it take a lot of energy to get oil out of deep wells? Does the heat and exhaust from a typical powerplant represent a lot of wasted energy? My thoughts are that factories could be designed to be more modular and would be much smaller if instead of expensive and large pollution controls, you designed the exhaust to be forced into the wells. Oil fields last, at a guess, about 10 or more years and you can reposition the pipes for maybe 5 to 10 miles.
I think environmental issues need a new perspective; most toxins (other than new chemicals produced) are really concentrations of material. So by moving the plants and the refuse, you reduce the amount of concentration in an area.
Another problem is mostly pollitical. It benefits energy companies to pass the buck on cleanup. Oil and Coal are cheap, because the energy companies don't have to pay for the Azthma, the environmental damage, the water purifiers and the hundreds of other things we have to do to compensate for the effects of smog. So it is much cheaper to bribe polliticians then to actually create clean-running systems.
If you factor in the cost of Zero-pollution, Wind, Solar, Hydrodynamic and other solutions start looking better. This probably won't happen until we have leaders who have the support and backbone to do what is right. Currently, our government is pretty much corporate. Like Nascar, but without all the logos on the pin stripe suits.
Oh, we all should feel better now. It's legal. Nothing to see here, move along...
I don't think Blair or Bush, for that matter, are doing much in the interest of the US. They are working for multinational company interests. UNICAL and others. Look into the Carlysle group. About each and every one of these scum bags has an interest in a company under the umbrella of the Carlysle group. It has companies that profit from selling weapons, and it has companies like Halliburton that make money from cleaning up war messes. F'ing carpet baggers. It may be for a good, fundamentalist cause. Who knows. But I believe that what these people really believe in is power for themselves and their heirs. Religion is pallatable, just so long as it proves that God is on your side.
Also google James Baker. Oops, he helped get Iraq chemicals to create neuro toxins. Oops, he accidentally let Saddam invade Kuwait. Oops, he stopped the recount in Florida. Oops, he represents Saudi Arabia against the victems of 9/11. Oops, now he shows up and is in charge of debt forgiveness in Iraq. Pay close attention to this man, he is the New Ollie North.
Note how some of the same people who made "mistakes" are profiting tremendously from them. You will find a lot of connections if you look into the holding company. It won't make sense if you try and find a way these policies will help American or British citizens.
Well, in the Good Ol' Days, you had to have evidence of wrongdoing to get the warrant.
I don't think it is right for the government to destroy property of innocent people and not compensate them.
And the drug property seizures seemed to be a good idea at first, but now they trouble me. Imagine that you are a police organization, you've loaned out your bullet proof vests to support troops in Iraq and are strapped for cash (not too farfetched). Now you have a crack dealer in a shack you could raid, Cocaine dealers in the suburbs with fancy lawyers, or some Hippies with a premo farm, and a house worth half a million. OK, raid them all. With the patriot act, you don't have to worry about the yuppy lawyers either. Confiscation can quickly become an instrument of plunder. In fact, in Mexico, that is how the police get paid; fines and plunder.
My guess is that you are right. They'd have to have a warrant or something otherwise that they at least informed someone of. If not the Patriot Act, the Rackspace would have said something to reassure customers.
I can understand law inforcement not informing people of anything before they seize electronic data because it can be destroyed. But the only thing I know of that can provide no information, a gag order, and no legal recourse is the Patriot Act. Nice, huh?
Something like 518 Afghanis released from Quantonimo in the past week. No arrests. So we ended civil liberties and legal rights and pissed on the constitution to detain people that didn't do anything? Much less, apparently we also tortured these people. But anyone bringing up that point is either a terrorist sympathizer or addicted to kitty-porn.
--Brought to you by, the "Teach a Republican to Read" foundation.
I know plenty of nice Republicans who pay taxes, raise kids and are success oriented. But the hidden secret that me, and all the moderate to left people out there have been too polite to reveal, is that we are waiting for a frickin' alien to pop out of the middle of your forehead when you say; "Bush will keep us safe!"
I'm laying this out for you, because I'm not polite, and not fully a liberal. I don't really know any Republicans I don't secretly think are dupes, fools or just plain self-centered. A true Liberal would be too polite and peaceful to inform you.
--Brought to you by, the "teach a Republican to read" foundation.
--I'm a human being, and I approve of this message.
Once incident does not a conspiracy make. But it is interesting that a lot of these fringe free-speach groups are getting raided for one reason or another. Mom&pop radio stations, little web sites, people that can't really afford to prove themselves innocent.
It isn't a strategically smart move, though. Because until now these groups have only been "preaching to the choir". If they can survive the cost of staying on their feet, they might actually see more traffic.
There is a lot of "freedom of trade" talk when a big corporation wants to consolidate, take more spectrum, or intrude more on our privacy.
Funny how the RNC is "standing up for the big guy." Kind of the same reason Donald Trump gets dates; it's the money, people.
Criticism is NOT anti-American. The right wing is now in power. Were they anti-American when they criticized Clinton?
Well, yes. Almost all of the bad stuff said about Clinton was made up, whole-cloth (just read the Star report, don't argue with me). So they were uninformed critique. Being uninformed and ignorant is not a correct way to participate in a Democracy. So there is a better argument that anti-American is saying something that is ignorant.
So, Bush is anti-American because he is misinforming the electorate and hindering their ability to make informed decisions by lying, consistently and steadfastly. No flip-flops on lying with Bush. Of course, the Republicans are Flop-Flippers, because the voted against the $87 Billion budget before voting for it. They needed less accountability and fewer benefits for vets in the bill, apparently.
Republicans these days are all about "Offend and Spend" it seems. We have "consultants" doing KP duty for $2000 a day. Just damn.
Anyway, all teasing aside, I think that the FBI just wanted an excuse to RAID the web site. The undercover police pictures were an excuse. If they find in their fishing expedition anything at all, we'll hear about it. The FBI is pleased that their incompetence before 9/11 has been rewarded by no firings and an increased budget. Along with the CIA, they are both playing nice for Bush.
So. Do you know ZERO Canadians?
What about the Germans, French, and Spanish? What about the Turkish, the Russians, or Japanese? Is everyone on the planet wrong?
Did you know that when Bush toured Europe and Asia, they had the largest protests most of those countries have ever seen for a US president, and in some cases the biggest protests in those countries? These protests were not on CNN or Fox.
Canadians that you have met may be critical of the US. But Canadians have fought and died for US wars. The question is; what are their issues? And, do they have a point? How does someone earn the right to be critical? I'm sure there may be envy and armchair quaterbacks, but I am also positive that you don't know all the nasty crap that corporations and our military have done in the name of the US.
I suppose you still think we invaded Iraq because Sadam was a threat. "He had evil dreams" will be the next compelling reason.
I'm in the US. I hate GB as much for his stupid policies as for the devotion of his supporters. They tend to be church-oriented or macho-oriented. The church oriented are more or less decent people, but who are used to believing things on faith. GB move to send public funds to church's and his support behind the scenes of Reverend Moon, Falwell and the rest of the US Taliban was expedient and smart. The Joe NASCAR macho-oriented supporter seems to base decisions on 6th-grader arguments. So who seems tough, and is anti-intellectual. The arguments and logic of this crowd can be summed up on bumper stickers. Driving into a brick wall is now seen as a "quality of conviction and steadfast resolve." I long for the days when we called these people "ignorant".
I am so sick of arguments, with people who seem rational, who pay taxes and raise kids but are somehow so disconnected with logic it is a wonder they can operate light switches. Every anti-Bush comment or anti-Bush news story from overseas is discounted as ratings from "Socialists". As though that was everyone. All the Terrorists and all the critics are reduced to a "them". The Terrorist hates freedom (clearly missing Holland), and the European critic (imagined as a French man who might steal your girl).
I would prefer a Socialist to a Fascist. Fascism is a government run by business--how is that different from what we have in America today? But nobody seems to understand the basic needs of a Capitalist Democracy anymore. You MUST redistribute wealth from the haves to the have-nots. That is not socialism. That is to avoid pooling of capital and it is not an absolute, but a necessary function of creating fair rules. The next is that you MUST have an educated populace. The trend is to make everyone pay a-la-carte. When vouchers are brought up for private schools (read; Religious schools), the public does not realize that there isn't enough room in private schools for more than 5% of the students. Moreover, private schools look good because they have entrance requirements. If you pick the better students, then you will HAVE better students. The "No Child Left Behind" program uses testing to decide funds to schools. Seems good. But it also means that a school can get more money by kicking out bad students. I'd rather pay more money helping poor students then to pay $36k per year to warehouse these kids in prisons. I could go on about infrastructure and healthcare. Suffice to say; the Republican philosophy on government seems to be rushing us into becoming just like Mexico. Low tax, no infrastructure, a-la-carte everything. Government is just the mob and you pay it protection. The biggest spender becomes the most rewarded by the government.
But getting back to the point, I don't think even 50% of the population even likes Bush here. We are only talking about 46% of the 45% of the people who actually DO VOTE who are eligible. Many have been turned off. Or just don't care because they think it doesn't matter. When we must institute a draft, they will care. So, perhaps 23% of citizens. Still, a big chunk.
But Bush didn't even win the 2000 election. I'd thought that it was just 528 votes in Florida. But they threw out 80,000 names (mostly black voters). And there were other irregularities in other states. Not that that sort of gerrymandering is unusual, but the Supreme Court intervened over the Florida Courts who ordered a recount and appointed Bush as president. Please note; Bush was not actually elected.
This year we have electronic voting, with no paper trail. Principally 5 different companies who have all committed large funds to the Bush campaign make the machines. The whole process and oversight is through private corporations who answer to no one. "Don't worry people, we have it all taken care of..." Most of my more Liberal friends are depressed, but not cynical enough.
So I predict that Kerry will get a landslide of the actual votes, but Bush will win the next election (just barely) and that will be in the swing states with el
I don't want to be prejudiced, but I've yet to see anyone who chose "security" as a profession be very "thoughtful". This is just a knee-jerk reaction. But that's security dweebs for you, make lots of noise and hope the bad guys run away. The photo shows nothing discernable--they should have just warned him.
Now everyone will know their using G5s to authenticate users. There goes the "security through obscurity" initiative.
Perhaps. But there might be a bit more involved to getting all those computers to work on the same problem. I'm sure Rendesvous had something to do with that. It's also interesting to note that they chose to go with OS X, rather than Yellow Dog Linux. Again, probably a configuration issue.
Possibly the high bandwidth bus may have more effect with a network of cpus than the individual performance of CPUs. Perhaps an expert would know.
Also, that 17.x terraflops is for Peak. No figures on sustained performance. But perhaps more than 5.7 TF, putting it in top 5.
I think that they are becoming a services company. But this puts them behind IBM, which figured this out a while ago.
But their stability and performance are still great. And for the big companies, this matters. Also, they are real innovators, so I expect they may invent themselves out of this mess--whereas DELL probably won't.
I think I read that Panther is going to be case sensitive and perserving--at least in command line. This is to make other UNIX software work better when ported. Personally, I think case sensitivity was always a bad idea -- I mean Bad (bad didn't work). But hey, but Apple is accomodating the real world now. It's a mature compromise.
When you open up the terminal.app it has a preference setting under "file:preferences" that allows you to set the shell.
Perhaps this may actually be the way OS X functions; A Library folder must have an equivalent instance in the ~/Library folder to be active. It would reflect an object-oriented nature of the OS, and would allow for relatively easy overrides of preferences or any setting (and this seems to be the case). The root:Library is global and sets the defaults, while the user:Library overrides the defaults. Not having the folder, means the User does not get the functionality at all. Anybody want to test this? It would be an easy way to turn of some functions for someone who wanted to make a User that was just, say a print server and turn off unneccessary functions.
I've heard everyone talk up Opera, iCab and the like. But there is always a caveat as to Javascript or CSS support or some functionality that would make me unable to use a web site. Speed of a browser is great if you are just surfing for news, but if you have to interact with a web site, then actually displaying and running code on that web page are primary concerns. Mozilla has been the best standards/code compliant Mac browser I have used. And by extension, this should include Chimera, as it is based on Mozilla.
So NO to iBrowse, yes to back door support and testing resources.
Why would Apple do this? Because Macs have been slowly but surely marginalized by depending upon IE. It doesn't run half of the VBscript or even some of the server-based ASP stuff correctly--and if it remains the defacto standard, more and more users will have to get on a PC to do their banking (or whatever). For the average user it isn't worth the headache. Our website at our company can't run on a Mac--not that it couldn't, but the PC bigots write code testing for A Mac or Non-explorer browser because they don't want the hassle (or are mentally lazy) of supporting anything other than IE 5 on Windows. This situation is epidemic and the greatest concern for Macs as a platform in the future.
What I would be doing if I were Apple? Helping to add IE/Win functionality or code-morphing to translate VBscript and other MS crap into something more useful, then let all browsers lie to the server and say they are windows IE based. Help the Mozilla/Chimera effort in the wake of the inevitable
I really hope they are worried about web compatibility. IE on the Mac is just an excuse to do very little on Microsofts part.
Automatically adding a link to the websites I create would be a HUGE problem. I create websites that get meticulous scrutiny by legal council and the NASD. Our compliance department has to know EVERY link that comes from the page for approval. I am sure that there are other companies, like medical related and such, who will have similar issues. I almost welcome this. One step forward, ten back. The lawsuits and recalls will cost them big bucks.