I guarantee you that at the current price point, and with the mandatory two-year Cingular contract, the iPhone will not have mass market appeal. Their goal is to squeeze as much as possible out of the few people willing to throw around money like that, and make the rest of us wait until they're done doing that. I wonder how many they can ship in the first year of sales... they might be deliberately limiting sales until they can ramp up production to meet a higher demand. That touch screen must be touchy to manufacture.
P.S. Sorry if I came out aggressively. But you sound like you think they're out to get you.
The iPhone looks nice. Overpriced and tied to a terrible service provider, but the gadget itself looks cool.
But where's the next-generation iPod? [...] Why does Apple insist on shoving these extra features down our throats at an exorbitant price, offering no alternative?
How many freakkin versions of the iPod does it take for you to consider that you have been offered an alternative? Because iPod, iPod Video, Mini iPod, iPod Shuffle weren't enough, no, you're stuck with only one single choice, which you are forced at gunpoint to buy, no less.
Poor, poor you. How dare Apple design a slick product that will appeal to millions rather than spend their resources designing the product you want, at the price you deem fair? how dare they?
Yes and no. Lawyers are NOT innocent pawns. Lawyers can say no. But they don't. Lawyers are NOT without blame here, they just share it. Didn't say they were innocent... I compared them to mafia thugs. If we're blaming the lawyers, we're also blaming the people hiring them.
Sigh... Why do slashdotters hate lawyers so much? It's always "the lawyers" and never the management of ABC or the gutless wonders at Spocko's ISP. Lawyers are to corporations as big guys with strong arms are to the mob.
"Disney" had their lawyers shut him down, Disney is dead, therefore Disney, the inanimate corporation doesn't take actions by itself, Disney's Management took the decision, the lawyers did the deed.
the American entrepreneurial capitalist is one of the most civil and responsible examples of the breed, any European with a sense of history will understand this perfectly. European: Tesla American: Edison
Edison is to the late 19th early 20th as Gates is to the late 20th early 21st.
So... I guess if I were to stretch the comparison, I'd pick Torvalds as the European... but it's stretching pretty far and thin by then.
There are instances where elements can be nested not in the order they are opened. For example, having an underlined and bolded sequence intersect would be such a case:
<i>this <b>is a</i> test sequence</b>
It seems silly, but it is valid html that doesn't perfectly nest as would be required for a universal close tag. That's not valid HTML at all, and would fail the W3C's validator. The correct way to do something like that would be:
<i>this <b>is a</b></i> <b>test sequence</b>
HTML != XHTML
AFAIK, html is flexible and still supported, XHTML is strict and recommended.
Do you reallt think the goatse trolls will bother using these tags if they're going to decrease their chances of getting people to follow the links? They won't put a NSFW tag on their link, but if it links to a site where the goatse is tagged as NSFW, then the people who inadvertently follow their link won't need eye bleach.
GOOGLE DOES THE EXACT SAME THING! FTFA: The Redmond, Wash., giant says it can take behavioral targeting to a higher level. It has begun combining personal data from the 263 million users of its free Hotmail email service -- the biggest in the world -- with information gained from monitoring their searches.
When people sign up to use Hotmail, they are asked for 13 pieces of personal information, including age, occupation and address -- though providing all the data isn't obligatory. If they use Live Search, Microsoft's rival to Google's search, the company can keep a record of which words people searched for and the results they clicked on.
I suppose this sort of thing doesn't really bother me. Frankly oftentimes I even opt-in to this sort of stuff. I like seeing things I am interested in (tech, games, etc) and I am not interested in seeing ads for things that I have zero interest in (donkey calliopes). At least this makes the ad-spam more interesting. I worked in the ad business for a short time, and one of the many horrible things I learned then is that advertisers don't want to show you ads for stuff you're interested in, they want to harass you with ads for stuff you're not YET interested in, to change your mind.
You'll find out about your own interests on your dime.
Now, onto the crux of the argument: Buildings do not fall naturally onto their own footprints.
But what you can't explain is the lack of tell-tale signs that accompany a controlled demolition: rapid and successive flashes and explosions. [...] Overly simplistic, much like the mind it came from no doubt. So, you're claiming that buildings DO naturally fall down on their own footprints, I see.
There were several cameras looking in the direction of the Pentagon that day, the FBI seized the tapes for every one, and has never released them. The only media ever released were those 5 blurry frames from a security gate camera that hit the news again recently as if they were some new evidence. Ah, I see, those 5 frames were leaked in 2002, then released in 2006. They just cropped out the date when they released it officially.
The lease holder gave the OK to "pull it". I didn't know you could do that. Can just any building be "pulled", just like that?
"Pull it" is not a term for explosive demolition. No where, no how, no matter how many times the conspiracy theorists say it is (none of them are demolitions experts). The owner of Controlled Demolitions, Inc. has written a short paper about WTC7 (don't have a link at the moment, getting ready to leave for the holiday).
"Pull it" means to literally pull the building over with cables or the like. You don't do that to a 47 story building. Larry Silverstein is not a demolition expert. He's an old real estate tycoon. You kids and your fancy demolition talk. Why, in my day! Get off my lawn! We had to walk to work in snow, and when you wanted your building pulled down, you said to pull it! I said get off my lawn!
I read your page carefully, it's crap. Their interpretation of "pull it" isn't even the one I quoted from Larry's spin doctor (their definition of "it" is "a unit of firefighters"). That site you linked makes it sound like Larry's referring to live firefighters as inanimate objects, if he was referring to firefighters directly, he would have said "them", not it. For people deconstructing's someone's words, you'd think they'd bother to check what his official interpretation is.
Now, onto the crux of the argument: Buildings do not fall naturally onto their own footprints. I can explain felled lightpoles (marines with powertools), how do you explain the implosions?
I'm seeing an awful lot of score 0 mods lately, most likely originating with bleeding heart fascist sympathizing american sheep... at least score 1... Your karma is so bad that you now post as low as an AC.
Oh, there was damage done to the building, they wouldn't have wasted that building for no reason. That doesn't mean it wasn't a controlled demolition, though.
The lease holder gave the OK to "pull it". I didn't know you could do that. Can just any building be "pulled", just like that?
("Silverstein's spokesperson, Dara McQuillan, said in September 2005 that by "pull it" Silverstein was referring to the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building, and confirming that they should evacuate the premises.")
The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute, and it is generally the safest way to go. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first, in the same way you would chop into a tree from the north side if you wanted it to fall in that direction. Blasters may also secure steel cables to support columns in the building, so that they are pulled a certain way as they crumble.
Man have you missed something! Haven't you seen the "video" released after some years by the fed Yeah, I also saw the surveillance footage from the parking lot's security booth shown on TV some time after 9-11 (not years after, weeks I think), it showed very little and was dated 9-12.
I also remember, from that faithfull day, an announcer asking a follow up question: "a car bomb? Not a plane?" and the radio reporter answering "we're being told it was a truck bomb". Then there was talk of an order to shoot down any planes not following directions to go land in Canada, and about two hours later a pentagon press release stating that that order had not been given and the guy that gave the order didn't have the authority to give that order anyway, and the united states would NEVER shoot down a civilian plane!
So I don't know if it was a missile, or a car bomb, or a truck bomb, but looking at that hole in those early picture, and having seen a plane hitting a building previously, leaving a clear-plane shaped hole (just like in cartoons), then exploding in a huge fireball... I don't think it was a plane. And having seen pictures from around ground zero of big plane chunks, including a whole, twisted jet engine, I look at the area around that pentagon impact, and frankly, there's just a few flakes... looks like something blew up allright, but it doesn't look like the "plane hitting a building and then exploding" debris from New York.
It's clear that they are hiding something (they are hiding the footage they seized, for 'national security' reasons), I figure they're hiding a major fuck-up involving a trigger happy pilot and the "against their own people" soundclip.
It depends on your definition of "hunting rifle", I guess. My understanding is that Chicago outlaws "assault weapons" as well; however, I can't find documentation of that anywhere. I guess I didn't mean or want to start a debate about "gun control". I just wanted to say that the government's violation of Constitutional rights isn't restricted to the context of defeating terrorism To be fair, banning AK-47s is somewhat related to preventing terrorism.
the theories about missles hitting the Pentagon just aren't credible to me. At most, I will believe that 9/11 was a happy accident I don't know about the missile story... on 9-11 it was a "car bomb", then a "truck bomb" that blew up at the pentagon after the plane hit in NY.
But I think it was at LEAST a happy accident, possibly something that was allowed to happen, and at my most cynical, I might think it was actually planned by the facists in government and more likely in the "intelligence community". They predictably won so much power and funding as a result, it's hard not to think they would want it to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
P.S. Sorry if I came out aggressively. But you sound like you think they're out to get you.
The iPhone looks nice. Overpriced and tied to a terrible service provider, but the gadget itself looks cool.
But where's the next-generation iPod? [...] Why does Apple insist on shoving these extra features down our throats at an exorbitant price, offering no alternative?
It IS the next-gen iPod.How many freakkin versions of the iPod does it take for you to consider that you have been offered an alternative? Because iPod, iPod Video, Mini iPod, iPod Shuffle weren't enough, no, you're stuck with only one single choice, which you are forced at gunpoint to buy, no less.
Poor, poor you. How dare Apple design a slick product that will appeal to millions rather than spend their resources designing the product you want, at the price you deem fair? how dare they?
Lawyers can say no. But they don't. Lawyers are NOT without blame here, they just share it. Didn't say they were innocent... I compared them to mafia thugs.
If we're blaming the lawyers, we're also blaming the people hiring them.
"Disney" had their lawyers shut him down, Disney is dead, therefore Disney, the inanimate corporation doesn't take actions by itself, Disney's Management took the decision, the lawyers did the deed.
American: Edison
Edison is to the late 19th early 20th as Gates is to the late 20th early 21st.
So... I guess if I were to stretch the comparison, I'd pick Torvalds as the European... but it's stretching pretty far and thin by then.
Get off your high horse. My electricity comes from renewable energy (hydro). I'll stay on the horse, I have a good view from up here
Glad to see that ye old "do a flamboyant good deed to hide countless misdeeds" still pulls the wool over the eyes of the sheeple.
<i>this <b>is a</i> test sequence</b>
It seems silly, but it is valid html that doesn't perfectly nest as would be required for a universal close tag. That's not valid HTML at all, and would fail the W3C's validator. The correct way to do something like that would be: HTML != XHTML
AFAIK, html is flexible and still supported, XHTML is strict and recommended.
The Redmond, Wash., giant says it can take behavioral targeting to a higher level. It has begun combining personal data from the 263 million users of its free Hotmail email service -- the biggest in the world -- with information gained from monitoring their searches.
When people sign up to use Hotmail, they are asked for 13 pieces of personal information, including age, occupation and address -- though providing all the data isn't obligatory. If they use Live Search, Microsoft's rival to Google's search, the company can keep a record of which words people searched for and the results they clicked on.
Link?
You'll find out about your own interests on your dime.
But what you can't explain is the lack of tell-tale signs that accompany a controlled demolition: rapid and successive flashes and explosions. [...] Overly simplistic, much like the mind it came from no doubt. So, you're claiming that buildings DO naturally fall down on their own footprints, I see.
What color is the sky on your world?
To be fair, banning AK-47s is somewhat related to preventing terrorism.
Based on what? Name one terrorist incident that involved AK47s.
You're kidding? Right? You can't possibly be this ignorant.learn something
"Pull it" is not a term for explosive demolition. No where, no how, no matter how many times the conspiracy theorists say it is (none of them are demolitions experts). The owner of Controlled Demolitions, Inc. has written a short paper about WTC7 (don't have a link at the moment, getting ready to leave for the holiday).
"Pull it" means to literally pull the building over with cables or the like. You don't do that to a 47 story building. Larry Silverstein is not a demolition expert.
He's an old real estate tycoon. You kids and your fancy demolition talk. Why, in my day! Get off my lawn! We had to walk to work in snow, and when you wanted your building pulled down, you said to pull it! I said get off my lawn!
I read your page carefully, it's crap. Their interpretation of "pull it" isn't even the one I quoted from Larry's spin doctor (their definition of "it" is "a unit of firefighters").
That site you linked makes it sound like Larry's referring to live firefighters as inanimate objects, if he was referring to firefighters directly, he would have said "them", not it. For people deconstructing's someone's words, you'd think they'd bother to check what his official interpretation is.
Now, onto the crux of the argument: Buildings do not fall naturally onto their own footprints.
I can explain felled lightpoles (marines with powertools), how do you explain the implosions?
The lease holder gave the OK to "pull it".
I didn't know you could do that. Can just any building be "pulled", just like that?
("Silverstein's spokesperson, Dara McQuillan, said in September 2005 that by "pull it" Silverstein was referring to the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building, and confirming that they should evacuate the premises.")
I also remember, from that faithfull day, an announcer asking a follow up question: "a car bomb? Not a plane?" and the radio reporter answering "we're being told it was a truck bomb".
Then there was talk of an order to shoot down any planes not following directions to go land in Canada, and about two hours later a pentagon press release stating that that order had not been given and the guy that gave the order didn't have the authority to give that order anyway, and the united states would NEVER shoot down a civilian plane!
So I don't know if it was a missile, or a car bomb, or a truck bomb, but looking at that hole in those early picture, and having seen a plane hitting a building previously, leaving a clear-plane shaped hole (just like in cartoons), then exploding in a huge fireball... I don't think it was a plane.
And having seen pictures from around ground zero of big plane chunks, including a whole, twisted jet engine, I look at the area around that pentagon impact, and frankly, there's just a few flakes... looks like something blew up allright, but it doesn't look like the "plane hitting a building and then exploding" debris from New York.
It's clear that they are hiding something (they are hiding the footage they seized, for 'national security' reasons), I figure they're hiding a major fuck-up involving a trigger happy pilot and the "against their own people" soundclip.
Don't blame global warming - the real culprit is thugs with knives: Penguins killed in sickening beach attack
It must a rogue FBI agent looking for a soviet spy robot.But I think it was at LEAST a happy accident, possibly something that was allowed to happen, and at my most cynical, I might think it was actually planned by the facists in government and more likely in the "intelligence community".
They predictably won so much power and funding as a result, it's hard not to think they would want it to happen.