A: A better question would be, "Will x86 Macs be cheaper than 'equivalent' PowerPC-based Macs would have been had the IBM relationship not gone south?" My answer is "no." Expect Macs to remain more expensive than PCs.
Q: Will I be able to run Mac OS X on a non-Apple PC?
A: No.
Q: Try and stop me!
A: Apple most assuredly will--try, that is. And they'll fail, just like Microsoft failed to stop people from installing Linux and MAME on the Xbox. But like MS, all Apple has to do is make sure that only Slashdot-reading, VoIP-using, PC-assembling, DMCA-breaking geeks hack their way to an "unapproved" configuration of hardware and software. If it's illegal (thanks to the Mac OS X EULA or the DMCA) or at least "technically complex and/or annoying" to run Mac OS X on non-Apple x86 hardware, Apple will be able to absorb any loss in hardware sales attributable to geeks and hardware hackers.
Q: Will future Macs use Pentium 4 CPUs like Apple's x86 developer kit announced today?
A: Probably not. I expect Apple to start with Intel's next generation of multi-core CPUs. Hannibal has more to say about this issue.
Q: Will I be able to run Windows applications on an x86 Mac?
A: Not unless you also run Windows on it.
Q: Okay, will I be able to boot an x86 Mac into Windows?
A: No.
Q: Try and sto--
A: See earlier answer about running Mac OS X on a non-Apple PC. Update: I missed this quote from Phil Schiller. "That doesn't preclude someone from running [Windows] on a Mac. They probably will. We won't do anything to preclude that." My reaction to this new information can be found in the article discussion thread.
Q: Will I be able to run Windows on an x86 Mac?
A: With something like Virtual PC, yes. (Well, VMware, really.) Only it'll actually be fast now, close to native speed if all goes well.
Q: Will Apple provide a VMware-like environment to run Windows applications at near-native speeds on x86 Macs running Mac OS X?
A: No.
Q: Okay, then will someone other than Apple provide one?
A: Yes.
Q: Will Apple continue to design its own motherboards, or will it use commodity PC parts?
A: I think Apple will continue to produce custom designs, or will "bless" a particular PC motherboard/chipset maker (like Intel, for instance...) and contract them to build boards/chipsets that suit Apple's needs.
Q: Will Apple's planned emulation of the PowerPC ISA on an x86 chip really work?
A: It'll be "good enough," but not nearly as good as 68K emulation was on the PowerPC.
Q: Will developers get onboard with such a big change, or will they revolt and abandon ship?
A: If history is any indication, enough developers will ride out the storm to maintain the life of the platform.
Q: Will porting Mac OS X applications to x86 really be easier than porting classic Mac OS applications to Mac OS X was?
A: Yes.
Q: Will Apple maintain an internal PowerPC build of Mac OS X even after moving its entire product line to x86 processors "just in case" they ever need to switch back?
A: I hope so, if only to continue to enforce the discipline of portability.
Q: Is Microsoft worried that every Windows user is suddenly a potential Mac OS X user if Apple ever decides to give up or de-emphasize its hardware business?
A: You bet your ass they are. Don't believe the hype. Microsoft worries about everything, and this is more than a little blip on their radar.
Q: Would Apple ever do that? You know, sell Mac OS X to current Windows users to install on their existing PCs?
A: Someday, maybe, but not soon, and probably only after Apple is convinced that such a market exists and is big enough to be worth sacrificing their own hardware business. How will Apple be convinced of this?
Yeah, I can point out more that that too in our facilities.
After all, UW-Madison is one of the largest research universities in the world.
The point is that:
- They were talking about 25TB of disk, not RAM - 200TB in a single installation for a single project is hardly "peanuts"; it's actually quite a bit by enterprise storage standards, but that's neither here nor there - Oracle is doing press releases on things like using *50 TB* of disk for a project - 200TB of Xserve RAIDs in one place is, I believe, the largest Xserve RAID installation at a single site (save perhaps Apple), and that was really the thrust of the article anyway
So, even if you do see 200TB of disk as "peanuts", then 25TB of disk is a peanut shell fragment. The comparison is still apt because the submission and the press release and articles are talking about 25TB of disk like it's a shitload, and I'm just pointing out that it's not in this environment (particle physics).
The storage is used for, among other things, particle physics simulations in support of research projects at sites such as the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. More information on GLOW and its initiatives can be found here.
Text of the above article:
The University of Wisconsin - Madison has deployed 35 5.6TB Xserve RAID storage arrays in a single research installation as part of an ongoing scientific computing initiative.
The Grid Laboratory of Wisconsin (GLOW), a partnership between several research departments at the University of Wisconsin, have installed almost 200TB, or 200,000GB, of Xserve RAID arrays. As a comparison, 200TB of storage is enough to hold 2.75 years of high definition video, 25,000 full length DVD movies, 323,000 CDs, 20 printed collections of the Library of Congress, or over 1000 Wikipedias.
The GLOW storage installation is physically split between the departments of Computer Sciences and High Energy Physics. Each Xserve RAID is attached to a dedicated Linux node running Fedora Core 3 via an Apple Fibre Channel PCI-X Card and is either directly accessed via various mechanisms, such as over the network via gigabit ethernet, or aggregated using tools such as dCache.
The storage is primarily used to act as a holding area for large amounts of data from experiments such as the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) and ATLAS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.
Aside from the GLOW initiative, the university also has Xserve RAID storage systems in use in other areas as well.
Full disclosure: I am the administrator of alienraid.org and am affiliated with the University of Wisconsin.
Since this article is not in the limelight any longer, you probably won't respond, but:
Apple knew its substandard battery would not hold up to its claims for long after purchase in many cases, yet still chose to push the misleading battery life specification.
Bullshit.
The 1st and 2nd generation iPods use a Sony UP325385 A4H 3.7V 1230mAh lithium ion polymer battery. Please define exactly how this is "substandard", or not the best LiIon polymer battery available at the time for this application.
Made the battery impossible to legitamately replace, and from dissections they might have even intentionally tried to prevent user replacements (why are so many iPod models pumped full of a sticky paste around the battery area, when other similar electronics need no such adhesive to hold the battery in place)
Bullshit. Replacing the iPod battery is ridiculously easy. See this site for video of each of the iPod battery replacement procedures. Doors, screws, access mechanisms, compartments segregating the battery from other electronics for end-user replacement, etc., would have increased the size of the iPod and/or detracted from the sleek appearance that is the very thing that makes it so attractive. Therefore, Apple chose to engineer the iPod as it is. And since the battery is easily replaced in minutes, this issue is moot.
Your "sticky paste" claim is unsupported, unadulterated bullshit. Yes, there is some adhesive in there. No, it's not designed to "intentionally [...] prevent user replacements". Christ.
As documented by at least one person (the iPod battery secret guy), it seems Apple had a corperate policy in effect from their tech support lines down to their retail stores to tell consumers the only way to service their dead battery was to buy a new iPod from Apple. (as pointed out by parent, this is the real gotcha)
Bullshit. It wasn't a "corporate policy". Apple had no program to replace the battery out of warranty, period. They DID have a $250 flat-rate repair program to repair ANY out-of-warranty iPod issue. The phone representative said something to the effect that at that price, you might as well buy a new iPod. There is no evidence that this was part of a "corporate policy" at Apple; rather, Apple had no official way to replace the battery.
HOWEVER:
- They HAVE had an official way to replace the battery since November 14, 2003.
- There were numerous ways to replace the battery yourself.
- Apple was the FIRST of any vendor that shipped a sealed music player to offer ANY kind of official battery replacement at all.
- Other small music players at the time also used LiIon batteries sealed inside the case.
- Unless people threw out their iPods, the battery replacement service (as well as mind-bendingly numerous third party ways to do it with even higher capacity batteries for as little as $30) is available to everyone
There's no real "gotcha". The only issue was that Apple did not have its OWN battery replacement service. There was no "corporate policy" predicated on making people buy new iPods when the "substandard" battery dies.
If that is your claim, then please explain:
- How Apple is consistently and continuously ranked #1, usually by wide margins, by Consumer Reports for technical support, product quality, and need for repairs beyond all other vendors (if Apple's goal was to make shitty products that died and then force people to buy new ones, this wouldn't exactly support that claim)
- How the Sony battery is "substandard"
- Why other vendors (Dell, Samsung, etc.) never had a way to replace sealed batteries until AFTER Apple
- Why Apple would have even bothered to create a battery replacement service at all (Hint: it WASN'T because of iPod's Dirty Secret; Apple's battery program was launched before the video ever hit the web. Further, the day that the battery program was launched, that video became nothing but lies.)
The point is that IF people are encouraged to, and in fact do, use it, the documents then cannot be opened by any other product. You might say "well, that's the nature of DRM". And that's exactly my point. Microsoft isn't giving up IRM, and it doesn't matter if the format is "open" if they're successful in convincing a lot of large business to deploy Office IRM on their documents.
I personally don't like QTP because it's starts up slow, spams me with upgrade messages, has a crappy browser plugin that plays media in a blank browser window by default (rather than a floating player window), feels very clunky on Windows and lacks features like fullscreen in the free version.
I can't speak to the "starts up slow"; I suppose that's all relative.
Due to popular request, QuickTime 7 (due soon on Windows) no longer nags about upgrading.
The behavior of the QuickTime plugin can be set to play in a browser window or in the Player. Some people like it one way; some like it the other. I suppose the default setting is up for debate.
The full screen issue I will wholeheartedly agree with you on. Apple has gotten feedback on this from every angle - TONS of it - as well as the fact that all other media players play video fullscreen in their default/free state, except QuickTime Player. Further, every single feature of Pro is an editing feature - EXCEPT fullscreen playback, so we made the argument that the Pro delineation should be editing vs. playback, and fullscreen playback should be possible on non-Pro. Since the behavior hasn't changed with QuickTime 7, it's clear that Apple has made its marketing/business decision and is sticking with it.
Recently we posted a video in WM/RM/QT format, and QuickTime was the least popular pick. If there isn't a widely held "crappy" perception about the player, why would that be? It's certainly on a lot of machines due to itunes.
That's a logical chain that doesn't follow. QuickTime being the least popular pick doesn't automatically mean QuickTime has a "crappy" player. I'm kind of floored that you're even making a connection that if QuickTime was the least used pick for your video, it MUST mean that there is a "widely held perception" that QuickTime is crappy. (???) (Not to mention that things like what your business is, who your customers are, what types of computer/OS they're likely to own, etc., are all important factors.)
What it means is things like: most people, statistically, use Windows, which doesn't come with QuickTime, and they likely won't have downloaded QuickTime. All PCs have Windows Media Player, and many ship with (or the users have downloaded) RealPlayer, because of content that requires it. This does not at all speak to the quality of QuickTime or QuickTime Player. If someone already has Windows Media Player and/or RealPlayer, and DON'T have QuickTime on their computer because they don't need it, then why would they not pick Windows Media or Real? And at that, this doesn't present any qualitative quality concerns regarding QuickTime Player; if anything, it represents a concern about the market presence for QuickTime and whether Apple can grow that market (via things like this). But that's a business problem, not a technical one.
No, I live in a world where an article titled "Microsoft Ends Era Of Closed File Formats" is challenged with a specific example of Microsoft doing exactly the opposite of that. But thanks!
First of all, video file formats are hardly a concern of "IT" -- this is really all being hashed out in Hollywood boardrooms, and is completely offtopic in a discussion about MS Office.
Sorry, but open standards and all of the tools and infrastructure that support them are a concern for "IT".
Further, Microsoft pushing closed standards and file formats is perfectly on topic in a story entitled "Microsoft Ends Era Of Closed File Formats".
Second, it really boils down to either giving Dolby a bunch of money
Er, Dolby?
Oh, you must mean MPEG LA. You know, the entity that actually does the licensing for MPEG family standards. It has so much experience in this arena, it's actually doing the patent pool for VC-1 as well.
or giving Microsoft a bunch of money
Oops, common mistake. You mean Microsoft giving them a bunch of money: Microsoft has shown they are willing to spend money or pay companies to use their product--buying their way into markets they deem important to future Microsoft business. It will be hard for telcos, ISPs, and cable providers to turn down billions of dollars in incentives if Microsoft attempts to buy the market.
the relative "openness" of one side or another is all politics between the content and device vendors and not something us peons should be overly concerned with.
Sorry, but an open, international ISO and ITU-T standard (H.264) is a lot more open than something that is, you know, not open, as is the current state with Windows Media.
And finally, your fantasy about Anti-Apple Zealots doing whatever the opposite of Apple does is humorously delusional.
Funnily, not using something from Apple just because it's Apple is mind-bendingly commonplace, even among supposedly skilled and knowledgeable folks. Your pretending that it's not is the only delusion here.
I will say that there is a user resistance to QuickTime-based video, but that's mainly because the player sucks, and not because people have any particular opinion about Apple (other than they produce a crappy player).
Baseless assertion. How does QuickTime Player "suck" compared to:
- RealPlayer - Windows Media Player
Please be specific.
QuickTime Player is a free, commercial, vendor-supported player for Windows 98/Me/2000/XP and Mac OS 9/X. What's "crappy" about it? (Nice troll though!)
And then, in my *next sentence* I say that commercial support exists for StarOffice:
Sure, OpenOffice is great, but commercial enterprises will stick with commercial solutions for which there is support. And yes, this could be built for something like OpenOffice (and indeed exists for StarOffice)
...now that they've all but killed off all of the commercial, vendor-supported competition.
And whatever happened to Office Integrated Rights Management, essentially a DRM for Office documents (New Office locks down documents) that (of course) requires a Windows server to administer, and only works with Microsoft Office? You don't think that they're just going to let that go by the wayside, do you?
And what about patents?
Sure, OpenOffice is great, but commercial enterprises will stick with commercial solutions for which there is support. And yes, this could be built for something like OpenOffice (and indeed exists for StarOffice), just as it has been for Red Hat, but I can't see this as anything more than a much belated, empty gesture on Microsoft's part. This sums it up: "Microsoft is doing this as a way to protect its presence on the desktop." Microsoft even dug up Charles Goldfarb, "co-inventor of the concept of markup languages", for its press release to say, "Making XML the default Office file format is, for me, the culmination of a 35-year dream," Charles F. Goldfarb, the inventor of the markup language technology, said in a statement released by Microsoft. Nice touch.
Also, "Microsoft Ends Era Of Closed File Formats" is a little overreaching, don't you think? They're looking for the biggest lock-in of all with the proprietary Windows Media formats. Microsoft wants to be everywhere there is any kind of media, and it's NOT open. Boy, I can't wait to live in a world where Microsoft controls and meters content and has everyone from the end consumer to cable, satellite, and telecom operators, movie and TV production houses, and everyone in between by the balls, which is exactly what will happen if they get their way. (And submission to SMPTE *hardly* means anything. Standards are standards AFTER they've been vetted by standards bodies, have had the patent searches and pools completed, etc., and have been, you know, actually approved. Not when they've been "submitted for consideration". Further, that gesture is nothing more than an attempt to get pinhead PHB-type managers and executives on board with Microsoft when their technical underlings are pulling for open standards like H.264 - then Microsoft can shoot back to the management, Hey, we're just as open as the MPEG family of standards! Look, we even submitted our codec to SMPTE! It's not our fault they take so long to approve things! Do you really want all that H-dot-whatever-gobbledeygook that your oddball IT guys are talking about? After all, that's what *Apple* uses. You don't want an Apple technology, do you? Go with us; you know Microsoft is the right choice for your 18-million-customer cable service! Utter bullshit. And ignores the fact that all of the codec improvements and tools will NOT be open; the SMPTE submission is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to put Windows Media everywhere as well by claiming to be "open" when they're anything but.)
1. I have also given "good, solid arguments", but because you disagree with it or its premise, you call it double speak;
2. There are over 2500 words in my post. Three are uses of the word "fuck", for 0.001% of the words in the post. I fail to see how that is "abundant"; further, if you feel it significantly alters the meaning of my statements, simply remove the word and reread;
3. It's amusing how you can denigrate conservative think tanks when you no doubt wouldn't do the same for liberal ones, and indeed probably consider them reputable;
4. As I've stated numerous times in this and other posts, the LONG TERM goal is preservation of life, and if I didn't believe that was possible, supporting it in principle or in reality would be ridiculous;
5. I volunteered to join the Air Force, served, and was honorably discharged, which you would have learned had you had given even marginal consideration (e.g., clicking on the web link in my profile or googling my name, etc.) to the question instead of jumping to an incorrect conclusion;
6. Your view (nor mine) isn't necessarily the right one just because you think it is; I'm merely trying to give a reasoned explanation for my position, which you write of as MYOPIA (ironic, since my main concern is the LONG TERM, while indeed yours seems the immediate present).
Thanks for your insults, instead of a response to my points.
The most pragmatic thing would have been to KEEP the sanctions going and keep Saddam in his box. Less Americans would have died (1500 and counting) and less IRAQIS would have died (100,000) and counting.
If you look at it in a vacuum, sure.
But what about the approximately 600,000 Iraqis that died (according to various estimates by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) as a direct result of the sanctions process?
Now that sanctions are over, we have a hope at a quite significant net preservation of Iraqi life when compared to the egregiously abused UNOFP and sanctions process.
The REAL motives of the Iraq war was to acquire the Iraqi oil resources (it was the ONLY asset protected after the invasion)
As I said, but I'd say not so much "acquire the Iraqi oil resources" as "ensure that we have continued and future access to the oil resources in the entire mideast region as part of a comprehensive plan to reshape the state of governments in the mideast, and prevent a possible Panislamic empire that would desire the destruction of the US and the West".
and to create permanent bases with which to frighten and intimidate Iraq's Arab neighbors.
All in the eyes of the beholder, I guess - YES, to frighten and intimidate Iraq's non-US- and non-West-friendly neighbors! We want them shaking in their boots, and for reformers and modernists to rise up from within and demand change, for example, in places like Tehran.
Hey, I was FOR the war when it started. I parted from my liberal colleagues because I believe that Saddam was a threat. I didn't believe ANYTHING Bush said. I believed COLIN POWELL. Jeesh, he sure spoiled his credibility with me.
Since hundreds upon hundreds of tons of Iraq's WMD are unaccounted for to this very day, it wasn't beyond reason to expect to find WMD in Iraq. But even if we did find large caches of WMD in Iraq, that wouldn't have changed the fact that WMD is not the primary reason we went to Iraq, though it was initially the *stated* one.
The only acceptable reason for risking American lives is SAVING American lives. You seem to think this little Iraq excursion is protecting Americans.
Actually, I didn't say either, but on this topic, you're falling into the trap I see many succumb to: once again, looking at it as a vacuum:
1500 lives lost; that's 1500 lives that would have been saved had we not gone.
It's not that simple or black and white, man! I find this type of black and white reasoning astounding coming from people who usually denigrate that type of reasoning. Iraq, and the overall mideast strategy, is NOT A VACUUM.
MANY lives will be lost in this effort. The goal, however, is that, longer term (e.g., the next 50-75 years), many more lives will be spared, on BOTH sides.
Now, I understand the pragmatism of saying "you can't predict the future, but we KNOW that those 1500 would still be alive had we not gone, and we further know we would not be directly responsible for XX0,000 Iraqi deaths". Certainly I agree with that.
But what of the approximately 50,000-100,000 Iraqis/year who would have died due to inattention under sanctions (as had happened each one of the previous 12 years, according to liberal human rights watchdog organizations, meaning there was no reason to expect it to change)?
What about the Americans or other Westerners - say, in Europe - that may die from attacks due to the unchecked growth and increasing aggression of Panislamic terrorists?
"Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our measures all but three of these medi
It is the classic pattern of neo-conservitive thinking to distil complex issues to black and white absolutes in order to make a snap judgement. Is a fetus alive? The issue of where life begins and ends is a complex scientific, moral, spiritual, and ethical dilema. We can not state that a fetus is alive any more than we can state that a dog has a soul. We can take dogmatic and argumenitive positions -- but ultimately there exists no "right" and "wrong" answer to the question -- there may never be such an answer.
Note that I make no such judgments. Why, then, is it appropriate for the prototypical "liberal/progressive" position to be staunchly in support of embryonic stem cell research and the right to abortion, as if that is the manifestly "right" position, that there aren't any other logical alternatives, and indeed, completely ignoring the issues about life, etc., that you just brought up?
It seems that the pro-choice camps and those who disagree with Bush on stem cells have already distilled it down to black and white issues - choice and science, exclusively - just as much as you would say "neo-cons" have.
we need to be investing in alternitive energy sources and the Bush administration has singularly failed in that task.
Technology is allowing us to better use our existing energy resources. And in the years ahead, technology will allow us to create entirely new sources of energy in ways earlier generations could never dream. Technology is the ticket, is this nation's ticket to greater energy independence.
[...]
Over the past decade our energy consumption has increased by more than 12 percent, while our domestic production has increased by less than one-half of 1 percent. A growing economy causes us to consume more energy. And, yet, we're not producing energy here at home, which means we're reliant upon foreign nations. And at the same time we've become more reliant upon foreign nations, the global demand for energy is growing faster than the growing supply. Other people are using more energy, as well. And that's contributed to a rise in prices.
Because of our foreign energy dependence, our ability to take actions at home that will lower prices for American families is diminishing. Our dependence on foreign energy is like a foreign tax on the American people. It's a tax our citizens pay every day in higher gasoline prices and higher costs to heat and cool their homes. It's a tax on jobs and it's a tax that is increasing every year.
The problem is clear. This problem did not develop overnight, and it's not going to be fixed overnight. But it's now time to fix it. See, we got a fundamental question we got to face here in America: Do we want to continue to grow more dependent on other nations to meet our energy needs, or do we want to do what is necessary to achieve greater control of our economic destiny?
I made my decision. I know what is important for this country to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy, and that requires a national strategy. Now, when I first got elected, I came to Washington and I said, we need a national strategy. And I submitted a national strategy to the United States Congress. And it has been stuck. And now it's time for the Congress to pass the legislation necessary for this country to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
[...]
Our country is on the doorstep of incredible technological advances that will make energy more abundant and more affordable for our citizens. By harnessing the power of technology, we're going to be able to grow our economy, protect our environment, and achieve greater energy independence.
[...]
The first essential step toward greater energy independence is to apply technology to increase domestic production from existing energy resources. And one of the most promising sources
The triumph of liberalism is conveyed in it's purity when conservatives hide all their ugly hate filled philosiphies in liberal rhetoric.
Um, are you talking about me, here? Because if you are, I think you're failing to make whatever point you're attempting to make. I, any many, many others, believe exactly what I just said, just as I'm sure you no doubt believe what you say.
The neo-cons are about as interested in Iraqi Democracy as they were Vietnamese Democracy.
So, very much so, then? Because a lot of people were interested in Vietnamese democracy, even if as a corollary to fighting Communism and the former Soviet state.
Iraq is NOT a Democracy.
Iraq is on its way to being more democratic than not. And it's more democratic than it was pre-2003.
You cannot have a Democratic election when the candidates are all SECRET!!!
...
It's sad that you're actually serious.
And to your last little rant, have you ever considered there are MORE reasons for things than just one? That the world is more complex than you're painting it? That it's either about democracy, or about profits (for example). Have you ever considered that sometimes our own interests, including economic ones, AND democratic reforms aren't mutually exclusive or even opposing goals? Have you further considered that in military operations, one must also be someone pragmatic and realistic, and realize that we can affect change in the mideast in nation-states like Iraq, but that "attacking"/invading China to affect such change might not be a very good fucking idea, on many levels?
Wake up. The liberal ideal is not the only one and not necessarily the right one.
Well, it's not that I'm pro-abortion in that I love abortion; rather, in the sense I believe it should be a legal, accessible option. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say I'm "not anti-abortion".
But I don't call myself "pro-choice", because I don't believe abortion is about only about "choice", as the pro-choice camp would have people believe. It's about ending human life in a very specific circumstance for societal benefit.
What it comes down to is using the economic and military strength we have for good, and the spread of Western democratic freedom and ideals, and the encouragement of free markets and the free flow of information. A side effect of this is that free nations are often likely to be friendly with the Western world and its interests.
Note: this does not mean "taking over every nation on Earth"; this does not mean spreading Western *culture*, though admittedly some of that may occur; this does not mean that the US is perfect. What it does mean is that there are some people who genuinely believe that Western-style democracy is a good model for all nations and peoples. No one is foolish enough to believe it's just as simple as trotting into nations, ousting dictators (whether or not we tacitly supported them in the past is irrelevant; remember Realpolitik and the fact that there were bigger fish to fry), and then propping up democracies. No, really: no one believes it's that simple. No, not even Bush nor any of his minions.
I find it amusing that people can write this off as a "war for oil", as if that's an indictment. I don't think people understand the suffering that would occur in Western nations if there was a major collapse in our collective ability to obtain energy in the short term.
There is no doubt that our interests and the interests of much of Europe are at stake here. Further, the people of the mideast itself will be the likely beneficiaries of change, longer term. This then gets into muddier areas of whether it's appropriate to affect cultural change. This isn't about a Christian Crusade and getting multinationals into Iraq. But I don't think many administration officials would shed a tear if some of the anti-Americanism and rabid, fanatical Islam was toned down a bit in the rest of the region. Make no mistake: in the short term, it will be worsened. But as concepts of freedom take hold, the people will take their future into their own hands, no longer at the mercy of dictators and tribal warlords.
The "laboratory" of Iraq is one of change in the mideast. Of course it will have benefits for the US. It would be ridiculous to suggest it wouldn't. But it will also have benefits for the people of Iraq. There may be instability and difficult times ahead, as those who would fight the Infidel for any number of reasons apparently believe killing innocent Iraqis is the way to sway opinions in their favor. But if we have the will to follow through, the face of the mideast could be changed. As for the reasoning on Iraq? The reasoning presented was simple. Things like "we'd like to begin a multi-decade comprehensive strategy of political change in the middle east to kill off Panislamic radicalism, forcibly when necessary, for our own safety and security, and that of the Western economies, in addition to enabling free markets and free exchange of information and ideas among the peoples of the mideast for long term mutual benefit, and we're going to start by militarily overtaking and occupying a quasi-secular, centrally located nation-state to begin creating a catalyst for change and modernization in the region" don't exactly fly when you're trying to build public support for a military effort.
Lastly, Bush's presidency is more than half over. How can you assert that only now, NASA is being "taken over" by Bush administration officials? Further, NASA will continue to exist as the bureaucratic (not using that term in a derogatory fashion) entity that it is after Bush's presidency. The major shift in its mission is to possible continued manned exploration of the Moon and Mars. There is a significant array of feelings on whether this type of exploration is worthwhile, based only in emotion, guts the rest of NASA's missions, etc, even on slashdot. But the point is that NASA is as well funded now as it was at any other point in its history (in adjusted dollars).
In closing, if your "care nothing about science" jab is intended to e
Any way you look at it, it seems hypocritical to put weapons in space to support free access to space...
Oh, really?
And when another nation, such as, say, China, begins disallowing access to certain areas of space, or the Moon, or Mars, or takes aggressive action at another nation's assets in space be they military or commercial (and yes, something like this may very well occur), then what happens?
You fundamentally have failed to understand that protection of that free access sometimes necessitates, well, actually protecting it, and planning for such a contingency in advance.
As if the Majority Leader in the House of Representatives of the US Congress has no job, or indeed, any other tasks at all, other than to continually engineer ways to remove the spotlight from alleged ethics violations. Because, of course, once someone is accused of something, their job stops, and they're naturally only trying to erect artificial shields to deflect the allegations.
Slashdot Mirror
...from John Siracusa of Ars Technica
Q: Will x86 Macs be cheaper than today's Macs?
A: A better question would be, "Will x86 Macs be cheaper than 'equivalent' PowerPC-based Macs would have been had the IBM relationship not gone south?" My answer is "no." Expect Macs to remain more expensive than PCs.
Q: Will I be able to run Mac OS X on a non-Apple PC?
A: No.
Q: Try and stop me!
A: Apple most assuredly will--try, that is. And they'll fail, just like Microsoft failed to stop people from installing Linux and MAME on the Xbox. But like MS, all Apple has to do is make sure that only Slashdot-reading, VoIP-using, PC-assembling, DMCA-breaking geeks hack their way to an "unapproved" configuration of hardware and software. If it's illegal (thanks to the Mac OS X EULA or the DMCA) or at least "technically complex and/or annoying" to run Mac OS X on non-Apple x86 hardware, Apple will be able to absorb any loss in hardware sales attributable to geeks and hardware hackers.
Q: Will future Macs use Pentium 4 CPUs like Apple's x86 developer kit announced today?
A: Probably not. I expect Apple to start with Intel's next generation of multi-core CPUs. Hannibal has more to say about this issue.
Q: Will I be able to run Windows applications on an x86 Mac?
A: Not unless you also run Windows on it.
Q: Okay, will I be able to boot an x86 Mac into Windows?
A: No.
Q: Try and sto--
A: See earlier answer about running Mac OS X on a non-Apple PC. Update: I missed this quote from Phil Schiller. "That doesn't preclude someone from running [Windows] on a Mac. They probably will. We won't do anything to preclude that." My reaction to this new information can be found in the article discussion thread.
Q: Will I be able to run Windows on an x86 Mac?
A: With something like Virtual PC, yes. (Well, VMware, really.) Only it'll actually be fast now, close to native speed if all goes well.
Q: Will Apple provide a VMware-like environment to run Windows applications at near-native speeds on x86 Macs running Mac OS X?
A: No.
Q: Okay, then will someone other than Apple provide one?
A: Yes.
Q: Will Apple continue to design its own motherboards, or will it use commodity PC parts?
A: I think Apple will continue to produce custom designs, or will "bless" a particular PC motherboard/chipset maker (like Intel, for instance...) and contract them to build boards/chipsets that suit Apple's needs.
Q: Will Apple's planned emulation of the PowerPC ISA on an x86 chip really work?
A: It'll be "good enough," but not nearly as good as 68K emulation was on the PowerPC.
Q: Will developers get onboard with such a big change, or will they revolt and abandon ship?
A: If history is any indication, enough developers will ride out the storm to maintain the life of the platform.
Q: Will porting Mac OS X applications to x86 really be easier than porting classic Mac OS applications to Mac OS X was?
A: Yes.
Q: Will Apple maintain an internal PowerPC build of Mac OS X even after moving its entire product line to x86 processors "just in case" they ever need to switch back?
A: I hope so, if only to continue to enforce the discipline of portability.
Q: Is Microsoft worried that every Windows user is suddenly a potential Mac OS X user if Apple ever decides to give up or de-emphasize its hardware business?
A: You bet your ass they are. Don't believe the hype. Microsoft worries about everything, and this is more than a little blip on their radar.
Q: Would Apple ever do that? You know, sell Mac OS X to current Windows users to install on their existing PCs?
A: Someday, maybe, but not soon, and probably only after Apple is convinced that such a market exists and is big enough to be worth sacrificing their own hardware business. How will Apple be convinced of this?
Come have a drink with me!
It's NOT RAM, it's DISK, as I said an hour ago to this same post.
The linked article clearly says the simulation was run against "25TB of **STORED OUTPUT**", e.g., DISK, not RAM.
Too bad this is Xserve RAID, which is a fibre channel-attached storage cabinet and has nothing to do with Xserves or Mac OS X.
Clueless dipshits posting to slashdot... LOL
Jeez.
Yeah, I can point out more that that too in our facilities.
After all, UW-Madison is one of the largest research universities in the world.
The point is that:
- They were talking about 25TB of disk, not RAM
- 200TB in a single installation for a single project is hardly "peanuts"; it's actually quite a bit by enterprise storage standards, but that's neither here nor there
- Oracle is doing press releases on things like using *50 TB* of disk for a project
- 200TB of Xserve RAIDs in one place is, I believe, the largest Xserve RAID installation at a single site (save perhaps Apple), and that was really the thrust of the article anyway
So, even if you do see 200TB of disk as "peanuts", then 25TB of disk is a peanut shell fragment. The comparison is still apt because the submission and the press release and articles are talking about 25TB of disk like it's a shitload, and I'm just pointing out that it's not in this environment (particle physics).
RTFA.
25TB of *stored output*.
http://www.pparc.ac.uk/Nw/millennium_sim.asp
"25 Terabytes [...] of stored output"
The University of Wisconsin has deployed 200 TB of storage for support of similar types of experiments as part of the Grid Laboratory of Wisconsin.
Brief article, with pictures:
University of Wisconsin deploys nearly 200TB of Xserve RAID storage (Google cache)
The storage is used for, among other things, particle physics simulations in support of research projects at sites such as the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. More information on GLOW and its initiatives can be found here.
Text of the above article:
The University of Wisconsin - Madison has deployed 35 5.6TB Xserve RAID storage arrays in a single research installation as part of an ongoing scientific computing initiative.
The Grid Laboratory of Wisconsin (GLOW), a partnership between several research departments at the University of Wisconsin, have installed almost 200TB, or 200,000GB, of Xserve RAID arrays. As a comparison, 200TB of storage is enough to hold 2.75 years of high definition video, 25,000 full length DVD movies, 323,000 CDs, 20 printed collections of the Library of Congress, or over 1000 Wikipedias.
The GLOW storage installation is physically split between the departments of Computer Sciences and High Energy Physics. Each Xserve RAID is attached to a dedicated Linux node running Fedora Core 3 via an Apple Fibre Channel PCI-X Card and is either directly accessed via various mechanisms, such as over the network via gigabit ethernet, or aggregated using tools such as dCache.
The storage is primarily used to act as a holding area for large amounts of data from experiments such as the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) and ATLAS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.
Aside from the GLOW initiative, the university also has Xserve RAID storage systems in use in other areas as well.
Full disclosure: I am the administrator of alienraid.org and am affiliated with the University of Wisconsin.
Since this article is not in the limelight any longer, you probably won't respond, but:
Apple knew its substandard battery would not hold up to its claims for long after purchase in many cases, yet still chose to push the misleading battery life specification.
Bullshit.
The 1st and 2nd generation iPods use a Sony UP325385 A4H 3.7V 1230mAh lithium ion polymer battery. Please define exactly how this is "substandard", or not the best LiIon polymer battery available at the time for this application.
Made the battery impossible to legitamately replace, and from dissections they might have even intentionally tried to prevent user replacements (why are so many iPod models pumped full of a sticky paste around the battery area, when other similar electronics need no such adhesive to hold the battery in place)
Bullshit. Replacing the iPod battery is ridiculously easy. See this site for video of each of the iPod battery replacement procedures. Doors, screws, access mechanisms, compartments segregating the battery from other electronics for end-user replacement, etc., would have increased the size of the iPod and/or detracted from the sleek appearance that is the very thing that makes it so attractive. Therefore, Apple chose to engineer the iPod as it is. And since the battery is easily replaced in minutes, this issue is moot.
Your "sticky paste" claim is unsupported, unadulterated bullshit. Yes, there is some adhesive in there. No, it's not designed to "intentionally [...] prevent user replacements". Christ.
As documented by at least one person (the iPod battery secret guy), it seems Apple had a corperate policy in effect from their tech support lines down to their retail stores to tell consumers the only way to service their dead battery was to buy a new iPod from Apple. (as pointed out by parent, this is the real gotcha)
Bullshit. It wasn't a "corporate policy". Apple had no program to replace the battery out of warranty, period. They DID have a $250 flat-rate repair program to repair ANY out-of-warranty iPod issue. The phone representative said something to the effect that at that price, you might as well buy a new iPod. There is no evidence that this was part of a "corporate policy" at Apple; rather, Apple had no official way to replace the battery.
HOWEVER:
- They HAVE had an official way to replace the battery since November 14, 2003.
- There were numerous ways to replace the battery yourself.
- Apple was the FIRST of any vendor that shipped a sealed music player to offer ANY kind of official battery replacement at all.
- Other small music players at the time also used LiIon batteries sealed inside the case.
- Unless people threw out their iPods, the battery replacement service (as well as mind-bendingly numerous third party ways to do it with even higher capacity batteries for as little as $30) is available to everyone
There's no real "gotcha". The only issue was that Apple did not have its OWN battery replacement service. There was no "corporate policy" predicated on making people buy new iPods when the "substandard" battery dies.
If that is your claim, then please explain:
- How Apple is consistently and continuously ranked #1, usually by wide margins, by Consumer Reports for technical support, product quality, and need for repairs beyond all other vendors (if Apple's goal was to make shitty products that died and then force people to buy new ones, this wouldn't exactly support that claim)
- How the Sony battery is "substandard"
- Why other vendors (Dell, Samsung, etc.) never had a way to replace sealed batteries until AFTER Apple
- Why Apple would have even bothered to create a battery replacement service at all (Hint: it WASN'T because of iPod's Dirty Secret; Apple's battery program was launched before the video ever hit the web. Further, the day that the battery program was launched, that video became nothing but lies.)
I know what it is and how it works, thanks.
The point is that IF people are encouraged to, and in fact do, use it, the documents then cannot be opened by any other product. You might say "well, that's the nature of DRM". And that's exactly my point. Microsoft isn't giving up IRM, and it doesn't matter if the format is "open" if they're successful in convincing a lot of large business to deploy Office IRM on their documents.
I personally don't like QTP because it's starts up slow, spams me with upgrade messages, has a crappy browser plugin that plays media in a blank browser window by default (rather than a floating player window), feels very clunky on Windows and lacks features like fullscreen in the free version.
I can't speak to the "starts up slow"; I suppose that's all relative.
Due to popular request, QuickTime 7 (due soon on Windows) no longer nags about upgrading.
The behavior of the QuickTime plugin can be set to play in a browser window or in the Player. Some people like it one way; some like it the other. I suppose the default setting is up for debate.
The full screen issue I will wholeheartedly agree with you on. Apple has gotten feedback on this from every angle - TONS of it - as well as the fact that all other media players play video fullscreen in their default/free state, except QuickTime Player. Further, every single feature of Pro is an editing feature - EXCEPT fullscreen playback, so we made the argument that the Pro delineation should be editing vs. playback, and fullscreen playback should be possible on non-Pro. Since the behavior hasn't changed with QuickTime 7, it's clear that Apple has made its marketing/business decision and is sticking with it.
Recently we posted a video in WM/RM/QT format, and QuickTime was the least popular pick. If there isn't a widely held "crappy" perception about the player, why would that be? It's certainly on a lot of machines due to itunes.
That's a logical chain that doesn't follow. QuickTime being the least popular pick doesn't automatically mean QuickTime has a "crappy" player. I'm kind of floored that you're even making a connection that if QuickTime was the least used pick for your video, it MUST mean that there is a "widely held perception" that QuickTime is crappy. (???) (Not to mention that things like what your business is, who your customers are, what types of computer/OS they're likely to own, etc., are all important factors.)
What it means is things like: most people, statistically, use Windows, which doesn't come with QuickTime, and they likely won't have downloaded QuickTime. All PCs have Windows Media Player, and many ship with (or the users have downloaded) RealPlayer, because of content that requires it. This does not at all speak to the quality of QuickTime or QuickTime Player. If someone already has Windows Media Player and/or RealPlayer, and DON'T have QuickTime on their computer because they don't need it, then why would they not pick Windows Media or Real? And at that, this doesn't present any qualitative quality concerns regarding QuickTime Player; if anything, it represents a concern about the market presence for QuickTime and whether Apple can grow that market (via things like this). But that's a business problem, not a technical one.
No, I live in a world where an article titled "Microsoft Ends Era Of Closed File Formats" is challenged with a specific example of Microsoft doing exactly the opposite of that. But thanks!
First of all, video file formats are hardly a concern of "IT" -- this is really all being hashed out in Hollywood boardrooms, and is completely offtopic in a discussion about MS Office.
Sorry, but open standards and all of the tools and infrastructure that support them are a concern for "IT".
Further, Microsoft pushing closed standards and file formats is perfectly on topic in a story entitled "Microsoft Ends Era Of Closed File Formats".
Second, it really boils down to either giving Dolby a bunch of money
Er, Dolby?
Oh, you must mean MPEG LA. You know, the entity that actually does the licensing for MPEG family standards. It has so much experience in this arena, it's actually doing the patent pool for VC-1 as well.
or giving Microsoft a bunch of money
Oops, common mistake. You mean Microsoft giving them a bunch of money: Microsoft has shown they are willing to spend money or pay companies to use their product--buying their way into markets they deem important to future Microsoft business. It will be hard for telcos, ISPs, and cable providers to turn down billions of dollars in incentives if Microsoft attempts to buy the market.
the relative "openness" of one side or another is all politics between the content and device vendors and not something us peons should be overly concerned with.
Sorry, but an open, international ISO and ITU-T standard (H.264) is a lot more open than something that is, you know, not open, as is the current state with Windows Media.
And finally, your fantasy about Anti-Apple Zealots doing whatever the opposite of Apple does is humorously delusional.
Funnily, not using something from Apple just because it's Apple is mind-bendingly commonplace, even among supposedly skilled and knowledgeable folks. Your pretending that it's not is the only delusion here.
I will say that there is a user resistance to QuickTime-based video, but that's mainly because the player sucks, and not because people have any particular opinion about Apple (other than they produce a crappy player).
Baseless assertion. How does QuickTime Player "suck" compared to:
- RealPlayer
- Windows Media Player
Please be specific.
QuickTime Player is a free, commercial, vendor-supported player for Windows 98/Me/2000/XP and Mac OS 9/X. What's "crappy" about it? (Nice troll though!)
And then, in my *next sentence* I say that commercial support exists for StarOffice:
Sure, OpenOffice is great, but commercial enterprises will stick with commercial solutions for which there is support. And yes, this could be built for something like OpenOffice (and indeed exists for StarOffice)
But thanks!
...now that they've all but killed off all of the commercial, vendor-supported competition.
And whatever happened to Office Integrated Rights Management, essentially a DRM for Office documents (New Office locks down documents) that (of course) requires a Windows server to administer, and only works with Microsoft Office? You don't think that they're just going to let that go by the wayside, do you?
And what about patents?
Sure, OpenOffice is great, but commercial enterprises will stick with commercial solutions for which there is support. And yes, this could be built for something like OpenOffice (and indeed exists for StarOffice), just as it has been for Red Hat, but I can't see this as anything more than a much belated, empty gesture on Microsoft's part. This sums it up: "Microsoft is doing this as a way to protect its presence on the desktop." Microsoft even dug up Charles Goldfarb, "co-inventor of the concept of markup languages", for its press release to say, "Making XML the default Office file format is, for me, the culmination of a 35-year dream," Charles F. Goldfarb, the inventor of the markup language technology, said in a statement released by Microsoft. Nice touch.
Also, "Microsoft Ends Era Of Closed File Formats" is a little overreaching, don't you think? They're looking for the biggest lock-in of all with the proprietary Windows Media formats. Microsoft wants to be everywhere there is any kind of media, and it's NOT open. Boy, I can't wait to live in a world where Microsoft controls and meters content and has everyone from the end consumer to cable, satellite, and telecom operators, movie and TV production houses, and everyone in between by the balls, which is exactly what will happen if they get their way. (And submission to SMPTE *hardly* means anything. Standards are standards AFTER they've been vetted by standards bodies, have had the patent searches and pools completed, etc., and have been, you know, actually approved. Not when they've been "submitted for consideration". Further, that gesture is nothing more than an attempt to get pinhead PHB-type managers and executives on board with Microsoft when their technical underlings are pulling for open standards like H.264 - then Microsoft can shoot back to the management, Hey, we're just as open as the MPEG family of standards! Look, we even submitted our codec to SMPTE! It's not our fault they take so long to approve things! Do you really want all that H-dot-whatever-gobbledeygook that your oddball IT guys are talking about? After all, that's what *Apple* uses. You don't want an Apple technology, do you? Go with us; you know Microsoft is the right choice for your 18-million-customer cable service! Utter bullshit. And ignores the fact that all of the codec improvements and tools will NOT be open; the SMPTE submission is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to put Windows Media everywhere as well by claiming to be "open" when they're anything but.)
1. I have also given "good, solid arguments", but because you disagree with it or its premise, you call it double speak;
2. There are over 2500 words in my post. Three are uses of the word "fuck", for 0.001% of the words in the post. I fail to see how that is "abundant"; further, if you feel it significantly alters the meaning of my statements, simply remove the word and reread;
3. It's amusing how you can denigrate conservative think tanks when you no doubt wouldn't do the same for liberal ones, and indeed probably consider them reputable;
4. As I've stated numerous times in this and other posts, the LONG TERM goal is preservation of life, and if I didn't believe that was possible, supporting it in principle or in reality would be ridiculous;
5. I volunteered to join the Air Force, served, and was honorably discharged, which you would have learned had you had given even marginal consideration (e.g., clicking on the web link in my profile or googling my name, etc.) to the question instead of jumping to an incorrect conclusion;
6. Your view (nor mine) isn't necessarily the right one just because you think it is; I'm merely trying to give a reasoned explanation for my position, which you write of as MYOPIA (ironic, since my main concern is the LONG TERM, while indeed yours seems the immediate present).
Thanks for your insults, instead of a response to my points.
The most pragmatic thing would have been to KEEP the sanctions going and keep Saddam in his box. Less Americans would have died (1500 and counting) and less IRAQIS would have died (100,000) and counting.
If you look at it in a vacuum, sure.
But what about the approximately 600,000 Iraqis that died (according to various estimates by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) as a direct result of the sanctions process?
Now that sanctions are over, we have a hope at a quite significant net preservation of Iraqi life when compared to the egregiously abused UNOFP and sanctions process.
The REAL motives of the Iraq war was to acquire the Iraqi oil resources (it was the ONLY asset protected after the invasion)
As I said, but I'd say not so much "acquire the Iraqi oil resources" as "ensure that we have continued and future access to the oil resources in the entire mideast region as part of a comprehensive plan to reshape the state of governments in the mideast, and prevent a possible Panislamic empire that would desire the destruction of the US and the West".
and to create permanent bases with which to frighten and intimidate Iraq's Arab neighbors.
All in the eyes of the beholder, I guess - YES, to frighten and intimidate Iraq's non-US- and non-West-friendly neighbors! We want them shaking in their boots, and for reformers and modernists to rise up from within and demand change, for example, in places like Tehran.
Hey, I was FOR the war when it started. I parted from my liberal colleagues because I believe that Saddam was a threat. I didn't believe ANYTHING Bush said. I believed COLIN POWELL. Jeesh, he sure spoiled his credibility with me.
Since hundreds upon hundreds of tons of Iraq's WMD are unaccounted for to this very day, it wasn't beyond reason to expect to find WMD in Iraq. But even if we did find large caches of WMD in Iraq, that wouldn't have changed the fact that WMD is not the primary reason we went to Iraq, though it was initially the *stated* one.
The only acceptable reason for risking American lives is SAVING American lives. You seem to think this little Iraq excursion is protecting Americans.
Actually, I didn't say either, but on this topic, you're falling into the trap I see many succumb to: once again, looking at it as a vacuum:
1500 lives lost; that's 1500 lives that would have been saved had we not gone.
It's not that simple or black and white, man! I find this type of black and white reasoning astounding coming from people who usually denigrate that type of reasoning. Iraq, and the overall mideast strategy, is NOT A VACUUM.
MANY lives will be lost in this effort. The goal, however, is that, longer term (e.g., the next 50-75 years), many more lives will be spared, on BOTH sides.
Now, I understand the pragmatism of saying "you can't predict the future, but we KNOW that those 1500 would still be alive had we not gone, and we further know we would not be directly responsible for XX0,000 Iraqi deaths". Certainly I agree with that.
But what of the approximately 50,000-100,000 Iraqis/year who would have died due to inattention under sanctions (as had happened each one of the previous 12 years, according to liberal human rights watchdog organizations, meaning there was no reason to expect it to change)?
What about the Americans or other Westerners - say, in Europe - that may die from attacks due to the unchecked growth and increasing aggression of Panislamic terrorists?
I think you've been watching too much Fox News.
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Med ia.Bias.8.htm
"Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our measures all but three of these medi
[NASA Director Michael] Griffin said the agency has received a steady flow of funding that when adjusted for inflation is comparable to the funding the agency had when it first sent astronauts to the moon during the Apollo program of the 1960s and early 1970s. "You will find that NASA received as much in the last 16 years of its existence as in the first 16," he said.
It is the classic pattern of neo-conservitive thinking to distil complex issues to black and white absolutes in order to make a snap judgement. Is a fetus alive? The issue of where life begins and ends is a complex scientific, moral, spiritual, and ethical dilema. We can not state that a fetus is alive any more than we can state that a dog has a soul. We can take dogmatic and argumenitive positions -- but ultimately there exists no "right" and "wrong" answer to the question -- there may never be such an answer.
Note that I make no such judgments. Why, then, is it appropriate for the prototypical "liberal/progressive" position to be staunchly in support of embryonic stem cell research and the right to abortion, as if that is the manifestly "right" position, that there aren't any other logical alternatives, and indeed, completely ignoring the issues about life, etc., that you just brought up?
It seems that the pro-choice camps and those who disagree with Bush on stem cells have already distilled it down to black and white issues - choice and science, exclusively - just as much as you would say "neo-cons" have.
we need to be investing in alternitive energy sources and the Bush administration has singularly failed in that task.
You may be interested in Bush's latest energy policy speech
Technology is allowing us to better use our existing energy resources. And in the years ahead, technology will allow us to create entirely new sources of energy in ways earlier generations could never dream. Technology is the ticket, is this nation's ticket to greater energy independence.
[...]
Over the past decade our energy consumption has increased by more than 12 percent, while our domestic production has increased by less than one-half of 1 percent. A growing economy causes us to consume more energy. And, yet, we're not producing energy here at home, which means we're reliant upon foreign nations. And at the same time we've become more reliant upon foreign nations, the global demand for energy is growing faster than the growing supply. Other people are using more energy, as well. And that's contributed to a rise in prices.
Because of our foreign energy dependence, our ability to take actions at home that will lower prices for American families is diminishing. Our dependence on foreign energy is like a foreign tax on the American people. It's a tax our citizens pay every day in higher gasoline prices and higher costs to heat and cool their homes. It's a tax on jobs and it's a tax that is increasing every year.
The problem is clear. This problem did not develop overnight, and it's not going to be fixed overnight. But it's now time to fix it. See, we got a fundamental question we got to face here in America: Do we want to continue to grow more dependent on other nations to meet our energy needs, or do we want to do what is necessary to achieve greater control of our economic destiny?
I made my decision. I know what is important for this country to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy, and that requires a national strategy. Now, when I first got elected, I came to Washington and I said, we need a national strategy. And I submitted a national strategy to the United States Congress. And it has been stuck. And now it's time for the Congress to pass the legislation necessary for this country to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
[...]
Our country is on the doorstep of incredible technological advances that will make energy more abundant and more affordable for our citizens. By harnessing the power of technology, we're going to be able to grow our economy, protect our environment, and achieve greater energy independence.
[...]
The first essential step toward greater energy independence is to apply technology to increase domestic production from existing energy resources. And one of the most promising sources
Um, are you talking about me, here? Because if you are, I think you're failing to make whatever point you're attempting to make. I, any many, many others, believe exactly what I just said, just as I'm sure you no doubt believe what you say.
The neo-cons are about as interested in Iraqi Democracy as they were Vietnamese Democracy.
So, very much so, then? Because a lot of people were interested in Vietnamese democracy, even if as a corollary to fighting Communism and the former Soviet state.
Iraq is NOT a Democracy.
Iraq is on its way to being more democratic than not. And it's more democratic than it was pre-2003.
You cannot have a Democratic election when the candidates are all SECRET!!!
...
It's sad that you're actually serious.
And to your last little rant, have you ever considered there are MORE reasons for things than just one? That the world is more complex than you're painting it? That it's either about democracy, or about profits (for example). Have you ever considered that sometimes our own interests, including economic ones, AND democratic reforms aren't mutually exclusive or even opposing goals? Have you further considered that in military operations, one must also be someone pragmatic and realistic, and realize that we can affect change in the mideast in nation-states like Iraq, but that "attacking"/invading China to affect such change might not be a very good fucking idea, on many levels?
Wake up. The liberal ideal is not the only one and not necessarily the right one.
Well, it's not that I'm pro-abortion in that I love abortion; rather, in the sense I believe it should be a legal, accessible option. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say I'm "not anti-abortion".
But I don't call myself "pro-choice", because I don't believe abortion is about only about "choice", as the pro-choice camp would have people believe. It's about ending human life in a very specific circumstance for societal benefit.
It doesn't come down to that at all.
What it comes down to is using the economic and military strength we have for good, and the spread of Western democratic freedom and ideals, and the encouragement of free markets and the free flow of information. A side effect of this is that free nations are often likely to be friendly with the Western world and its interests.
Note: this does not mean "taking over every nation on Earth"; this does not mean spreading Western *culture*, though admittedly some of that may occur; this does not mean that the US is perfect. What it does mean is that there are some people who genuinely believe that Western-style democracy is a good model for all nations and peoples. No one is foolish enough to believe it's just as simple as trotting into nations, ousting dictators (whether or not we tacitly supported them in the past is irrelevant; remember Realpolitik and the fact that there were bigger fish to fry), and then propping up democracies. No, really: no one believes it's that simple. No, not even Bush nor any of his minions.
I find it amusing that people can write this off as a "war for oil", as if that's an indictment. I don't think people understand the suffering that would occur in Western nations if there was a major collapse in our collective ability to obtain energy in the short term.
There is no doubt that our interests and the interests of much of Europe are at stake here. Further, the people of the mideast itself will be the likely beneficiaries of change, longer term. This then gets into muddier areas of whether it's appropriate to affect cultural change. This isn't about a Christian Crusade and getting multinationals into Iraq. But I don't think many administration officials would shed a tear if some of the anti-Americanism and rabid, fanatical Islam was toned down a bit in the rest of the region. Make no mistake: in the short term, it will be worsened. But as concepts of freedom take hold, the people will take their future into their own hands, no longer at the mercy of dictators and tribal warlords.
The "laboratory" of Iraq is one of change in the mideast. Of course it will have benefits for the US. It would be ridiculous to suggest it wouldn't. But it will also have benefits for the people of Iraq. There may be instability and difficult times ahead, as those who would fight the Infidel for any number of reasons apparently believe killing innocent Iraqis is the way to sway opinions in their favor. But if we have the will to follow through, the face of the mideast could be changed. As for the reasoning on Iraq? The reasoning presented was simple. Things like "we'd like to begin a multi-decade comprehensive strategy of political change in the middle east to kill off Panislamic radicalism, forcibly when necessary, for our own safety and security, and that of the Western economies, in addition to enabling free markets and free exchange of information and ideas among the peoples of the mideast for long term mutual benefit, and we're going to start by militarily overtaking and occupying a quasi-secular, centrally located nation-state to begin creating a catalyst for change and modernization in the region" don't exactly fly when you're trying to build public support for a military effort.
Lastly, Bush's presidency is more than half over. How can you assert that only now, NASA is being "taken over" by Bush administration officials? Further, NASA will continue to exist as the bureaucratic (not using that term in a derogatory fashion) entity that it is after Bush's presidency. The major shift in its mission is to possible continued manned exploration of the Moon and Mars. There is a significant array of feelings on whether this type of exploration is worthwhile, based only in emotion, guts the rest of NASA's missions, etc, even on slashdot. But the point is that NASA is as well funded now as it was at any other point in its history (in adjusted dollars).
In closing, if your "care nothing about science" jab is intended to e
Any way you look at it, it seems hypocritical to put weapons in space to support free access to space...
Oh, really?
And when another nation, such as, say, China, begins disallowing access to certain areas of space, or the Moon, or Mars, or takes aggressive action at another nation's assets in space be they military or commercial (and yes, something like this may very well occur), then what happens?
You fundamentally have failed to understand that protection of that free access sometimes necessitates, well, actually protecting it, and planning for such a contingency in advance.
Oh really?
And who's it going to be?
China?
Yeah, they're a model of freedom!
LOL!
As if the Majority Leader in the House of Representatives of the US Congress has no job, or indeed, any other tasks at all, other than to continually engineer ways to remove the spotlight from alleged ethics violations. Because, of course, once someone is accused of something, their job stops, and they're naturally only trying to erect artificial shields to deflect the allegations.