This is the mis-step that brought Motorola down from it's "king of the desktop CPU" position, when they released the 88k as the "next-generation" CPU rather than focus on delivering better 68k's. The division of resources back then is a step Motorola never really recovered from. I wonder how Intel will do on it.
Hmm indeed. I'm truly astonished that no one else caught this statement. Precisely how was Motorola "king of the desktop CPU" in the waning years of the 68k? That's a tremendously kind and undeserved compliment, unless we're viewing the histories of alternate dimensions. The 68040 was lagging behind the 486, and all indications were that its successor, the 68060 would be a poor performer. Thus, Apple switched to the PPC. As far as backward compatibility is concerned, the PPC was sufficiently fast soon enough to be able to emulate code faster than any 68k. I doubt anyone would contend that Apple made the wrong decision, although that's presumably what you're implying. A more intelligible claim is that Apple would have, perhaps, benefited more from upgrading to the 88k, but even that claim is confuted by the lamentable performance of Motorola wrt the G4.
At one point Motorola was a fine producer, and most will admit that its designs were always more elegant than Intel's. And yet, all of this is besides the point, which is that Motorola was never king of the desktop! What else could possibly be the king of the desktop, other than WINTEL? Please -- Apple is part of my soul (note my handle), but I've never managed to delude myself to the point where I ignore the existence of Wintel. I'd love some clarification from the OP on this topic, because that statement is incomprehensible.
You're off base their, Trurul; I suggest that you brush up on your political theory before making irresponsible populist statements. The electoral college is a functional, positive mechanism designed by the framers of our Constitution in order to both check potential tyranny of the majority as well as to give individual states an opportunity to shape the collective political destiny of the nation.
The electoral college provides smaller states with representation, which they would be lacking if we were to switch solely to the popular vote. Please realize that without the electoral college, presidential candidates would only need to concentrate on the most populous states (CA, NY, Texas Florida...), and all of the smaller states would be ignored. You may advocate such a system, but I believe smaller states deserve to be heard. When we became a union, states were guaranteed a certain amount of sovereignty. Consequently, the electoral college facilitates state democracy. Just as Judge Bork stated years ago, the doctrine of one person one vote is not consistent with the foundational code of our system. Eliminating the electoral college would subject smaller states to another's political will, without their support or input.
Actually, that's not entirely true. Command+Option+Escape displays the Force Quit pane, and it has never worked to reboot the machine. The gesture you're thinking of is probably Command+Control+Power (keyboard power key). That used to be the equivalent, until the advent of the iMac and its USB keyboard that no longer carried the power key functionality. It still works on iBooks and PBs, however. And recently, with OS X, Apple has turned the eject key into a pseudo power key. Pressing Command+Control+Eject on at least a desktop Mac will now issue a graceful shut down command. Of course, that's of little use when graceful shutdowns aren't an option. Incidentally, over the years the Command+Control+Power convention has come and gone and come back again. It usually wasn't functional on machines that featured hardware reset and interrupt switches. Here's hoping it will make its return some day. Not that OS X needs it (being rock solid), but it would be nice for nostalgia sake. I guess I think way too much about these things, but that's why I'm Apple Acolyte!
Everyone is deriding the topic poster, but perhaps he's going to/. high school... It would be interesting to hear someone's cost effective solution for home brewed VOIP.
MS of the 1990s: Let us dominate the market with our poorly coded software and charge OEMs and consumers obscene amounts for the privilege.
MS of the 21st Century: Let us use our monopolistic position to coerce annual upgrades of our poorly coded software. And let us attach additional, arbitrary, illogical licensing fees to small (yet essential) portions of our poorly coded software.
This is a really novel approach for MS to take -- at least it can claim to innovate in the sphere of monopolistic practices. Next they will assign fees for the privilege of using their drivers. Manufacturers will have to use one of the alternate filesystems, which will cause MS to remove compatibility for them.
News Bulletin: MS charges royalties for the use of keyboards and mice with Windows PCs.
Indivuals [sic] who make a copy of a copyrighted DVD, CD or music file, whether for back-up or for use on another device such as an MP3 player, are committing a crime.
And here we all thought the DMCA was the state of the art in draconian intellectual property legislation. Amazingly, while the US Constitution stands eviscerated, America remains the sweet land of liberty in comparison to the rest of the world. Is it possible to feel patriotic and disenchanted at the very same time?
I don't understand why this insightful parent post was modded offtopic. The guy was simply responding to a long line of previous comments, and while the conversation in general was offtopic because of one of the initial posts, you can't fault this poster for continuing the discussion. A console on an expansion card wouldn't work precisely for the reasons mentioned by the poster. Please, it's really a good thing when moderators utilize common sense, or else the whole system breaks down.
Now on the truly original topic, it seems Nintendo is concerned about being out of the gate first with their GC successor. They should be cautious with that approach, because it won't necessarily make the company more successful. The Dream Cast was out of the gate quickly as the first of its generation; aside from the piracy problem, it also didn't have the marketing clout needed to exploit its lead. By the time the market really started heating up, no one cared about Sega anymore. (I also wonder whether the accurate perception that Sega again wouldn't support its console properly had an appreciable impact on sales.)
The next generation console wars won't be much of an advance from the current crop, but it will be defined by content and marketing. Sony is the market leader, but MS' assimilation of game developers may change the face of the competitive landscape. (Gates must be throwing a lot of money around in order to get Japanese developers on board.)
It's really time for Nintendo to do something bold in order to elicit support for the GC and its offspring. Unfortunately, the trend in developer support is working against the company-many titles are being released for the crapBox and PS but not for the GC. Maybe it's time for a strategic venture of some sort between Sony and Nintendo as a reaction to MS' bid for yet another monopoly.
Actually it was called Palestine when ruled by the British and after the Jewish minority began terrorizing the British they left. The Jewish minority received arms from Europe and the US, asked other Jews to immigrate to Palestine and they went on to fight the Arabs in order to rule the country for themselves and rid Palestine of the Arabs. This is FACT Dayan, Rabin, and Sharon have all said these very things in speeches even today only a revisionist would say otherwise.
It was called the British Mandate of Palestine, which was a poor choice of words; the land was administered under that title because Rome renamed Israel Palestine in honor of the extinct Philistines and in order to further disgrace the subjugated Jewish people. The Jews didn't receive arms or monetary support from Europe or the United States through the War of Independence, so you're a liar Mr. Historical Revisionist. And contrary to what you claim, the Israeli left you're fond of quoting did everything it could to maintain the Arab population. On the eve of the War of Independence, David Ben Gurion begged the Arabs to stay and live in a egalitarian, democratic state; thankfully many of them fled on their own volition, at the urging of their leaders who claimed conquering Arab armies were coming to push the Jews to the sea. In the Six Day War, leftist leaders successfully convinced Arabs not to flee. But please don't just take my word for it, those of you who are skeptical of both sides-go read up on the history for yourself.
Not true. There has been a jewish minority as early as 1880 but calling a small group of jewish farmers living in isolation a majority is garbage.
Dingis, if you think you actually have a grasp on the history of the conflict, it's time for you to hit the books again. Take a look at what British officials or men like Mark Twain were saying about the region in the 19th century.
Hello I'd like to turn the US back into an Iraquois state as it is our ancient homeland and we have been persecuted for years. Then I form an army and start attacking to make it happen. What would you do?
Well, sir, your analogy works far better for the Zionist cause than against it. The plain and simple truth which you'll never admit to understanding is that the purportedly mighty Arabs were vanquished time and time again. They couldn't push the outnumbered, outgunned Israeli army to the sea in 1948. They couldn't destroy Israel in 1973, after they had the audacity to sucker punch the state on the most holy day of the Jewish calendar. They are perennial losers, and they figured that out long ago. Instead of fighting Israel valiantly in a military conflict, they now have their spawn strap explosives to themselves in order to blow up civilians. They'll never be able to stomach the fact that we won't cede our lives and eternal property anymore.
The native americans have a much better claim to America than the Arabs who refer to themselves by the P word ever had to Eretz Yisrael. You believe that the Indians were dispossessed along with the Arabs, but you only advocated the barbarous acts of the latter. Why would that be, exactly? I suppose you know that if you were to be consistent, you'd seem really foolish to advocate that the native americans go the route the Arabs have with Israel. Do you think that the United States, or any nation other than Israel for that matter, would possibly stomach insurrection and terrorism in the way Israel has? Israel is the only nation on the face of the earth that is forced by the world community to countenance a perpetual war within its own borders.
The rest of your post is pure crap that even a deadfast zionist such as Sharon would'nt even agree with. As for walking out on camp David it was Rabin's assination by right wing Israeli fanatics that caused that to fail. Israelis didn't want to give up any of the land they stole.
Your fallacious attack against the original poster aside, again you've betrayed your ignorance. The Camp David Accords to
Oh yeah, dude, don't you just hope the Arabs can use it so they can push my kind to the sea? Are you in ecstasy when you hear about another Arab assassin blowing up in a crowded civilian center in order to kill non-combatant men, women and children? Aren't you sick and tired of living, breathing Jews; doesn't it make skin crawl to hear about our success? Listen here, Jew-hater, you can support a second final solution all you want, but I promise you I'm not going submissively into the oven like my forefathers did. I'm readied and armed, and I'm prepared to defend myself and my loved ones with terminal intensity. Please do take my message back to your PLO bosom buddies.
If the so-called "Palestinians" weren't permanently invested in the Jew-murdering, destruction of Israel mindset, perhaps they wouldn't have so many problems. And for the record, the Arabs of Israel enjoy a higher standard of living and more rights than their brethren who reside in Arab homelands. And if you think I'm lying, try to figure out why a supposedly repressed, victimized population continues to grow by leaps and bounds. Apparently things aren't as bad as our Salinger devotee would admit.
For the love of God, please don't bring the government in to regulate the Internet! That's a can of worms I wrongly assumed slashdotters would decry. Common sense dictates that one company cannot be automatically beholden to another's privacy policy. Each company dictates its own terms concerning information collection and privacy. And each firm has its own opt out policy. If AudioGalaxy shares your address with Sprint, and Sprint shares information with spammer C, AudioGalaxy shouldn't be held responsible for the spam that you receive from spammer C, D, E etc. . . AudioGalaxy and Sprint could have been acting in good faith.
The majority of the responsibility here belongs to the individual. If a firm handles addresses improperly, it's the user's choice whether or not to continue using the service. No company is forcing any user to subscribe to their services. Use some common sense - protect your main address by only giving it out to those you trust, and give everyone else a separate address. That's how I keep myself spam free.
. . . Until I figured out that's where a lot of spammers get their addresses, and until my ISP's gateway got flakey. In my opinion, Usenet largely gave way to the prevalence of web boards, which are far more inviting and appealing to users. I used to spend time on comp.sys.mac.system, for example, but MacNN Forums became a superior option. The major problem is, Usenet failed to evolve along with the rest of the Internet. One would think, though, that if it weren't for/. Usenet would be more popular than it is today. Usenet is pretty geeky, after all.
KiahZero opined: I don't understand why revamped PC-cards are being pushed for desktop computing.
The parent makes it seem as if PCI Express only defines the standard for new generation PC Cards. It doesn't simply do that; otherwise it would be nearly worthless as the next generation successor to PCI. Take a look at relevant quotes from the PCI-SIG:
The "Mini PCI Express Electromechanical specification, an alternate for the existing Mini PCI form factor specification, is being completed for membership review and is expected to be finalized for publication in the first quarter of 2003."
"IBM is excited about the PCI Express architecture because of its compatibility with the past and its high-bandwidth options for the future," said Peter Hortensius, Vice President of Development, IBM Personal Computing Division. "IBM embraces open industry standards and provides innovation on top of them, and PCI Express presents outstanding opportunities for solving real customer problems."
Mini-PCI Express, then, is a spec in its infancy that is designed to replace the previous generation PC Card. It should make future laptops far more expandable, which is a great thing. And PCI Express is one of multiple candidates for desktop expansion. Yet, it seems that PCI Express is going to be backward compatible with important specs, and that it seemingly has industry support. I just wanted to make sure everyone understands the PCI card isn't going to be replaced by the PC Card.
Obviously it's not a market flaw we're dealing with here but rather flawed logic of the parent post. When government grants corporations monopolies, they are subverting the market place. Government grants a monopoly and then you blame that monopoly for acting contrary to the interests of the consumer. Hello? The Bells are simply doing something undesirable because they now have the authority to do it. If there were competition in the marketplace, they wouldn't have nearly as much freedom to ignore a market segment. And, btw, the solution certainly isn't to make Internet service into a utility, since that only means more regulation.
Forced Subscriptions = Bad Business Model
on
Salon Asks for Help
·
· Score: 1
I haven't read salon all that much in the past, partially because I wasn't interested in the left of center orientation of the outlet. I've noticed in the recent past that it has become more centrist, so I eagerly perused some of the content after seeing the/.'s coverage.
Unfortunately, the company obviously has a bad business model. One wonders why an online magazine's operating expenses are so high. Moreover, it doesn't help their situation to force subscriptions (which I believe is a recent development) by blocking a large percentage of article content.
Even though the subscription cost is small, it's equivalent to print magazine subscription cost. Since I cannot view the full content of any of the articles, it's quite difficult to justify subscribing sight unseen. I imagine many others make their decision to reject the subscription fee on the same basis. Plus, now that I know they block content, I'll be much less likely to ever return to the site. If salon fails, it won't be the consumer's fault.
If BIOS isn't broken, one wonders why there needs to be a fix. One can pretty confidently assume that such a change would usher in stricter enforcement for DRM. And I'm sure it simply solidifies the work MS largely completed through its XP registration scheme. Perhaps I'm paranoid, but can any of you blame me?
This is simply wonderful. People will go out and spend a relatively significant amount of money on the MS crap box so that they can stare at the beauty of Linux? How could such a project possibly be useful to anyone with any semblance of a real life? And what self-respecting geek would wish to further support MS hegemony? Instead of futzing around with YALinux, why not code for a productive purpose? Write the next killer app instead!
Boy, it's really incredible that such a post is rated so highly. Such wonderful intellectual gems courtesy of/.
[i]I never met a Mac I didn't like.[/i]
This too is my dream. Anyone who has worked in production knows how crappy it is to deal with disparate cable types. And, of course, I love Firewire and wish to see it become ubiquitous. Unfortunately, its adoption is likely blocked by the content monopoly because it isn't built to constrain the user through DRM. It certainly would be a wonderful thing if Firewire ascended to those heights, but I'm not holding my breath.
I don't have the time to read every single post right now, but since I didn't see anyone write about my idea, after looking at quite a few posts, I'll tell you what I think. . . My idea is, I believe, an ideal solution, but it requires OSs to be much more multi-user friendly. If we're talking about spreading usage over the 'Net, then Internet speed and security (interfaces) must also improve.
The problem: We have multiple boxes running different OSs. There's a pretty easy solution if the boxes are all in your LAN. Why not run a central server with a large number of drives? You could then simply use the different boxes as dumb terminals. For this idea to work, one has to assume that the particular OS being used allows for multiple logins at any given time. . .
Have different volumes dedicated to one particular OS. Net-boot your machines with that OS. . . log-in with one account if that's your desire, or log-in with multiple accounts at once if you wish to work on multiple machines at one time.
If we're using the Internet, the additional complications are, of course, speed and security. Once the Internet gets speedy enough, and once there are easy to use, graphical security tools akin to SSH, my vision for distributed work flows should be very possible.
a ?Béze, I really sincerely do, but do you actually think our government follows the mandates of the Constitution? The Constitution is only thought of when it is politically expedient. After all, the Patriot Act allows for indiscriminate wiretaps and many other activities that totally decimate our Constitutional protections. Tyranny is not far from each of our homes, trust me.
Actually, the original poster (in response to me is correct) in a way. First off, when the Romans conquered Israel in 70 CE (AD), they renamed the region Palestine to honor the Philistinian people - a Helenized, nomadic sea people - and to disgrace the Jews. Later, under the British mandate, it continued to call the region Palestine. When Jews would immigrate to Israel, all the way prior to 1948, they had to carry cards identifying them as "Palestinian."
Go to hell, you filthy Jew-hating scumbags. I know this is off topic, but I really don't care. The truth is the arabs who are living in Israel enjoy a much higher standard of life than any of their cousins in the neighboring arab empires. The arabs living in Israel enjoy the economic benefits of the nation, and yet they (as in the vast, vast majority) spout anti-Israel Jew-hatred, and they support every act of arab terror. Arabs living in Israel enjoy the right to vote as well. Israel bans and jails any individual who advocates throwing the hostile arabs out, yet they do nothing when arabs elected to parliament openly call for the destruction of the Jewish state.
And it is, eternally a Jewish state, promised by G-d to the Jewish people. And no, the arabs have never had any significant presence in Israel. The nation of Israel was created in 1312 BCE and thrived until it was conquered by the Romans in 70 CE. To disgrace the Jews further, the Romans renamed the region "Palestine" in commemoration of the Helenized Philistian people. Then, the arabs conquered the land in 632 CE. However, they never really took any interest in the land, because it was really nothing to them. (Remember, the 6th century CE Koran never once mentions Jerusalem, yet it mentions Mecha and Medina hundreds of times.) There was never any establishment of any entity political entity named Palestine. There was never a king, potentate or governor of the region. It was so sparsely populated that when Mark Twain visited Israel, he stated that one could look across the desert and not see a single soul. However, there was always a Jewish presence in the land, which grew increasingly greater in the 20th Century.
Finally, with the recreation of Israel in 1948, the Jewish people had reclaimed their biblical and traditional homeland. Israel offered the tiny arab population of 400,000 a plan in which they would get half of Israel. They rejected that and chose to flee in the hopes that they would be back with conquering arab armies. The armies of their most powerful nations came, yet a miracle took place when a heavily outnumbered and outgunned Israeli army fought all of them off.
Only with the 1967 war, in which Israel again repelled overwhelming arab force, was there ever talk of "Palestine." The modern term was the brain child of Yasser Arafat, who has worked ever since with the goal to destroy the Jewish state. In 1993, Israel signed a peace accord in which Araft declared that the arabs would no longer use violence to accomplish their goals, yet terrorism against Israel is at its highest levels seen in two decades.
I'm really not writing to you Jew-haters, I am writing those of you who aren't informed, so that you perhaps you won't buy into the lie as well.
While I too am wary of government intrusion, I don't think there's much of a need to get worked up over this story. The fact is, this Arab provider is most likely hosting sites that are pro Arab terror.
There is absolutely no question, though, that the sites in question are Jew-hating anti-American and anti-Israel; I have absolutely no sympathy that the law has caught up to this host, since I don't doubt they have broken the law. I have to assume that they are funneling funds to terrorist organizations.
Remember, there is no such thing as Palestine, and there is no such thing as "Palestinian" people. Anyone who contends anything to the contrary is a fool and a liar.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm indeed. I'm truly astonished that no one else caught this statement. Precisely how was Motorola "king of the desktop CPU" in the waning years of the 68k? That's a tremendously kind and undeserved compliment, unless we're viewing the histories of alternate dimensions. The 68040 was lagging behind the 486, and all indications were that its successor, the 68060 would be a poor performer. Thus, Apple switched to the PPC. As far as backward compatibility is concerned, the PPC was sufficiently fast soon enough to be able to emulate code faster than any 68k. I doubt anyone would contend that Apple made the wrong decision, although that's presumably what you're implying. A more intelligible claim is that Apple would have, perhaps, benefited more from upgrading to the 88k, but even that claim is confuted by the lamentable performance of Motorola wrt the G4.
At one point Motorola was a fine producer, and most will admit that its designs were always more elegant than Intel's. And yet, all of this is besides the point, which is that Motorola was never king of the desktop! What else could possibly be the king of the desktop, other than WINTEL? Please -- Apple is part of my soul (note my handle), but I've never managed to delude myself to the point where I ignore the existence of Wintel. I'd love some clarification from the OP on this topic, because that statement is incomprehensible.
The electoral college provides smaller states with representation, which they would be lacking if we were to switch solely to the popular vote. Please realize that without the electoral college, presidential candidates would only need to concentrate on the most populous states (CA, NY, Texas Florida...), and all of the smaller states would be ignored. You may advocate such a system, but I believe smaller states deserve to be heard. When we became a union, states were guaranteed a certain amount of sovereignty. Consequently, the electoral college facilitates state democracy. Just as Judge Bork stated years ago, the doctrine of one person one vote is not consistent with the foundational code of our system. Eliminating the electoral college would subject smaller states to another's political will, without their support or input.
Actually, that's not entirely true. Command+Option+Escape displays the Force Quit pane, and it has never worked to reboot the machine. The gesture you're thinking of is probably Command+Control+Power (keyboard power key). That used to be the equivalent, until the advent of the iMac and its USB keyboard that no longer carried the power key functionality. It still works on iBooks and PBs, however. And recently, with OS X, Apple has turned the eject key into a pseudo power key. Pressing Command+Control+Eject on at least a desktop Mac will now issue a graceful shut down command. Of course, that's of little use when graceful shutdowns aren't an option. Incidentally, over the years the Command+Control+Power convention has come and gone and come back again. It usually wasn't functional on machines that featured hardware reset and interrupt switches. Here's hoping it will make its return some day. Not that OS X needs it (being rock solid), but it would be nice for nostalgia sake. I guess I think way too much about these things, but that's why I'm Apple Acolyte!
Everyone is deriding the topic poster, but perhaps he's going to /. high school... It would be interesting to hear someone's cost effective solution for home brewed VOIP.
MS of the 21st Century: Let us use our monopolistic position to coerce annual upgrades of our poorly coded software. And let us attach additional, arbitrary, illogical licensing fees to small (yet essential) portions of our poorly coded software.
This is a really novel approach for MS to take -- at least it can claim to innovate in the sphere of monopolistic practices. Next they will assign fees for the privilege of using their drivers. Manufacturers will have to use one of the alternate filesystems, which will cause MS to remove compatibility for them.
News Bulletin: MS charges royalties for the use of keyboards and mice with Windows PCs.
Indivuals [sic] who make a copy of a copyrighted DVD, CD or music file, whether for back-up or for use on another device such as an MP3 player, are committing a crime.
And here we all thought the DMCA was the state of the art in draconian intellectual property legislation. Amazingly, while the US Constitution stands eviscerated, America remains the sweet land of liberty in comparison to the rest of the world. Is it possible to feel patriotic and disenchanted at the very same time?
Now on the truly original topic, it seems Nintendo is concerned about being out of the gate first with their GC successor. They should be cautious with that approach, because it won't necessarily make the company more successful. The Dream Cast was out of the gate quickly as the first of its generation; aside from the piracy problem, it also didn't have the marketing clout needed to exploit its lead. By the time the market really started heating up, no one cared about Sega anymore. (I also wonder whether the accurate perception that Sega again wouldn't support its console properly had an appreciable impact on sales.)
The next generation console wars won't be much of an advance from the current crop, but it will be defined by content and marketing. Sony is the market leader, but MS' assimilation of game developers may change the face of the competitive landscape. (Gates must be throwing a lot of money around in order to get Japanese developers on board.)
It's really time for Nintendo to do something bold in order to elicit support for the GC and its offspring. Unfortunately, the trend in developer support is working against the company-many titles are being released for the crapBox and PS but not for the GC. Maybe it's time for a strategic venture of some sort between Sony and Nintendo as a reaction to MS' bid for yet another monopoly.
It was called the British Mandate of Palestine, which was a poor choice of words; the land was administered under that title because Rome renamed Israel Palestine in honor of the extinct Philistines and in order to further disgrace the subjugated Jewish people. The Jews didn't receive arms or monetary support from Europe or the United States through the War of Independence, so you're a liar Mr. Historical Revisionist. And contrary to what you claim, the Israeli left you're fond of quoting did everything it could to maintain the Arab population. On the eve of the War of Independence, David Ben Gurion begged the Arabs to stay and live in a egalitarian, democratic state; thankfully many of them fled on their own volition, at the urging of their leaders who claimed conquering Arab armies were coming to push the Jews to the sea. In the Six Day War, leftist leaders successfully convinced Arabs not to flee. But please don't just take my word for it, those of you who are skeptical of both sides-go read up on the history for yourself.
Not true. There has been a jewish minority as early as 1880 but calling a small group of jewish farmers living in isolation a majority is garbage.
Dingis, if you think you actually have a grasp on the history of the conflict, it's time for you to hit the books again. Take a look at what British officials or men like Mark Twain were saying about the region in the 19th century.
Hello I'd like to turn the US back into an Iraquois state as it is our ancient homeland and we have been persecuted for years. Then I form an army and start attacking to make it happen. What would you do?
Well, sir, your analogy works far better for the Zionist cause than against it. The plain and simple truth which you'll never admit to understanding is that the purportedly mighty Arabs were vanquished time and time again. They couldn't push the outnumbered, outgunned Israeli army to the sea in 1948. They couldn't destroy Israel in 1973, after they had the audacity to sucker punch the state on the most holy day of the Jewish calendar. They are perennial losers, and they figured that out long ago. Instead of fighting Israel valiantly in a military conflict, they now have their spawn strap explosives to themselves in order to blow up civilians. They'll never be able to stomach the fact that we won't cede our lives and eternal property anymore.
The native americans have a much better claim to America than the Arabs who refer to themselves by the P word ever had to Eretz Yisrael. You believe that the Indians were dispossessed along with the Arabs, but you only advocated the barbarous acts of the latter. Why would that be, exactly? I suppose you know that if you were to be consistent, you'd seem really foolish to advocate that the native americans go the route the Arabs have with Israel. Do you think that the United States, or any nation other than Israel for that matter, would possibly stomach insurrection and terrorism in the way Israel has? Israel is the only nation on the face of the earth that is forced by the world community to countenance a perpetual war within its own borders.
The rest of your post is pure crap that even a deadfast zionist such as Sharon would'nt even agree with. As for walking out on camp David it was Rabin's assination by right wing Israeli fanatics that caused that to fail. Israelis didn't want to give up any of the land they stole.
Your fallacious attack against the original poster aside, again you've betrayed your ignorance. The Camp David Accords to
Never Again!
If the so-called "Palestinians" weren't permanently invested in the Jew-murdering, destruction of Israel mindset, perhaps they wouldn't have so many problems. And for the record, the Arabs of Israel enjoy a higher standard of living and more rights than their brethren who reside in Arab homelands. And if you think I'm lying, try to figure out why a supposedly repressed, victimized population continues to grow by leaps and bounds. Apparently things aren't as bad as our Salinger devotee would admit.
The majority of the responsibility here belongs to the individual. If a firm handles addresses improperly, it's the user's choice whether or not to continue using the service. No company is forcing any user to subscribe to their services. Use some common sense - protect your main address by only giving it out to those you trust, and give everyone else a separate address. That's how I keep myself spam free.
. . . Until I figured out that's where a lot of spammers get their addresses, and until my ISP's gateway got flakey. In my opinion, Usenet largely gave way to the prevalence of web boards, which are far more inviting and appealing to users. I used to spend time on comp.sys.mac.system, for example, but MacNN Forums became a superior option. The major problem is, Usenet failed to evolve along with the rest of the Internet. One would think, though, that if it weren't for /. Usenet would be more popular than it is today. Usenet is pretty geeky, after all.
The parent makes it seem as if PCI Express only defines the standard for new generation PC Cards. It doesn't simply do that; otherwise it would be nearly worthless as the next generation successor to PCI. Take a look at relevant quotes from the PCI-SIG:
The "Mini PCI Express Electromechanical specification, an alternate for the existing Mini PCI form factor specification, is being completed for membership review and is expected to be finalized for publication in the first quarter of 2003."
"IBM is excited about the PCI Express architecture because of its compatibility with the past and its high-bandwidth options for the future," said Peter Hortensius, Vice President of Development, IBM Personal Computing Division. "IBM embraces open industry standards and provides innovation on top of them, and PCI Express presents outstanding opportunities for solving real customer problems."
Mini-PCI Express, then, is a spec in its infancy that is designed to replace the previous generation PC Card. It should make future laptops far more expandable, which is a great thing. And PCI Express is one of multiple candidates for desktop expansion. Yet, it seems that PCI Express is going to be backward compatible with important specs, and that it seemingly has industry support. I just wanted to make sure everyone understands the PCI card isn't going to be replaced by the PC Card.
Obviously it's not a market flaw we're dealing with here but rather flawed logic of the parent post. When government grants corporations monopolies, they are subverting the market place. Government grants a monopoly and then you blame that monopoly for acting contrary to the interests of the consumer. Hello? The Bells are simply doing something undesirable because they now have the authority to do it. If there were competition in the marketplace, they wouldn't have nearly as much freedom to ignore a market segment. And, btw, the solution certainly isn't to make Internet service into a utility, since that only means more regulation.
Unfortunately, the company obviously has a bad business model. One wonders why an online magazine's operating expenses are so high. Moreover, it doesn't help their situation to force subscriptions (which I believe is a recent development) by blocking a large percentage of article content.
Even though the subscription cost is small, it's equivalent to print magazine subscription cost. Since I cannot view the full content of any of the articles, it's quite difficult to justify subscribing sight unseen. I imagine many others make their decision to reject the subscription fee on the same basis. Plus, now that I know they block content, I'll be much less likely to ever return to the site. If salon fails, it won't be the consumer's fault.
If BIOS isn't broken, one wonders why there needs to be a fix. One can pretty confidently assume that such a change would usher in stricter enforcement for DRM. And I'm sure it simply solidifies the work MS largely completed through its XP registration scheme. Perhaps I'm paranoid, but can any of you blame me?
This is simply wonderful. People will go out and spend a relatively significant amount of money on the MS crap box so that they can stare at the beauty of Linux? How could such a project possibly be useful to anyone with any semblance of a real life? And what self-respecting geek would wish to further support MS hegemony? Instead of futzing around with YALinux, why not code for a productive purpose? Write the next killer app instead!
Boy, it's really incredible that such a post is rated so highly. Such wonderful intellectual gems courtesy of /.
[i]I never met a Mac I didn't like.[/i]
This too is my dream. Anyone who has worked in production knows how crappy it is to deal with disparate cable types. And, of course, I love Firewire and wish to see it become ubiquitous. Unfortunately, its adoption is likely blocked by the content monopoly because it isn't built to constrain the user through DRM. It certainly would be a wonderful thing if Firewire ascended to those heights, but I'm not holding my breath.
Just remember, though, that Mac users everywhere are praying for IBM to deliver us from Motorola with the 970. . .
I don't have the time to read every single post right now, but since I didn't see anyone write about my idea, after looking at quite a few posts, I'll tell you what I think. . . My idea is, I believe, an ideal solution, but it requires OSs to be much more multi-user friendly. If we're talking about spreading usage over the 'Net, then Internet speed and security (interfaces) must also improve. The problem: We have multiple boxes running different OSs. There's a pretty easy solution if the boxes are all in your LAN. Why not run a central server with a large number of drives? You could then simply use the different boxes as dumb terminals. For this idea to work, one has to assume that the particular OS being used allows for multiple logins at any given time. . . Have different volumes dedicated to one particular OS. Net-boot your machines with that OS. . . log-in with one account if that's your desire, or log-in with multiple accounts at once if you wish to work on multiple machines at one time. If we're using the Internet, the additional complications are, of course, speed and security. Once the Internet gets speedy enough, and once there are easy to use, graphical security tools akin to SSH, my vision for distributed work flows should be very possible.
a
?Béze, I really sincerely do, but do you actually think our government follows the mandates of the Constitution? The Constitution is only thought of when it is politically expedient. After all, the Patriot Act allows for indiscriminate wiretaps and many other activities that totally decimate our Constitutional protections. Tyranny is not far from each of our homes, trust me.
Actually, the original poster (in response to me is correct) in a way. First off, when the Romans conquered Israel in 70 CE (AD), they renamed the region Palestine to honor the Philistinian people - a Helenized, nomadic sea people - and to disgrace the Jews. Later, under the British mandate, it continued to call the region Palestine. When Jews would immigrate to Israel, all the way prior to 1948, they had to carry cards identifying them as "Palestinian."
And it is, eternally a Jewish state, promised by G-d to the Jewish people. And no, the arabs have never had any significant presence in Israel. The nation of Israel was created in 1312 BCE and thrived until it was conquered by the Romans in 70 CE. To disgrace the Jews further, the Romans renamed the region "Palestine" in commemoration of the Helenized Philistian people. Then, the arabs conquered the land in 632 CE. However, they never really took any interest in the land, because it was really nothing to them. (Remember, the 6th century CE Koran never once mentions Jerusalem, yet it mentions Mecha and Medina hundreds of times.) There was never any establishment of any entity political entity named Palestine. There was never a king, potentate or governor of the region. It was so sparsely populated that when Mark Twain visited Israel, he stated that one could look across the desert and not see a single soul. However, there was always a Jewish presence in the land, which grew increasingly greater in the 20th Century.
Finally, with the recreation of Israel in 1948, the Jewish people had reclaimed their biblical and traditional homeland. Israel offered the tiny arab population of 400,000 a plan in which they would get half of Israel. They rejected that and chose to flee in the hopes that they would be back with conquering arab armies. The armies of their most powerful nations came, yet a miracle took place when a heavily outnumbered and outgunned Israeli army fought all of them off.
Only with the 1967 war, in which Israel again repelled overwhelming arab force, was there ever talk of "Palestine." The modern term was the brain child of Yasser Arafat, who has worked ever since with the goal to destroy the Jewish state. In 1993, Israel signed a peace accord in which Araft declared that the arabs would no longer use violence to accomplish their goals, yet terrorism against Israel is at its highest levels seen in two decades.
I'm really not writing to you Jew-haters, I am writing those of you who aren't informed, so that you perhaps you won't buy into the lie as well.
There is absolutely no question, though, that the sites in question are Jew-hating anti-American and anti-Israel; I have absolutely no sympathy that the law has caught up to this host, since I don't doubt they have broken the law. I have to assume that they are funneling funds to terrorist organizations.
Remember, there is no such thing as Palestine, and there is no such thing as "Palestinian" people. Anyone who contends anything to the contrary is a fool and a liar.