I never can understand why people get so upset about "violating the wishes" of the now-dead. The dead shouldn't have rights, for the simple reason that they're not alive.
As for Mr. Adams, he was a very good writer, and an extremely talented man. He showed quite a bit of intelligence and insight, as well as compassion (I recommend that everyone try to get a copy of Last Chance to See. I think he did a great job of using his fame and talent to do good and have fun.
When he was alive, by all means, one should have shown him complete respect for his work and his rights. Treat him the way you'd want to be treated.
But, the fact of the matter is, now he's dead. You can't embarrass him, make him happy, cause him grief or indignation. You can't because he simply...isn't anymore. And, the fact is, there are people out there who are alive, who do want to read this. Why shouldn't they be allowed to, when doing so hurts absolutely nobody?
I'm sure some people will see this as flamebait, but seriously, many of the big problems in modern society revolve around un-dying "rights" and "wishes" -- be it of corporations, dead "prophets", or the ability of the very rich to pass on their inheritance to those who did nothing to earn it...Do we really need to devote any more "respect" to the non-existent when there are so many that could benefit (albeit in a very small way in this case) by considering the living?
If someone wants to show respect to the memory of Douglas Adams by not reading this unfinished material, that's their business -- personally I'd rather show people respect while they're alive and can appreciate it, rather than by making empty and useless gestures after they're dust.
My point was, what if the WWW isn't a good medium for money-making, no matter what its benefits? It is important to remember that "the best medium to get current and updated information out to people" != "a vast source of easy-money" (and I could argue against the WWW as being the aforementioned "best" medium, too).
Who cares if it turns out that nobody makes money on the internet? When was it decided that it would be an effective tool for that? When was it agreed upon that it is was vital that the WWW be twisted into that? Your "basic problem" is only a problem for those trying to put the round peg into the square hole.
Many successful businesses (wisely) view their internet presence as a complete loss-leader. I'm not sure why we should bemoan the loss of those sites that would close if they didn't make money. We'd be left with the.edu stuff, some of those "brick-n-mortar" companies that wanted to sell/advertise on the web, and we'd have individual (as you put it) "amateur" sites. Why is that bad?
My point isn't that I wish for the "good old days", but rather, what if turned out that the WWW was only good for the stuff that we had back then? What if all the insane Goldberg-esque attempts to graft the cash-register onto the WWW were doomed to fail? And, more importantly, why should we get upset if they were?
What I'm trying (and I guess, failing) to get across is the idea that maybe the WWW can never be cost-effectively used as a large-scale revenue source -- and that we shouldn't worry if it can't. Not to say that the internet can't have vast potential for profit, just that (for most industries) the WWW may not be the way to do it.
Ever since Scott McCloud (of Zot! and Understanding Comics fame) started touting the idea of web-based micropayments, I've been seeing these schemes crop up more and more often. The one thing I've noticed is that they all seem to be performing the most horrible contortions to twist the web into something its not...all for a buck.
And, I can't help wondering: what if the WWW just isn't a good medium for most methods of making money? What if, after all this, its just able to do what it was originally designed to do (i.e.: serve up information-based sites, mostly educational and techinical)?
Pr0n notwithstanding, I don't know why nobody seems ready to consider that the web may be just good for a few commercial storefronts (in select markets), distributing some basic corporate information (acting as an informational "web presence" to companies who care to do so), and leaving the majority of traffic for personal and educational/technical sites.
I'm not a Luddite who longs for the "good old days" of the web (although I have been known to go back to using lynx in pinch), but it just seems that most models of revenue-generation on the web DON'T WORK. Hundreds of companies have gone out of business ignoring this. Sure, maybe there's a way to circumvent the web's limitations, but why doesn't any industry consider that the web WILL NOT make most of them money? It seems to me that the web is not the tool that they're looking for, and they're trying to force it to do things it wasn't meant to do...like trying to use a screwdriver to pound nails -- sure, you can do it, but it would make more sense to look for something like a hammer.
Not Mac compatiable -- except when it is
on
New AIBO Demo'd
·
· Score: 1
Funny -- works fine on my Pismo/OmniWeb/OS X 10.1. Methinks you need to look at your plug-ins.
The idea that anyone would prefer to watch "Buffy the Vampire-Slayer" instead of hockey is beyond me. Of course, the whole concept of Buffy escapes me entirely and I play ice hockey, so I may not be the most impartial judge...
As a peculiar coincidence, Chris Crawford seems to be involved heavily in studying the Leonids.
Crawford, many of us will remember, is the programming mind behind some of the more intriguing games of the old Atari computer platform (Legionnaire, Eastern Front) as well as some very interesting stuff done on the early Macintosh system (Patton vs Rommel, Balance of Power, Siboot II). Lately, he's been involved in some interactive fiction projects, but has received very mixed reviews from the IF community (see/. recent article on this year's IF competition).
If anyone is interested in helping out a minor computer-gaming legend with another geek-out, you can see what he's up to this year with the Leonids at: http://www.erasmatazz.com/Leonids/Leonids.htm l
The frightening part of this whole debacle -- at least for USians -- is that this took place when the CIA was supposedly competent and well-staffed/well-funded... What does that say for their current capabilities?
THE HORROR, THE HORROR! Several, perhaps even DOZENS of Mac users may have been severely inconvenienced by a BUG! I can't begin to express the proper outrage! Stop the presses! Confiscate all Macintoshes! Obviously, they're too unstable and dangerous to use. Obviously, we should lead off with a Slashdot Mac-bashing story! If ONLY all these poor Mac users had used Linux instead, the tragedy that would have been averted! Oh, the humanity!
Please.
This topic has gotta be a huge joke, and certainly doesn't warrant such an outlandishly over-blown story. While a very bad bug, this installer problem will likely have affected only a few people, probably in the three-digit range. Here's why:
1) If you weren't one of the early-adopters, you'd never have heard of this -- Apple pulled and replaced the defective installer in less than 18 hours.
2) If you followed the instructions in the original "Read Me" file, and deleted all pre-existing copies of iTunes, you wouldn't have this problem.
3) If you weren't using multiple partitions on your drive -- which most OS X users aren't -- you'd not have this problem.
4) Finally, if you did have multiple drive partitions, but didn't include a space in the name, you also wouldn't have encountered this problem.
I won't even go into the fact that the primary partition is left untouched by the installer-bug.
So, in summary, yeah -- a really bad bug. But, no, it didn't really affect many OS X users.
I think an important thing to consider is why this person is increasingly unhappy with Windows, and why they want to stay away from Macs.
I know many (most? all?) of us are very partisan about our software/OS/hardware/etc. choices, but to really answer this guy's question, to really help him make a wise selection (and not just trumpet the praises of What-We-Like-Best), he really needs to explain why his friend dislikes what he does, too.
I mean, I'd really like to go on and on about how wonderful Mac OS X is (because is is, but that doesn't really solve the problem, or answer the question posed by the moderators. Just a thought...
...Or, maybe, they just consider it an immediately distinguishing attribute that they need to protect? Perhaps the "look" is an integral part of the "look and feel" of the interface, and in today's legal climate they're forced to defend any infringement tooth-and-nail lest they become copied by other, less innocuous groups (*cough, cough* MicroSoft *cough, cough*)?
Apple feels that they already got burnt once before with Windows copying the MacOS (I'm not going to get into the whole debate about how Apple went to Xerox's PARC and copied *them* -- I'm just providing a rationale), and I'm sure they are paranoid about it happening again...Hell, look at XP and tell me you don't think they're doing some copying.
Keep in mind that you are probably overemphasizing the "own language" or "plaintext" aspect of this solution -- or underempasizing the "modified vocabulary" part. These guys weren't just chatting in their own everyday language.
The Japanese were smart enough to know what was going on, and were even able to distinguish it enough to try and force a Navajo POW to translate for them. Because of the "code-like" aspect of the communications, the poor prisoner was never able to figure out what was being said (happily for the USMC).
I heard similar stories about Irish UN peacekeepers during the recent actions in the former Jugoslavia. In this case, certain units would communicate in almost plain language on open frequency using Irish-speakers. The unfortunate fact is that, because of the disuse of the language, many Irish probably couldn't have understood the communications, even if it were spoken straightforwardly.
I really, really, really doubt that anyone has the legal right to unimpeded access to the NIH. I think you'd have an equally difficult time suing the "feds" for impinging on your unchecked motor access to the White House or the Capitol complex.
The Metro station mentioned in the original post, on the other hand, is another story.
I'd love to run some of the "other" Ultimas on my Mac -- I stopped playing at the same time that they stopped appearing on Apple machines.
It would be interesting to see how U7 runs on OS X, but its surprisingly difficult to find anyone with a good copy who's willing to part with it...A shame, since the company owning it is obviously not making any more money off of it.
There should be an easy way for authors to send old games into the public domain after a certain number of years, just so geeks can keep them from disappearing altogether... While there's little chance of that happening with the Ultima series, think about all the other good games you played on your C64, Apple ][, or Atari 800 that have been consigned to oblivion.
As an aside, I actually had to get a Macintosh emulator for my Macintosh to run "The Colony" again, since PPC machines can't even begin to fathom what a Mac Plus was like.
Look, in retrospect I agree that it was probably meant that way, but:
1) You can't say that a slight like that invalidate his arguments...There are enough real problems with the guy's positions to use this as one of them.
2) Maybe because I read it the way I did initially, I'm still inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and interpret it as generously as possible. As I said in (1), the paper has so many flaws in it I'm not going to get stuck on the semantics of a possible (probable) insult when there is so much more of substance to criticize about it.
Actually, by characterizing the NRA "a bunch of raving lunatics who always talk about how great everything would be if only we were all prepared to kill one another at a moments' notice" you've proven your ignorance and laziness, not to mention lost all credibility. Show me one article or statement by NRA policy-makers that say anything remotely like that.
Fact is, your strawman isn't/wasn't what the whole 2nd amendment debate is/was about, anyway. It really centers on illegally circumventing "inconvenient" laws, at the price of both reduction in personal freedoms and also a corruption of the US legal system.
While I'm not a fan of the gun lobby, I can certainly see their complaint with how the 2nd amendment was systematically twisted, intentionally misinterpreted, demonized, and finally ignored -- all over a long period of time. Perhaps its a bit paranoid, but given what we've seen different governments can do, is it that far of a stretch to see how some of these pro-gun folks believe it all to be a coordinated effort to chip away at personal liberties?
I can, furthermore, see strong parallels between that debate and this current debate. Just because you personally think the right to keep & bear arms is an unimportant one and the freedom from unreasonable search & seizure isn't doesn't mean that you're right.
Since someone else has previously said something similar, I'm going to respond with almost the same answer I gave before.
You don't need to posit an attack on G.W.B. by that statement -- it can be interpreted to mean that this issue will be very important in political arena over the next few years, and not just today. That was, in fact, how I understood it on reading it initially.
For example, considering that G.W.B. is well into his first term of office, isn't this topic something likely to be of import in the next (not-that-far-away) U.S. presidential election? And therefore, in a short time, someone who is not currently elected will be president (even if it is the same person who won the previous election).
Furthermore, considering that the law of the land says that a man can only be president for two terms...Isn't it reasonable to suppose that our next president (i.e.: whoever succeeds G.W.B. -- Democrat, Republican, or otherwise...be it the next election or the one after) is someone currently in politics, and is involved and watching this situation develop?
I'm assuming that nobody here believes that Bush will suspend the "terms-of-office" law and install himself as imperator or somesuch, but I am saying that there are reasonable -- and non-inflammatory -- ways of interpreting that line, even if you're a fan of G.W.B. (which the author may not be).
Giving everyone here the benefit of the doubt, isn't it possible that you're overlooking a simple, reasonable and (ultimately) non-inflammatory explanation?
For example, considering that G.W.B. is well into his first term of office, isn't this topic something likely to be of import in the next (not-that-far-away) U.S. presidential election? And therefore, in a short time, someone who is not currently elected will be president (even if it is the same person who won the previous election).
Furthermore, considering that the law of the land says that a man can only be president for two terms...Isn't it reasonable to suppose that our next president (i.e.: whoever succeeds G.W.B. -- Democrat, Republican, or otherwise, be it the next election or the one after) is someone currently in politics, and is involved and watching this situation develop?
I'm assuming that nobody here believes that Bush will suspend the "terms-of-office" law and install himself as imperator or somesuch, but I'm saying that there are reasonable -- and non-biased -- ways of interpreting that line, even if you're a fan of G.W.B. (which the author may not be).
Slashdot Mirror
I never can understand why people get so upset about "violating the wishes" of the now-dead. The dead shouldn't have rights, for the simple reason that they're not alive.
As for Mr. Adams, he was a very good writer, and an extremely talented man. He showed quite a bit of intelligence and insight, as well as compassion (I recommend that everyone try to get a copy of Last Chance to See. I think he did a great job of using his fame and talent to do good and have fun.
When he was alive, by all means, one should have shown him complete respect for his work and his rights. Treat him the way you'd want to be treated.
But, the fact of the matter is, now he's dead. You can't embarrass him, make him happy, cause him grief or indignation. You can't because he simply...isn't anymore. And, the fact is, there are people out there who are alive, who do want to read this. Why shouldn't they be allowed to, when doing so hurts absolutely nobody?
I'm sure some people will see this as flamebait, but seriously, many of the big problems in modern society revolve around un-dying "rights" and "wishes" -- be it of corporations, dead "prophets", or the ability of the very rich to pass on their inheritance to those who did nothing to earn it...Do we really need to devote any more "respect" to the non-existent when there are so many that could benefit (albeit in a very small way in this case) by considering the living?
If someone wants to show respect to the memory of Douglas Adams by not reading this unfinished material, that's their business -- personally I'd rather show people respect while they're alive and can appreciate it, rather than by making empty and useless gestures after they're dust.
My point was, what if the WWW isn't a good medium for money-making, no matter what its benefits? It is important to remember that "the best medium to get current and updated information out to people" != "a vast source of easy-money" (and I could argue against the WWW as being the aforementioned "best" medium, too).
.edu stuff, some of those "brick-n-mortar" companies that wanted to sell/advertise on the web, and we'd have individual (as you put it) "amateur" sites. Why is that bad?
Who cares if it turns out that nobody makes money on the internet? When was it decided that it would be an effective tool for that? When was it agreed upon that it is was vital that the WWW be twisted into that? Your "basic problem" is only a problem for those trying to put the round peg into the square hole.
Many successful businesses (wisely) view their internet presence as a complete loss-leader. I'm not sure why we should bemoan the loss of those sites that would close if they didn't make money. We'd be left with the
My point isn't that I wish for the "good old days", but rather, what if turned out that the WWW was only good for the stuff that we had back then? What if all the insane Goldberg-esque attempts to graft the cash-register onto the WWW were doomed to fail? And, more importantly, why should we get upset if they were?
What I'm trying (and I guess, failing) to get across is the idea that maybe the WWW can never be cost-effectively used as a large-scale revenue source -- and that we shouldn't worry if it can't. Not to say that the internet can't have vast potential for profit, just that (for most industries) the WWW may not be the way to do it.
Ever since Scott McCloud (of Zot! and Understanding Comics fame) started touting the idea of web-based micropayments, I've been seeing these schemes crop up more and more often. The one thing I've noticed is that they all seem to be performing the most horrible contortions to twist the web into something its not...all for a buck.
And, I can't help wondering: what if the WWW just isn't a good medium for most methods of making money? What if, after all this, its just able to do what it was originally designed to do (i.e.: serve up information-based sites, mostly educational and techinical)?
Pr0n notwithstanding, I don't know why nobody seems ready to consider that the web may be just good for a few commercial storefronts (in select markets), distributing some basic corporate information (acting as an informational "web presence" to companies who care to do so), and leaving the majority of traffic for personal and educational/technical sites.
I'm not a Luddite who longs for the "good old days" of the web (although I have been known to go back to using lynx in pinch), but it just seems that most models of revenue-generation on the web DON'T WORK. Hundreds of companies have gone out of business ignoring this. Sure, maybe there's a way to circumvent the web's limitations, but why doesn't any industry consider that the web WILL NOT make most of them money? It seems to me that the web is not the tool that they're looking for, and they're trying to force it to do things it wasn't meant to do...like trying to use a screwdriver to pound nails -- sure, you can do it, but it would make more sense to look for something like a hammer.
Funny -- works fine on my Pismo/OmniWeb/OS X 10.1. Methinks you need to look at your plug-ins.
The idea that anyone would prefer to watch "Buffy the Vampire-Slayer" instead of hockey is beyond me. Of course, the whole concept of Buffy escapes me entirely and I play ice hockey, so I may not be the most impartial judge...
As a peculiar coincidence, Chris Crawford seems to be involved heavily in studying the Leonids.
/. recent article on this year's IF competition).
m l
Crawford, many of us will remember, is the programming mind behind some of the more intriguing games of the old Atari computer platform (Legionnaire, Eastern Front) as well as some very interesting stuff done on the early Macintosh system (Patton vs Rommel, Balance of Power, Siboot II). Lately, he's been involved in some interactive fiction projects, but has received very mixed reviews from the IF community (see
If anyone is interested in helping out a minor computer-gaming legend with another geek-out, you can see what he's up to this year with the Leonids at:
http://www.erasmatazz.com/Leonids/Leonids.ht
The frightening part of this whole debacle -- at least for USians -- is that this took place when the CIA was supposedly competent and well-staffed/well-funded... What does that say for their current capabilities?
All the more reason not to be broadcasting anti-Apple FUD.
THE HORROR, THE HORROR! Several, perhaps even DOZENS of Mac users may have been severely inconvenienced by a BUG! I can't begin to express the proper outrage! Stop the presses! Confiscate all Macintoshes! Obviously, they're too unstable and dangerous to use. Obviously, we should lead off with a Slashdot Mac-bashing story! If ONLY all these poor Mac users had used Linux instead, the tragedy that would have been averted! Oh, the humanity!
Please.
This topic has gotta be a huge joke, and certainly doesn't warrant such an outlandishly over-blown story. While a very bad bug, this installer problem will likely have affected only a few people, probably in the three-digit range. Here's why:
1) If you weren't one of the early-adopters, you'd never have heard of this -- Apple pulled and replaced the defective installer in less than 18 hours.
2) If you followed the instructions in the original "Read Me" file, and deleted all pre-existing copies of iTunes, you wouldn't have this problem.
3) If you weren't using multiple partitions on your drive -- which most OS X users aren't -- you'd not have this problem.
4) Finally, if you did have multiple drive partitions, but didn't include a space in the name, you also wouldn't have encountered this problem.
I won't even go into the fact that the primary partition is left untouched by the installer-bug.
So, in summary, yeah -- a really bad bug. But, no, it didn't really affect many OS X users.
Adventurers...Yummmm.
Of course, after all:
It's just a model.
(1) The "spy photos" are clearly faked.
(2) The real answer will be released shortly, after Apple finishes the closed-door presentation in Cupertino, CA (10.00 pdt, 13.00 edt).
(3) The world already has PDA-phone hybrids, even if they are no good.
Did I miss anything?
as long as they license/buy the rights to remake Cyberball. Yeah, that's the ticket.
I think an important thing to consider is why this person is increasingly unhappy with Windows, and why they want to stay away from Macs.
I know many (most? all?) of us are very partisan about our software/OS/hardware/etc. choices, but to really answer this guy's question, to really help him make a wise selection (and not just trumpet the praises of What-We-Like-Best), he really needs to explain why his friend dislikes what he does, too.
I mean, I'd really like to go on and on about how wonderful Mac OS X is (because is is, but that doesn't really solve the problem, or answer the question posed by the moderators. Just a thought...
...Or, maybe, they just consider it an immediately distinguishing attribute that they need to protect? Perhaps the "look" is an integral part of the "look and feel" of the interface, and in today's legal climate they're forced to defend any infringement tooth-and-nail lest they become copied by other, less innocuous groups (*cough, cough* MicroSoft *cough, cough*)?
Apple feels that they already got burnt once before with Windows copying the MacOS (I'm not going to get into the whole debate about how Apple went to Xerox's PARC and copied *them* -- I'm just providing a rationale), and I'm sure they are paranoid about it happening again...Hell, look at XP and tell me you don't think they're doing some copying.
**ahem**
I am a med student.
How many weeks can you run at 80+ hourd a week before you start to burn out?
When I saw this, I just snickered a bit -- I know it is only tangentially related, but have you considered the lifestyle of medical residents/interns?
Surgical interns, for example, are regularly expected to log 100+ hours/week. All year, every week.
Keep in mind that you are probably overemphasizing the "own language" or "plaintext" aspect of this solution -- or underempasizing the "modified vocabulary" part. These guys weren't just chatting in their own everyday language.
The Japanese were smart enough to know what was going on, and were even able to distinguish it enough to try and force a Navajo POW to translate for them. Because of the "code-like" aspect of the communications, the poor prisoner was never able to figure out what was being said (happily for the USMC).
I heard similar stories about Irish UN peacekeepers during the recent actions in the former Jugoslavia. In this case, certain units would communicate in almost plain language on open frequency using Irish-speakers. The unfortunate fact is that, because of the disuse of the language, many Irish probably couldn't have understood the communications, even if it were spoken straightforwardly.
I really, really, really doubt that anyone has the legal right to unimpeded access to the NIH. I think you'd have an equally difficult time suing the "feds" for impinging on your unchecked motor access to the White House or the Capitol complex.
The Metro station mentioned in the original post, on the other hand, is another story.
...At which point, they would have been refused access to the NIH campus -- which was the point of the trip.
I'd love to run some of the "other" Ultimas on my Mac -- I stopped playing at the same time that they stopped appearing on Apple machines.
It would be interesting to see how U7 runs on OS X, but its surprisingly difficult to find anyone with a good copy who's willing to part with it...A shame, since the company owning it is obviously not making any more money off of it.
There should be an easy way for authors to send old games into the public domain after a certain number of years, just so geeks can keep them from disappearing altogether... While there's little chance of that happening with the Ultima series, think about all the other good games you played on your C64, Apple ][, or Atari 800 that have been consigned to oblivion.
As an aside, I actually had to get a Macintosh emulator for my Macintosh to run "The Colony" again, since PPC machines can't even begin to fathom what a Mac Plus was like.
Look, in retrospect I agree that it was probably meant that way, but:
1) You can't say that a slight like that invalidate his arguments...There are enough real problems with the guy's positions to use this as one of them.
2) Maybe because I read it the way I did initially, I'm still inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and interpret it as generously as possible. As I said in (1), the paper has so many flaws in it I'm not going to get stuck on the semantics of a possible (probable) insult when there is so much more of substance to criticize about it.
Actually, by characterizing the NRA "a bunch of raving lunatics who always talk about how great everything would be if only we were all prepared to kill one another at a moments' notice" you've proven your ignorance and laziness, not to mention lost all credibility. Show me one article or statement by NRA policy-makers that say anything remotely like that.
Fact is, your strawman isn't/wasn't what the whole 2nd amendment debate is/was about, anyway. It really centers on illegally circumventing "inconvenient" laws, at the price of both reduction in personal freedoms and also a corruption of the US legal system.
While I'm not a fan of the gun lobby, I can certainly see their complaint with how the 2nd amendment was systematically twisted, intentionally misinterpreted, demonized, and finally ignored -- all over a long period of time. Perhaps its a bit paranoid, but given what we've seen different governments can do, is it that far of a stretch to see how some of these pro-gun folks believe it all to be a coordinated effort to chip away at personal liberties?
I can, furthermore, see strong parallels between that debate and this current debate. Just because you personally think the right to keep & bear arms is an unimportant one and the freedom from unreasonable search & seizure isn't doesn't mean that you're right.
Since someone else has previously said something similar, I'm going to respond with almost the same answer I gave before.
You don't need to posit an attack on G.W.B. by that statement -- it can be interpreted to mean that this issue will be very important in political arena over the next few years, and not just today. That was, in fact, how I understood it on reading it initially.
For example, considering that G.W.B. is well into his first term of office, isn't this topic something likely to be of import in the next (not-that-far-away) U.S. presidential election? And therefore, in a short time, someone who is not currently elected will be president (even if it is the same person who won the previous election).
Furthermore, considering that the law of the land says that a man can only be president for two terms...Isn't it reasonable to suppose that our next president (i.e.: whoever succeeds G.W.B. -- Democrat, Republican, or otherwise...be it the next election or the one after) is someone currently in politics, and is involved and watching this situation develop?
I'm assuming that nobody here believes that Bush will suspend the "terms-of-office" law and install himself as imperator or somesuch, but I am saying that there are reasonable -- and non-inflammatory -- ways of interpreting that line, even if you're a fan of G.W.B. (which the author may not be).
Giving everyone here the benefit of the doubt, isn't it possible that you're overlooking a simple, reasonable and (ultimately) non-inflammatory explanation?
For example, considering that G.W.B. is well into his first term of office, isn't this topic something likely to be of import in the next (not-that-far-away) U.S. presidential election? And therefore, in a short time, someone who is not currently elected will be president (even if it is the same person who won the previous election).
Furthermore, considering that the law of the land says that a man can only be president for two terms...Isn't it reasonable to suppose that our next president (i.e.: whoever succeeds G.W.B. -- Democrat, Republican, or otherwise, be it the next election or the one after) is someone currently in politics, and is involved and watching this situation develop?
I'm assuming that nobody here believes that Bush will suspend the "terms-of-office" law and install himself as imperator or somesuch, but I'm saying that there are reasonable -- and non-biased -- ways of interpreting that line, even if you're a fan of G.W.B. (which the author may not be).