For someone talking about history, you don't know too much of it. It took reverse engineering to make the first "IBM compatible" computers. It was only later that IBM became more open.
What a poor rebuttal. The GP is talking about software development, which was completely open. You change the topic to producing hardware clones, the GP's argument stands.
...If the latter then his entire "vote for me I have better judgment" pitch evaporates... it was monumental bad judgment not to distance himself from this reverend long ago, not when the issue blows up in the media."
Puh-leeze... failing to dissociate yourself from a logtime friend who occasionally says dumb stuff does not even remotely compare to supporting the Iraq war.
It is not the magnitude of the outcomes that matter here, it is the fact that there is a viable counterexample to demonstrate Obama's judgment is not as good as he claims. If you can't get the easy thing right, dumping a liability before beginning a no holds barred political campaign, how can you be trusted with the complicated things? People can now reasonably argue that his Iraq position was merely a guess that turned out correct, not the result of good judgment. Again, the embarrassment over the reverend is not the issue, it is evaporation of Obama's good judgment argument. Without this argument his differentiation from Clinton is merely better speeches, not judgment, not policy.
the Apple II actually shipped earlier in June compared to the PET's October
Cute rewriting, but check your facts, both units were at the West Coast Computer Faire in June, but which one actually shipped to retail first, or even pre-ordered customers? Apple was backordered for months, I should know, my parents gave up on their order. How selling a tiny handful becomes "widely accepted" is a gross exaggeration that only keeps going on the backs of fans who never saw these machines firsthand.
You research is poor. That October citation of PET sales includes Commodores selling 100 units and then being back ordered and unavailable, as you claim for Apple.
"Commodore introduced the Vic-20 in 1980 but it was relatively underpowered."
Relative, sure. But it sold a million units within the first year, something Apple didn't do for the first 6 years.
The Vic-20 was considered a toy, more like a game console. You might as well be comparing GameCubes to Dells.
That was answered in my original post: "The first personal computer widely accepted by individuals and small businesses was the Apple II."
That statement is just rhetoric though, because it's not consistent with the facts.
Only because you seem bent on distorting the above, please note the "and small businesses" you conveniently ignore. That was a big part of its success, the Apple II and VisiCalc made a lot of people rethink things, especially at IBM.
The Apple II sold only moderately until the IIe, which wasn't until 1983. Between the three computers launched in 1977, the TRS-80 sold in significantly larger numbers than the Apple II, was less than half the cost and was actually sold in retail stores across North America. By the time the Apple II was in stores, the Vic 20 had been the first computer to sell a million units.
So it was neither the first to sell, nor the first to sell well. How is that the first to be widely accepted exactly?
I had a Vic-20, it was grossly inferior technically. It was considered a toy by most, more like a game console today than a computer. No presence in business. The Commodore 64 was the real competitor to Apple, and again it had near zero presence in business and was viewed mostly like a game console. Commodore inspired no one at IBM to rethink things.
Again, your attempt to discredit me as an Apple zealot fails. I developed for Apple II, Commodore 64, Atari 800, and IBM PC back in the day. OK, the Atari stuff was minimal. I was in the middle of the Apple and Commodore development worlds, visited and talked with numerous owners of mom and pop computer stores about sales and customers (we sold our own products), visited numerous user groups of both camps, etc. In recent times I have criticized Apple over legitimate faults and shortcoming and been on the receiving side of the zealots, gold plating with features most customers don't care about (SCSI for example), Mac OS 7-9 being woefully behind Windows NT (multitasking, protection), etc. The truth is Apple had the impact, not Commodore.
It's all political theatre.
Nobody is actually afraid of Rev. Wright. He's not a threat to society, or to anybody individually. And nobody actually believes Barack Obama agrees with any of this after he's said he does not, and has never shown in any of his writings or speeches that he agrees.
It is naive to think it is simply a cheap shot. During the primary the choice between Obama and Clinton was easy, Obama. This nutcase reverend thing is a real issue though, and it is not because anyone seriously believes Obama shares the reverend's opinions. The really issue is that Obama is either lying or easily fooled. If the former then he's really nothing new and different, same old style politician but better at speeches. If the latter then his entire "vote for me I have better judgment" pitch evaporates. This nutcase reverend has been saying things for years, this stuff is on the DVDs the church is selling, and Obama had no clue this was going on? Come on, he had to know (occam's razor, uninvited the reverend from campaign launch), and it was monumental bad judgment not to distance himself from this reverend long ago, not when the issue blows up in the media.
Someone thought they could avoid the issues of the economy, foreign affairs, the future of America in this world, etc... and undermine Obama with this cheapshot.
You are mistaken, foreign affairs and other issues are heavily intertwined with his "better judgment" pitch. Discredit his judgment and a lot of Democrats suddenly feel Clinton is better positioned to take on McCain.
You are naive, or politically motivated, to attempt to frame abuse as Republican specific. One of the first things that Bill and Hillary did upon their arrival at the White House was to illegally request the FBI files of Republican opponents and staffers.
The Apple II was not perfection or a wonderous machine by any stretch, any of us that used one can tell you that. What was so greatly unique about it that the PET or TRS-80 or homebuilt machine didn't have? Was it the delightfully quaint monochrome screen, or the problematic floppy drives? Perhaps it was the quirky BASIC? I know, I know, it's because they kept churning them out well into the 90's.
Somewhere within the cute stories of the little company started in a garage, you got brainwashed into thinking that being moderately successful made Apple into a god.
Now you have gone off the deep end. The Apple II and Commodore PET were both released in 1977, the Apple II actually shipped earlier in June compared to the PET's October. The PET had a built in monochrome monitor and cassette tape. The Apple II allowed you to connect a monochrome or color monitor. It also offered easy expansion and a floppy controller and drives became available in 1978. Commodore introduced the Vic-20 in 1980 but it was relatively underpowered. Commodore did not introduce a viable competitor until 1982 with the Commodore 64. While the C64 definitely won on price and graphics, it was somewhat stigmatized as a toy/game system. Small business stayed with the Apple II until IBM released the Personal Computer. I developed for the Apple II, Commodore 64, and IBM PC back in the day.
What Apple did was no different than a host of other hobby computer companie...
That was answered in my original post: "The first personal computer widely accepted by individuals and small businesses was the Apple II."
... the Apple II just happened to catch on better than others.
No, it was designed, priced, and marketed in a way to make it more attractive to individuals and small businesses. Also, and more importantly, Apple successfully fostered a large third party development community.
But this illustrates the frustrations many of us have with Apple fans, because rewriting history = zealotry.
I'm sorry, if there is anyone displaying zealotry here it is you. Apple brought personal computers to the masses, the hobbyists and hackers did not, the Commodore PET did not, etc. The hobbyists and hackers pretty much built computers for their own community not the public at large, that is an important distinction. I say this as someone who in the day developed for the Apple II, Commodore 64, and IBM PC. I am not religious about systems, I develop and use Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux, but the facts are the facts. Apple made the critical breakthrough with the public at large and small business.
Actually, it was IBM who invented the PC, and Xerox who invented the GUI. But don't let facts get in the way, carry on worshiping Apple.
No, the first personal computer widely accepted by individuals and small businesses was the Apple II. The Apple II predated the IBM PC by many years. Perhaps you are confusing the descriptive phrase "personal computer" with the IBM brand name "Personal Computer".
Really? Exactly who had oversight over the FBI agents and the [Republican] Justice Department agents who data mined [Democrat] Eliot Spitzer's bank deposits? Or [Democratic] Governor Don Siegelman?
You are naive to believe that politics is involved. There is no shortage of republicans that have been burned by law enforcement including the feds. Hell, Spitzer himself authorized/requested plenty of investigations including those involving prostitution, that is part of the press frenzy of this case. Also, analysis of banking activity has been going on since the 1970s, maybe even the 1960s. Banks, auto dealers, etc have been required to report sufficiently large cash transactions for many decades. Your tinfoil had may be a little too tight, try loosening it up one rivet hole.:-)
Data mining isn't persecution. It can easily be a tool of persecution.... And America's leaders are handing out the tools of persecution like candy at Halloween.
Bull, we hand over far more data than the government is collecting. Google search, google mail, grocery store discount cards, credit/check cards, myspace, etc. Hell, Google probably has a more comprehensive file on you than homeland security.
"Wrong. Torture generates a lot of bad leads, interrogators are told what they want to hear."
If a court determines who is a criminal and who is not, then by default a confession of a crime makes the person a criminal regardless of if its true.
That is a red herring, coerced confessions are not admissible in court.
But isn't there a bias towards the investigators that these persons are indeed criminals?...
Not "indeed", *possibly*, that's what a suspect inherently is. Data mining is automation of what used to be done by observation and by hand. Investigators are used to dealing with the coincidences of life, you know the victim, or you were in the area, or your car matches a description, etc.
... If an investigator believes this person is the most likley candidate according to their dataset, regardless of it really was that person who committed the crime, would they not naturally treat the person as the criminal until they find some other information that said otherwise.
They would treat the person as a suspect, as they would the boyfriend of a girl who is found murdered. The "boyfriend" relationship is a piece of data that by itself justifies nothing beyond an interview. Same for the pizza deliveries.
"You may rightfully question the legality of acquisition methods and raise privacy concerns, but mocking the technique only demonstrates an ignorance of the topic."
Torture is also great way to find criminals.
Wrong. Torture generates a lot of bad leads, interrogators are told what they want to hear.
The point being is that using these techniques used in a certain way can make criminals out of otherwise innocent people through circumstance or confessions.
Wrong, data mining generates connections, possible suspects. No criminality is determined by data mining. It is statistically generating a list of people to check out. It is not that different from using statistics when one finds the body of a young woman, go talk to the husband or boyfriend first.
Under previous regimes and in precedent times such organizations where named "Stasi" and "KGB".
Oh, Amerika, you are becoming what you fought so hard against...
Not really, the FBI is subject to the oversight of a freely and fairly elected congress. That's incredibly different than the precedents you offer. Collecting and analyzing data is something that law enforcement has legitimately done for centuries, data mining is just automation.
FBI personnel will work hard to ensure that nobody who orders pizza at 11:43PM, while purchasing a copy of "Diary of Anne Frank" online
The point of data mining is that some connections are not obvious at all, pizza and books are legitimate pieces of data from a scientific/statistical point of view.
We know that the enemy favors couriers, a routine delivery person like a pizza delivery boy makes a good courier. Especially since it is an easily acquired job.
Common books have been used for ciphers for centuries.
The FBI has successfully mapped out organized crime networks through data mining of the most inconsequential and trivial looking information. It is likely that this technique will be successful against other groups as well. You may rightfully question the legality of acquisition methods and raise privacy concerns, but mocking the technique only demonstrates an ignorance of the topic.
The whole concept of paying for software for your education seems to be a bit iffy - what are you paying your course fees for then?
This was 3rd party software targeting individual users, an academic version of a commercial program. It was a companion to a textbook. This was not something site licensed to the university.
No it doesn't, people are just more honest them you believe.
I would be interested in this magic 'copy protection' scheme. I suspect there are other factors involved, since it doesn't seemed to have worked on anything large scale.
Probably adding a coupon had a lot to do with that.
The coupon was there from day 1 with the unprotected discs. The only thing that changed was that unprotected discs became weakly protected discs. There was no magic about the copy protection, it was a standard off-the-shelf low cost product. Something that had cracks in wild.
Copy protection works for software. The error that most people seem to be making is thinking that if it doesn't stop everyone it failed. That is not true. Reznor's argument is only partially correct, only higher level pirates can not be converted. Lower level pirates can be, and they are more numerous. This also means that the most intrusive and questionable anti-piracy methods do not need to be used.
On numerous gaming forums over the years I have witnessed a recurring story. Kiddies saying: I burned a copy of my friend's disc and it didn't work so I went out and bought my own. Copy protection worked.
On a larger scale I am familiar with selling academic software in a university bookstore. I've seen required software sell 1/15th of what the required textbooks sold, software that was initially released without copy protection. The developer then added some copy protection, simple and easily defeated copy protection, a package that is known and had pre-existing cracks. It worked, the next quarter's sales of the required software was nearly in line with required textbooks. Copy protection worked. I'd like to add that this was in a university environment, no shortage of people with the technical knowledge to crack the discs for someone else. Also, these were pretty inexpensive software packages, the textbooks came with coupons reducing the price to about $30.
Most pirates will pirate software if it is trivially easy to do so, regardless of a low price. If you erect some sort of barrier a large number of these will buy.
Trying to stop all piracy is futile. But not using simple non-intrusives copy protection does cost sales. There is an optimal point balancing protection and incompatibility, and it is not zero protection.
Well, we know you don't work in software. A software developer would have said "Hello world"
Well, we know you don't use email. An email user would not expect the first communication to be "Hello there" or "Hello world", an email user would expect:
Lagos, Nigeria, Earth.
Attention: The President/CEO
Dear Sir,
CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL
Having consulted with my colleagues and based on the information gathered from the nigerian chambers of commerce and industry, I have the privilege to request for your assistance to transfer the sum of...
I don't know how old you are. My daughter is 26 and I noticed that she and her friends value friendships more than careers. Much more than my generation did. They also value the quality of life more. Meaning, life doesn't revolve around career or the job. Yes, they'll spend time and $$$ training and learning, but it's not the end all like my generation. I busted my ass in my career and so did my friends. My career is meaningless now and all of my "friends" have moved on.
My sixty-something year old business school professor who teaches strategy and entrepreneurship, who started five companies over his career and took three of them to publicly traded, told us this as we neared the completion of our MBA program: Business is a game like football and baseball, it is not a life. Life revolves around your family and friends. If you are constantly working late and weekends, then you are probably doing something wrong and need to figure out what that is. A better plan can save your business, more hours probably will not.
Give me training, don't let the value of my skills decline. Give me a mentor, don't just sit me at a cube and expect to learn EVERYTHING myself.
You know, you sound low in potential. I'm reminded of a former coworker, fortunately on a different project. who was hoping to transfer to a new project that would be using a programming language he wanted to learn. I said don't you think you'd have a better chance at getting on that team if you got book and a compiler and learned that language at home before applying. That language is the future and can be used wherever you go. He looked at me as if I were on crack and literally said "If the company wants me to learn a new language they can pay me to do so". The company was happy to have him continue to maintain the old stuff, he was the one who wanted to advance from maintenance to development If you are a professional you have to take some responsibility for your own skills, and if you have any common sense you have to learn transferable skills even if it is on your own time.
Same topic, different perspective. When I was getting a computer science degree there were obviously two camps among my classmates. Those who had an inherent interest in the subject and would program things on their own time for their own curiosity and amusement, and those who were in the program because someone told them it was a good career path and they did nothing beyond homework assignments. You sound like you are in the latter camp. If you are ambitious, bright, and talented why can you not learn sitting in your cube, you are being paid, why do you have to be spoon fed? Yes, you wrote "everything" but the tone of your post sounds as if you expect to be fed most things not only a few things.
Give respect, receive respect. It's a two-way street.
I agree that it is a two way street, but respect is earned not given. When you walk through my door your will receive courtesy but not respect, and you will be treated fairly. Once you have proven yourself to me in my domain you will have earned my respect. I've seen too many who looked good on paper, had good references, talk a good game during an interview but also have overinflated opinions of their own abilities and turned out to be duds. In turn I expect to have to prove myself to you as well. IMHO you are not a real leader unless your people would follow you even though you have no rank nor authority.
"You can not dismiss the anti-communist feelings of the 1950s and 60s. You are also misinformed regarding the domino theory, Eisenhower referred to it in 1954."
US troops were on the ground in 1950. Again, your timing seems to support my statements, not detract from them.
No, you are misrepresenting your earlier statements. Your wrote: "The Domino Theory came after our involvement. I would have to guess that it was a fabricated theory to garner public support for us helping the French and getting in way over our heads." Clearly getting in over our heads indicates the mid to late 1960s. By the *end* of the 1950s we only had a handful of instructors/advisors, well below 1,000. Sorry, you spin is not flying.
"He had WMD,"
He had no WMDs. He had them long ago, used them, and was unable to keep them operational...
The early part of your statement repeats what I said: "Your question is naively worded. It is not did he have them, there is no dispute that he had them - he even used them on the Kurds. The question is did he get rid of them." And the later part repeats my speculation: "Some pits with chemical weapons buried after the first gulf war were found. Was this Saddam's cheap and easy disposal or a cache to recover once the UN leaves for good? Even if it was originally a temporary cache the UN probably stayed far longer than expected and the material degraded and the cache may have inadvertently turned into a disposal pit.".
... He did not have a single functioning WMD in the country when we invaded. There is no "evidence of WMDs" or "lack of compliance" that negates the simple fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq when we invaded.
Again, you use 20/20 hindsight. The people making the decision at the time had no such information. As you yourself admit, Saddam was giving people the impression he had them. The UN was fooled and hindered in the past and it seemed to be continuing, and if you want to play the 20/20 hindsight game we can now say the administration was correct in downplaying UN info given that they were profiting from the current situation in Iraq and had a vested interest in maintaining his rule. Sorry, your spin fails again. If 20/20 hindsight can be used for one side then it can be used for the other side as well.
It was plainly stated that Saddam had "links" to the 9/11 terrorists. Of course, his "links" were that they asked to train in Iraq and he kicked them out, but never mind that. The Bush White House announced "links" between Saddam and the terrorists, knowing full well what those "links" were. He communicated with them, that's enough for a "link" in the eyes of the administration.
Yet again, you misrepresent my statement: "No one said he was behind the 9/11 plot". The terrorists who may have asked to train in Iraq were *not* informing Saddam of their plans. However after 9/11 Saddam celebrated the attack and gave support in the form of denying the US information on the attackers. While he did not support these terrorists to the degree that the Taliban did, he did side with them through his (in)actions. Clearly this raises the risks associated with his potential acquisition of WMD.
Great, so if there's a 50-50 chance of someone needing to be invaded, we should invade anyway just to be on the safe side? My stance isn't who did or didn't guess right. My stance is that if you have that much uncertainty (and there was plenty, despite the White House press releases), you should err on the side of not killing piles of people.
That logic does not apply when the country in question sides with the 9/11 terrorists after the fact. The administration phrased things rather poorly, but the concept that a failure to help us track down and apprehend those involved in the attack makes you their accomplice does make sense. Given this fact and the fact that Saddam had used WMD on civilians in the past the calculation you offer no longer ap
The Domino Theory came after our involvement. I would have to guess that it was a fabricated theory to garner public support for us helping the French and getting in way over our heads. We didn't go in with any global implications, we went in because the French needed some help with problems in a territory (and they were there for cheap rice).
While supporting France was a minor factor there was some reluctance. The real motivation for our involvement was anti-communist in nature. You can not dismiss the anti-communist feelings of the 1950s and 60s. You are also misinformed regarding the domino theory, Eisenhower referred to it in 1954.
That wouldn't be cheap oil, that would be expensive oil.
Uh, you may need to re-read my post, I wrote "The gulf wars were not about cheap oil... these wars were about access to oil"
It would be more plentiful and have more secure access, which you claim are the reasons, but the cost to do so would be more than what we are spending there now, and it would garner more ill will from those that think we are there for exploitive reasons.
As I said depriving a modern industrialized nation of oil will destroy it. With options of ill will or economic collapse which do you think a government will choose? This is why I think the alternative energy advocates are mistaken in focusing mainly on the environment, they should also be pitching alternative energy as an economic and national security necessity.
If Saddam was such a bad guy, why didn't we remove him the first Gulf War?
Because our generals were saying the price of taking Bagdad would be 5,000 casualties. Forming an allied force that included arab military elements required a pledge not to remove Saddam. However the most important reason was the fact that *no one* thought Saddam would survive such a humiliating defeat. Why lose 5,000 troops when some general will probably stage a coup and put a bullet in his head.
If he was involved in 9/11...
That claim is political spin. No one said he was behind the 9/11 plot. He was however an open supporter of terrorists. Funding of suicide bombings in Israel, providing sanctuary to terrorists who killed US citizens during hijackings, operating terrorist training camps, etc. The administration rightfully identified him as a supporter of terrorism. Al quaeda is only one faction of terrorism. The administration should have made this distinction more clearly, however the administration's opponents are probably engaging in the greater political opportunism with respect to equating terrorism references with al quaeda references.
If he had functional WMDs, why have none been found?
Your question is naively worded. It is not did he have them, there is no dispute that he had them - he even used them on the Kurds. The question is did he get rid of them. If he destroyed them, *all* he had to do was invite the UN to observe. Unfortunately he choose to deceive and hinder the UN inspectors. Early rounds of inspection were successfully fooled, the UN's failure was not discovered until the son-in-law in charge of the weapons programs defected. It was not unreasonable to fear the later rounds of UN inspections were also being fooled, they were still being hindered. The truth is that Saddam wanted the world to keep guessing. He mistakenly believed that the mere possibility of his possession of such weapons would intimidate his enemies and protect him.
Where did the WMD go? Well some pits with chemical weapons buried after the first gulf war were found. Was this Saddam's cheap and easy disposal or a cache to recover once the UN leaves for good? Even if it was originally a temporary cache the UN probably stayed far longer than expected and the material degraded and the cache may have inadvertently turned into a disposal pit. The truth is the UN was denied unfettered access so the WMD issue was never resolved. US
Slashdot Mirror
For someone talking about history, you don't know too much of it. It took reverse engineering to make the first "IBM compatible" computers. It was only later that IBM became more open.
What a poor rebuttal. The GP is talking about software development, which was completely open. You change the topic to producing hardware clones, the GP's argument stands.
...If the latter then his entire "vote for me I have better judgment" pitch evaporates... it was monumental bad judgment not to distance himself from this reverend long ago, not when the issue blows up in the media."
Puh-leeze... failing to dissociate yourself from a logtime friend who occasionally says dumb stuff does not even remotely compare to supporting the Iraq war.
It is not the magnitude of the outcomes that matter here, it is the fact that there is a viable counterexample to demonstrate Obama's judgment is not as good as he claims. If you can't get the easy thing right, dumping a liability before beginning a no holds barred political campaign, how can you be trusted with the complicated things? People can now reasonably argue that his Iraq position was merely a guess that turned out correct, not the result of good judgment. Again, the embarrassment over the reverend is not the issue, it is evaporation of Obama's good judgment argument. Without this argument his differentiation from Clinton is merely better speeches, not judgment, not policy.
the Apple II actually shipped earlier in June compared to the PET's October
Cute rewriting, but check your facts, both units were at the West Coast Computer Faire in June, but which one actually shipped to retail first, or even pre-ordered customers? Apple was backordered for months, I should know, my parents gave up on their order. How selling a tiny handful becomes "widely accepted" is a gross exaggeration that only keeps going on the backs of fans who never saw these machines firsthand.
You research is poor. That October citation of PET sales includes Commodores selling 100 units and then being back ordered and unavailable, as you claim for Apple.
"Commodore introduced the Vic-20 in 1980 but it was relatively underpowered."
Relative, sure. But it sold a million units within the first year, something Apple didn't do for the first 6 years.
The Vic-20 was considered a toy, more like a game console. You might as well be comparing GameCubes to Dells.
That was answered in my original post: "The first personal computer widely accepted by individuals and small businesses was the Apple II."
That statement is just rhetoric though, because it's not consistent with the facts.
Only because you seem bent on distorting the above, please note the "and small businesses" you conveniently ignore. That was a big part of its success, the Apple II and VisiCalc made a lot of people rethink things, especially at IBM.
The Apple II sold only moderately until the IIe, which wasn't until 1983. Between the three computers launched in 1977, the TRS-80 sold in significantly larger numbers than the Apple II, was less than half the cost and was actually sold in retail stores across North America. By the time the Apple II was in stores, the Vic 20 had been the first computer to sell a million units. So it was neither the first to sell, nor the first to sell well. How is that the first to be widely accepted exactly?
I had a Vic-20, it was grossly inferior technically. It was considered a toy by most, more like a game console today than a computer. No presence in business. The Commodore 64 was the real competitor to Apple, and again it had near zero presence in business and was viewed mostly like a game console. Commodore inspired no one at IBM to rethink things.
Again, your attempt to discredit me as an Apple zealot fails. I developed for Apple II, Commodore 64, Atari 800, and IBM PC back in the day. OK, the Atari stuff was minimal. I was in the middle of the Apple and Commodore development worlds, visited and talked with numerous owners of mom and pop computer stores about sales and customers (we sold our own products), visited numerous user groups of both camps, etc. In recent times I have criticized Apple over legitimate faults and shortcoming and been on the receiving side of the zealots, gold plating with features most customers don't care about (SCSI for example), Mac OS 7-9 being woefully behind Windows NT (multitasking, protection), etc. The truth is Apple had the impact, not Commodore.
It's all political theatre. Nobody is actually afraid of Rev. Wright. He's not a threat to society, or to anybody individually. And nobody actually believes Barack Obama agrees with any of this after he's said he does not, and has never shown in any of his writings or speeches that he agrees.
It is naive to think it is simply a cheap shot. During the primary the choice between Obama and Clinton was easy, Obama. This nutcase reverend thing is a real issue though, and it is not because anyone seriously believes Obama shares the reverend's opinions. The really issue is that Obama is either lying or easily fooled. If the former then he's really nothing new and different, same old style politician but better at speeches. If the latter then his entire "vote for me I have better judgment" pitch evaporates. This nutcase reverend has been saying things for years, this stuff is on the DVDs the church is selling, and Obama had no clue this was going on? Come on, he had to know (occam's razor, uninvited the reverend from campaign launch), and it was monumental bad judgment not to distance himself from this reverend long ago, not when the issue blows up in the media.
Someone thought they could avoid the issues of the economy, foreign affairs, the future of America in this world, etc... and undermine Obama with this cheapshot.
You are mistaken, foreign affairs and other issues are heavily intertwined with his "better judgment" pitch. Discredit his judgment and a lot of Democrats suddenly feel Clinton is better positioned to take on McCain.
You are naive, or politically motivated, to attempt to frame abuse as Republican specific. One of the first things that Bill and Hillary did upon their arrival at the White House was to illegally request the FBI files of Republican opponents and staffers.
The Apple II was not perfection or a wonderous machine by any stretch, any of us that used one can tell you that. What was so greatly unique about it that the PET or TRS-80 or homebuilt machine didn't have? Was it the delightfully quaint monochrome screen, or the problematic floppy drives? Perhaps it was the quirky BASIC? I know, I know, it's because they kept churning them out well into the 90's. Somewhere within the cute stories of the little company started in a garage, you got brainwashed into thinking that being moderately successful made Apple into a god.
Now you have gone off the deep end. The Apple II and Commodore PET were both released in 1977, the Apple II actually shipped earlier in June compared to the PET's October. The PET had a built in monochrome monitor and cassette tape. The Apple II allowed you to connect a monochrome or color monitor. It also offered easy expansion and a floppy controller and drives became available in 1978. Commodore introduced the Vic-20 in 1980 but it was relatively underpowered. Commodore did not introduce a viable competitor until 1982 with the Commodore 64. While the C64 definitely won on price and graphics, it was somewhat stigmatized as a toy/game system. Small business stayed with the Apple II until IBM released the Personal Computer. I developed for the Apple II, Commodore 64, and IBM PC back in the day.
What Apple did was no different than a host of other hobby computer companie ...
... the Apple II just happened to catch on better than others.
That was answered in my original post: "The first personal computer widely accepted by individuals and small businesses was the Apple II."
No, it was designed, priced, and marketed in a way to make it more attractive to individuals and small businesses. Also, and more importantly, Apple successfully fostered a large third party development community.
But this illustrates the frustrations many of us have with Apple fans, because rewriting history = zealotry.
I'm sorry, if there is anyone displaying zealotry here it is you. Apple brought personal computers to the masses, the hobbyists and hackers did not, the Commodore PET did not, etc. The hobbyists and hackers pretty much built computers for their own community not the public at large, that is an important distinction. I say this as someone who in the day developed for the Apple II, Commodore 64, and IBM PC. I am not religious about systems, I develop and use Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux, but the facts are the facts. Apple made the critical breakthrough with the public at large and small business.
Actually, it was IBM who invented the PC, and Xerox who invented the GUI. But don't let facts get in the way, carry on worshiping Apple.
No, the first personal computer widely accepted by individuals and small businesses was the Apple II. The Apple II predated the IBM PC by many years. Perhaps you are confusing the descriptive phrase "personal computer" with the IBM brand name "Personal Computer".
Anybody who wants to experience this first hand.. just flame apple on slashdot :) and see your post mod down to hell
;-)
Been there, done that. Points drops almost as fast as when you suggest Linux may not represent perfection.
Really? Exactly who had oversight over the FBI agents and the [Republican] Justice Department agents who data mined [Democrat] Eliot Spitzer's bank deposits? Or [Democratic] Governor Don Siegelman?
:-)
You are naive to believe that politics is involved. There is no shortage of republicans that have been burned by law enforcement including the feds. Hell, Spitzer himself authorized/requested plenty of investigations including those involving prostitution, that is part of the press frenzy of this case. Also, analysis of banking activity has been going on since the 1970s, maybe even the 1960s. Banks, auto dealers, etc have been required to report sufficiently large cash transactions for many decades. Your tinfoil had may be a little too tight, try loosening it up one rivet hole.
Data mining isn't persecution. It can easily be a tool of persecution. ... And America's leaders are handing out the tools of persecution like candy at Halloween.
Bull, we hand over far more data than the government is collecting. Google search, google mail, grocery store discount cards, credit/check cards, myspace, etc. Hell, Google probably has a more comprehensive file on you than homeland security.
"Wrong. Torture generates a lot of bad leads, interrogators are told what they want to hear."
...
... If an investigator believes this person is the most likley candidate according to their dataset, regardless of it really was that person who committed the crime, would they not naturally treat the person as the criminal until they find some other information that said otherwise.
If a court determines who is a criminal and who is not, then by default a confession of a crime makes the person a criminal regardless of if its true.
That is a red herring, coerced confessions are not admissible in court.
But isn't there a bias towards the investigators that these persons are indeed criminals?
Not "indeed", *possibly*, that's what a suspect inherently is. Data mining is automation of what used to be done by observation and by hand. Investigators are used to dealing with the coincidences of life, you know the victim, or you were in the area, or your car matches a description, etc.
They would treat the person as a suspect, as they would the boyfriend of a girl who is found murdered. The "boyfriend" relationship is a piece of data that by itself justifies nothing beyond an interview. Same for the pizza deliveries.
"You may rightfully question the legality of acquisition methods and raise privacy concerns, but mocking the technique only demonstrates an ignorance of the topic."
Torture is also great way to find criminals.
Wrong. Torture generates a lot of bad leads, interrogators are told what they want to hear.
The point being is that using these techniques used in a certain way can make criminals out of otherwise innocent people through circumstance or confessions.
Wrong, data mining generates connections, possible suspects. No criminality is determined by data mining. It is statistically generating a list of people to check out. It is not that different from using statistics when one finds the body of a young woman, go talk to the husband or boyfriend first.
Under previous regimes and in precedent times such organizations where named "Stasi" and "KGB". Oh, Amerika, you are becoming what you fought so hard against...
Not really, the FBI is subject to the oversight of a freely and fairly elected congress. That's incredibly different than the precedents you offer. Collecting and analyzing data is something that law enforcement has legitimately done for centuries, data mining is just automation.
FBI personnel will work hard to ensure that nobody who orders pizza at 11:43PM, while purchasing a copy of "Diary of Anne Frank" online
The point of data mining is that some connections are not obvious at all, pizza and books are legitimate pieces of data from a scientific/statistical point of view.
We know that the enemy favors couriers, a routine delivery person like a pizza delivery boy makes a good courier. Especially since it is an easily acquired job.
Common books have been used for ciphers for centuries.
The FBI has successfully mapped out organized crime networks through data mining of the most inconsequential and trivial looking information. It is likely that this technique will be successful against other groups as well. You may rightfully question the legality of acquisition methods and raise privacy concerns, but mocking the technique only demonstrates an ignorance of the topic.
The whole concept of paying for software for your education seems to be a bit iffy - what are you paying your course fees for then?
This was 3rd party software targeting individual users, an academic version of a commercial program. It was a companion to a textbook. This was not something site licensed to the university.
No it doesn't, people are just more honest them you believe. I would be interested in this magic 'copy protection' scheme. I suspect there are other factors involved, since it doesn't seemed to have worked on anything large scale. Probably adding a coupon had a lot to do with that.
The coupon was there from day 1 with the unprotected discs. The only thing that changed was that unprotected discs became weakly protected discs. There was no magic about the copy protection, it was a standard off-the-shelf low cost product. Something that had cracks in wild.
Copy protection works for software. The error that most people seem to be making is thinking that if it doesn't stop everyone it failed. That is not true. Reznor's argument is only partially correct, only higher level pirates can not be converted. Lower level pirates can be, and they are more numerous. This also means that the most intrusive and questionable anti-piracy methods do not need to be used.
On numerous gaming forums over the years I have witnessed a recurring story. Kiddies saying: I burned a copy of my friend's disc and it didn't work so I went out and bought my own. Copy protection worked.
On a larger scale I am familiar with selling academic software in a university bookstore. I've seen required software sell 1/15th of what the required textbooks sold, software that was initially released without copy protection. The developer then added some copy protection, simple and easily defeated copy protection, a package that is known and had pre-existing cracks. It worked, the next quarter's sales of the required software was nearly in line with required textbooks. Copy protection worked. I'd like to add that this was in a university environment, no shortage of people with the technical knowledge to crack the discs for someone else. Also, these were pretty inexpensive software packages, the textbooks came with coupons reducing the price to about $30.
Most pirates will pirate software if it is trivially easy to do so, regardless of a low price. If you erect some sort of barrier a large number of these will buy.
Trying to stop all piracy is futile. But not using simple non-intrusives copy protection does cost sales. There is an optimal point balancing protection and incompatibility, and it is not zero protection.
Well, we know you don't work in software. A software developer would have said "Hello world"
...
Well, we know you don't use email. An email user would not expect the first communication to be "Hello there" or "Hello world", an email user would expect:
Lagos, Nigeria, Earth.
Attention: The President/CEO
Dear Sir,
CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL
Having consulted with my colleagues and based on the information gathered from the nigerian chambers of commerce and industry, I have the privilege to request for your assistance to transfer the sum of
I don't know how old you are. My daughter is 26 and I noticed that she and her friends value friendships more than careers. Much more than my generation did. They also value the quality of life more. Meaning, life doesn't revolve around career or the job. Yes, they'll spend time and $$$ training and learning, but it's not the end all like my generation. I busted my ass in my career and so did my friends. My career is meaningless now and all of my "friends" have moved on.
My sixty-something year old business school professor who teaches strategy and entrepreneurship, who started five companies over his career and took three of them to publicly traded, told us this as we neared the completion of our MBA program: Business is a game like football and baseball, it is not a life. Life revolves around your family and friends. If you are constantly working late and weekends, then you are probably doing something wrong and need to figure out what that is. A better plan can save your business, more hours probably will not.
Give me training, don't let the value of my skills decline. Give me a mentor, don't just sit me at a cube and expect to learn EVERYTHING myself.
You know, you sound low in potential. I'm reminded of a former coworker, fortunately on a different project. who was hoping to transfer to a new project that would be using a programming language he wanted to learn. I said don't you think you'd have a better chance at getting on that team if you got book and a compiler and learned that language at home before applying. That language is the future and can be used wherever you go. He looked at me as if I were on crack and literally said "If the company wants me to learn a new language they can pay me to do so". The company was happy to have him continue to maintain the old stuff, he was the one who wanted to advance from maintenance to development If you are a professional you have to take some responsibility for your own skills, and if you have any common sense you have to learn transferable skills even if it is on your own time.
Same topic, different perspective. When I was getting a computer science degree there were obviously two camps among my classmates. Those who had an inherent interest in the subject and would program things on their own time for their own curiosity and amusement, and those who were in the program because someone told them it was a good career path and they did nothing beyond homework assignments. You sound like you are in the latter camp. If you are ambitious, bright, and talented why can you not learn sitting in your cube, you are being paid, why do you have to be spoon fed? Yes, you wrote "everything" but the tone of your post sounds as if you expect to be fed most things not only a few things.
Give respect, receive respect. It's a two-way street.
I agree that it is a two way street, but respect is earned not given. When you walk through my door your will receive courtesy but not respect, and you will be treated fairly. Once you have proven yourself to me in my domain you will have earned my respect. I've seen too many who looked good on paper, had good references, talk a good game during an interview but also have overinflated opinions of their own abilities and turned out to be duds. In turn I expect to have to prove myself to you as well. IMHO you are not a real leader unless your people would follow you even though you have no rank nor authority.
"You can not dismiss the anti-communist feelings of the 1950s and 60s. You are also misinformed regarding the domino theory, Eisenhower referred to it in 1954."
...
... He did not have a single functioning WMD in the country when we invaded. There is no "evidence of WMDs" or "lack of compliance" that negates the simple fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq when we invaded.
US troops were on the ground in 1950. Again, your timing seems to support my statements, not detract from them.
No, you are misrepresenting your earlier statements. Your wrote: "The Domino Theory came after our involvement. I would have to guess that it was a fabricated theory to garner public support for us helping the French and getting in way over our heads." Clearly getting in over our heads indicates the mid to late 1960s. By the *end* of the 1950s we only had a handful of instructors/advisors, well below 1,000. Sorry, you spin is not flying.
"He had WMD,"
He had no WMDs. He had them long ago, used them, and was unable to keep them operational
The early part of your statement repeats what I said: "Your question is naively worded. It is not did he have them, there is no dispute that he had them - he even used them on the Kurds. The question is did he get rid of them." And the later part repeats my speculation: "Some pits with chemical weapons buried after the first gulf war were found. Was this Saddam's cheap and easy disposal or a cache to recover once the UN leaves for good? Even if it was originally a temporary cache the UN probably stayed far longer than expected and the material degraded and the cache may have inadvertently turned into a disposal pit.".
Again, you use 20/20 hindsight. The people making the decision at the time had no such information. As you yourself admit, Saddam was giving people the impression he had them. The UN was fooled and hindered in the past and it seemed to be continuing, and if you want to play the 20/20 hindsight game we can now say the administration was correct in downplaying UN info given that they were profiting from the current situation in Iraq and had a vested interest in maintaining his rule. Sorry, your spin fails again. If 20/20 hindsight can be used for one side then it can be used for the other side as well.
It was plainly stated that Saddam had "links" to the 9/11 terrorists. Of course, his "links" were that they asked to train in Iraq and he kicked them out, but never mind that. The Bush White House announced "links" between Saddam and the terrorists, knowing full well what those "links" were. He communicated with them, that's enough for a "link" in the eyes of the administration.
Yet again, you misrepresent my statement: "No one said he was behind the 9/11 plot". The terrorists who may have asked to train in Iraq were *not* informing Saddam of their plans. However after 9/11 Saddam celebrated the attack and gave support in the form of denying the US information on the attackers. While he did not support these terrorists to the degree that the Taliban did, he did side with them through his (in)actions. Clearly this raises the risks associated with his potential acquisition of WMD.
Great, so if there's a 50-50 chance of someone needing to be invaded, we should invade anyway just to be on the safe side? My stance isn't who did or didn't guess right. My stance is that if you have that much uncertainty (and there was plenty, despite the White House press releases), you should err on the side of not killing piles of people.
That logic does not apply when the country in question sides with the 9/11 terrorists after the fact. The administration phrased things rather poorly, but the concept that a failure to help us track down and apprehend those involved in the attack makes you their accomplice does make sense. Given this fact and the fact that Saddam had used WMD on civilians in the past the calculation you offer no longer ap
The Domino Theory came after our involvement. I would have to guess that it was a fabricated theory to garner public support for us helping the French and getting in way over our heads. We didn't go in with any global implications, we went in because the French needed some help with problems in a territory (and they were there for cheap rice).
... these wars were about access to oil"
...
While supporting France was a minor factor there was some reluctance. The real motivation for our involvement was anti-communist in nature. You can not dismiss the anti-communist feelings of the 1950s and 60s. You are also misinformed regarding the domino theory, Eisenhower referred to it in 1954.
That wouldn't be cheap oil, that would be expensive oil.
Uh, you may need to re-read my post, I wrote "The gulf wars were not about cheap oil
It would be more plentiful and have more secure access, which you claim are the reasons, but the cost to do so would be more than what we are spending there now, and it would garner more ill will from those that think we are there for exploitive reasons.
As I said depriving a modern industrialized nation of oil will destroy it. With options of ill will or economic collapse which do you think a government will choose? This is why I think the alternative energy advocates are mistaken in focusing mainly on the environment, they should also be pitching alternative energy as an economic and national security necessity.
If Saddam was such a bad guy, why didn't we remove him the first Gulf War?
Because our generals were saying the price of taking Bagdad would be 5,000 casualties. Forming an allied force that included arab military elements required a pledge not to remove Saddam. However the most important reason was the fact that *no one* thought Saddam would survive such a humiliating defeat. Why lose 5,000 troops when some general will probably stage a coup and put a bullet in his head.
If he was involved in 9/11
That claim is political spin. No one said he was behind the 9/11 plot. He was however an open supporter of terrorists. Funding of suicide bombings in Israel, providing sanctuary to terrorists who killed US citizens during hijackings, operating terrorist training camps, etc. The administration rightfully identified him as a supporter of terrorism. Al quaeda is only one faction of terrorism. The administration should have made this distinction more clearly, however the administration's opponents are probably engaging in the greater political opportunism with respect to equating terrorism references with al quaeda references.
If he had functional WMDs, why have none been found?
Your question is naively worded. It is not did he have them, there is no dispute that he had them - he even used them on the Kurds. The question is did he get rid of them. If he destroyed them, *all* he had to do was invite the UN to observe. Unfortunately he choose to deceive and hinder the UN inspectors. Early rounds of inspection were successfully fooled, the UN's failure was not discovered until the son-in-law in charge of the weapons programs defected. It was not unreasonable to fear the later rounds of UN inspections were also being fooled, they were still being hindered. The truth is that Saddam wanted the world to keep guessing. He mistakenly believed that the mere possibility of his possession of such weapons would intimidate his enemies and protect him.
Where did the WMD go? Well some pits with chemical weapons buried after the first gulf war were found. Was this Saddam's cheap and easy disposal or a cache to recover once the UN leaves for good? Even if it was originally a temporary cache the UN probably stayed far longer than expected and the material degraded and the cache may have inadvertently turned into a disposal pit. The truth is the UN was denied unfettered access so the WMD issue was never resolved. US