Just so you know, here is a prediction (based on past actions) of the next upgrades for each of the models:
G4 iBooks: Apr. 2004 + or - a month
eMacs: Apr. 2004 + or - a month
G4 Powerbooks: Between Jan. 2004 and Mar. 2004 (some confusion here due to a constant stream of minor updates this year, best guess of Feb)
iMacs: Nov 2003 or Dec 2003
G5s: January 2004 + or - a month
Please note that these aren't official numbers, they are best guesses based on observation about the macintosh upgrade cycle, these numbers are subject to change.
You're kidding right? Talk to a lawer? He bought the iBook just after it came out, and that would make it sometime back in April. Apple has a standard upgrade pattern of roughly 6 months between updates. At the time, he obviously thought it was worth it, and common sense dictates that computers will get faster.
The only case he would have is if Apple guaranteed him that this would be the fastest iBook ever. And since that's unreasonable, there is no case.
I'd figure on waiting a year or so before you see G5 Powerbooks. For one, the iBooks would need to up their specs to roughly equivelent (or a shade more) than the current G4 powerbook offerings (figure at least 6 months till the next iBook update), and if they don't get there with one update, you'll need to wait till the second update in another 6 months. And the G4 powerbooks will still have to go through two more upgrade cycles (one sometime next feb and then another about six months later).
Finaly, they still need to work on adjusting the heat dissapation. If the ammount of effort and concentration on cooling the G5 towers is any indication, you're going to see a new case design for the powerbooks with the G5s
well, to be prefectly technical, they were in effect because GW I ended in a ceace fire, not a peace treaty. The cease fire was dependant on Iraq's continued cooperation with the UN. Failure ot comply with the UN was a violation of the ceasefire and a restart of hostilities (not to mention taking pot shots at plane patroling the no fly zones isn't exactly an act of peace)
A fuck up that was comitted before too (see Operation Desert Fox) which leads me to believe that despite what some people in the intelligence comunity are saying, for the most part, the intelligence comunity felt this evidence to be reliable.
I wasn't trying to imply you thought clinton was great. What I was trying to say by pointing out his reasoning was that this whole WMD thing didn't come out of nowhere.
It took 10 years, because for 8 of those years, the Armed Forces were commanded by one William Clinton, who the closest he came to taking any stand on Iraq was initiated a bombing campaign (operation Desert Fox) in bagdahd in 1998. And the issue it was over? You guessed it, WMDs
The US went to war for many reasons. Go back and read some of the very early speaches on Iraq. What happened was the media picked up on WMD because it was a buzz word and a new one that hadn't grown stale yet. So the result of all this was whenever the president or someone spoke of the othe reasons, the press did the media equivilent of "Yes yes, but what about the WMDs?"
Umm... The US was never out to conquer Vietnam. Defend, yes, save and protect, yes, did it fail rather miserably at these, yes. That said, they still weren't out to conquer.
Interestingly enough, the setiment of the US population during the time where we declared a neutral stance was very close to the sentiment of now. Namely:
*Stay out of other countries *Isolationism is the policy to follow *Let the rest of the world handle itself *Focus on america's internal problems.
Likewise, unless "the people" are not individuals, the 10th applies as well:
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
You're not suggesting that just because one organization takes up a cause that no other organization should take up that cause too? If that's the case, I guess I'll stop worrying about IP laws because the EFF has that covered.
I would argue that a group who's constituites actualy know how to use a voting ballot properly have a better chance of understnading a fair voting system.
Damn, guess I better go take those MP3s that I made from iTMS files and get rid of them before I tear appart space and time by posessing things which can not exist.
Apple claims to have most of their encodes made from the original masters. Which creates a higher loss of (perceptable) quality? Master -> CD -> MP3 or Master->AAC->MP3
Slashdot Mirror
Just so you know, here is a prediction (based on past actions) of the next upgrades for each of the models:
G4 iBooks: Apr. 2004 + or - a month
eMacs: Apr. 2004 + or - a month
G4 Powerbooks: Between Jan. 2004 and Mar. 2004 (some confusion here due to a constant stream of minor updates this year, best guess of Feb)
iMacs: Nov 2003 or Dec 2003
G5s: January 2004 + or - a month
Please note that these aren't official numbers, they are best guesses based on observation about the macintosh upgrade cycle, these numbers are subject to change.
You're kidding right? Talk to a lawer? He bought the iBook just after it came out, and that would make it sometime back in April. Apple has a standard upgrade pattern of roughly 6 months between updates. At the time, he obviously thought it was worth it, and common sense dictates that computers will get faster.
The only case he would have is if Apple guaranteed him that this would be the fastest iBook ever. And since that's unreasonable, there is no case.
I'd figure on waiting a year or so before you see G5 Powerbooks. For one, the iBooks would need to up their specs to roughly equivelent (or a shade more) than the current G4 powerbook offerings (figure at least 6 months till the next iBook update), and if they don't get there with one update, you'll need to wait till the second update in another 6 months. And the G4 powerbooks will still have to go through two more upgrade cycles (one sometime next feb and then another about six months later).
Finaly, they still need to work on adjusting the heat dissapation. If the ammount of effort and concentration on cooling the G5 towers is any indication, you're going to see a new case design for the powerbooks with the G5s
To get a delete (i assume you mean forward delete) just hold the fn key when you press delete.
well, to be prefectly technical, they were in effect because GW I ended in a ceace fire, not a peace treaty. The cease fire was dependant on Iraq's continued cooperation with the UN. Failure ot comply with the UN was a violation of the ceasefire and a restart of hostilities (not to mention taking pot shots at plane patroling the no fly zones isn't exactly an act of peace)
Wouldn't it be possible to prevent this by disallowing the ports internaly as well?
A fuck up that was comitted before too (see Operation Desert Fox) which leads me to believe that despite what some people in the intelligence comunity are saying, for the most part, the intelligence comunity felt this evidence to be reliable.
For the same reason that one in three germans believe the US government was behind the attacks on 9/11. Because people in large groups are stupid.
I wasn't trying to imply you thought clinton was great. What I was trying to say by pointing out his reasoning was that this whole WMD thing didn't come out of nowhere.
Question: What type of news sells
Answer: Bad news
Therefore, you will see very few reports about anything good hapening in Iraq. Try searching for some news on it though and you'd be surpised.
As for the will of the country. If it wasn't my will, is that still the will of the country?
It took 10 years, because for 8 of those years, the Armed Forces were commanded by one William Clinton, who the closest he came to taking any stand on Iraq was initiated a bombing campaign (operation Desert Fox) in bagdahd in 1998. And the issue it was over? You guessed it, WMDs
The US went to war for many reasons. Go back and read some of the very early speaches on Iraq. What happened was the media picked up on WMD because it was a buzz word and a new one that hadn't grown stale yet. So the result of all this was whenever the president or someone spoke of the othe reasons, the press did the media equivilent of "Yes yes, but what about the WMDs?"
And so, WMDs became the primary focus.
Umm... The US was never out to conquer Vietnam. Defend, yes, save and protect, yes, did it fail rather miserably at these, yes. That said, they still weren't out to conquer.
Indeed, and then any friendships ties or debts to france would have been erased when they engaged in war with the US during the French & Indian war.
Interestingly enough, the setiment of the US population during the time where we declared a neutral stance was very close to the sentiment of now. Namely:
*Stay out of other countries
*Isolationism is the policy to follow
*Let the rest of the world handle itself
*Focus on america's internal problems.
So why didn't clinton own up when a newpaper broke the story?
Likewise, other people are allowed to express their opinions of your opinions and their opinions of what should happen to you.
Luckily for us, the second amendment applies to individuals as does the rest of the bill of rights
as you can plainly see here
Likewise, unless "the people" are not individuals, the 10th applies as well:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
You're not suggesting that just because one organization takes up a cause that no other organization should take up that cause too? If that's the case, I guess I'll stop worrying about IP laws because the EFF has that covered.
Thankfuly for us, the 2nd amendment is individual rights (as is the rest of the bill of rights). see here for more info
I would argue that a group who's constituites actualy know how to use a voting ballot properly have a better chance of understnading a fair voting system.
Damn, guess I better go take those MP3s that I made from iTMS files and get rid of them before I tear appart space and time by posessing things which can not exist.
This is iTunes for windows. I expect apple to follow windows UI guidelines and not "improve" on them
Because Windows is just a haven of universal and perfect compliance with UI.
Hmm, I don't have to buy an iPod to listen to the music I buy from iTMS either.
Question that someone should test:
Apple claims to have most of their encodes made from the original masters. Which creates a higher loss of (perceptable) quality? Master -> CD -> MP3 or Master->AAC->MP3