Yes! Especially since they started sending letters to vendors, claiming they too are liable for infringement. Can't you sue a company for trying to spread FUD about your product? Isn't AT&T shooting itself in the foot by trying to dry up the revenue stream that they claim royalties over?
My guess is that while they hated Saddam Hussein, they didn't think the US had noble and honest intentions, and were concerned about high civillian casualties. I'm assuming that they didn't support the war, but for different reasons than the secularists and the pan-Arabists (like Arafat claimed to be).
Clinton's airstrikes in Afghanistan didn't cause a lot of anger, I don't think. It was a militant camp. The Sudan strike drew criticism from a lot of places, they wound up bombing nothing but an aspirin factory. Perhaps the militants used that in propaganda, but they were so tiny and irrelevant anyway. Muslims worldwide supported Clinton because he helped intervene in Bosnia, where the Muslim population was being "ethnicly cleansed" (victims of Genocide by Serbs). That got a lot of goodwill, and the Oslo accords made some also happy.
you appear to be contradicting yourself. You say Clinton provoked terrorism by firing missiles into Afghanistan in order to kill Bin Laden, and you then blame Clinton for ignoring Bin Laden and letting him get away with attacks? Explain yourself.
Tell me, were we being pushed around by terrorists before we helped the coup in Chile, Guatemala, or Panama? Were we being pushed around by terrorists before we backed the assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem? Were we being pushed around by terrorists before the U.S. overthrew Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran, and installed the Shah as dictator?
These terrorists aren't Islamic. Palestinians and Indonesians and Bengalis and Iranians have all organized protests against terorrism and suicide bombing. The terrorists are extremist, but you only make them stronger and distance your allies if you call them Islamic. Muslims worldwide, and the highest scholarly authorities have condemned suicide bombing and terrorism. If we strengthen them, then maybe we can see support for Al Qaeda dry up, as it was before the Iraq war.
We don't have to make a truce with Bin Laden, we just have to pull out of Iraq and quit messing around in the middle east. The Iraqis and Arabs want us to do that anyway, and then Saudi Arabians can overthrow their king since our soldiers won't be on their soil anymore. The US gives Billions to Mubarak in Egypt, but he's not democratizing and we haven't cut off his money either.
Why would Paypal's businessman openly say he's a skeptic? If he's publicly worried, his stock will decline based on expectations and forecasts. Complaining in public will do no good, think that will stop google? How was this practical?
"...So you're just noticing members of the sex: "Girls girls, ooo". Naturally you want to look your best, and God says "No! You will look the worst you've ever looked in your life!""
... or maybe Iraq just didn't have any? Honestly now, what is the proof that WMDs existed? Sarin decays after a few years, if Saddam Hussein stockpiled any after the first Gulf war, it would have been water by 2002.
You can't have it both ways. If Saddam Hussein was smart enough not to use WMDs on us because he knew we'd retaliate, then why was he labeled such a threat by Bush and why did we invade? Wouldn't that be forcing his hand if he had WMDs but knew better than to use them? You're saying he's too smart to use them, you mean risk getting tried as a war criminal or killed by the US? By not using them (IF he had them), wouldn't it be obvious that he'd be trapped and stuck in his current fate?
If Saddam Hussein was such a lunatic as Bush led some to believe, why didn't he actually use the WMDs? You're trying to push two conflicting rationales on me.
If Iraq was under attack by America, and had WMDs to repel those invading troops, then why didn't they use them? Why are the former nuclear scientists like Imad Khadduri coming forward and saying that all along there was no WMD program, it was abandoned in the 1990s.
Besides, where would they be moved to? Iran and Iraq were enemies in a war with millions of casualties, they cheered loudly when Saddam was captured. Syria didn't like the Ba'ath party of Iraq, and they didn't support one another and still don't. Saudi Arabia didn't like Saddam Hussein and felt threatened by him, to the point where they had thousands of US troops protect the border from him. Who else would take the WMDs from him then, if Iraq had any?
Retina scans work by scanning the back of the eyeball, something which doesn't show up in a typical photograph. There was some sort of retainal photograh used to fool the scanner in "Entrapment" but I dunno how real that was.
All chips have errata, and custmarily are well documented and are published on the vendor's web site. BTW, errata can be something as simple as a correction to the datasheet. Most are usually minor and are dealt with by the compiler. For example, if there's an error with calculations dealing with a certain registry and decimal values, the compiler would just not use that registry for the calculations.
The documented and known errata are not what you should be concerned with. It's the unknown ones that freeze your computer or cause all robots to attack their masters.
If someone's complaining about this, they should just turn off their computers, because as we ALL know, every operating system (the OS is what runs on chips that have the errata) also are shipped with hundreds, if not thousands, of known bugs. You're not going to find a perfect chip in the real world. How many errata did the G4/G5 have? By comparison the IBM PowerPC 970FX has 24 errata, none of which is planned for a fix. When you consider the 970FX is a fairly mature chip, 34 errata on a new chip is hardly news worthy. As transistors get more and more compact and miniaturized, I'm sure we're bound to see more.
Where are you getting that 1.5% figure from? Your ear? Apple's sales during their slump were like 5% (and that was before the iMac became a bestseller).
Also, Apple has like 80% of the MP3 player market.
Now I remember! He had an accelerometer attached to the iBook and the live reading graphs on Steve's iBook, so when Phil fell you could see the spike on Steve's iBook.
Mac OS X had a 5% market share of NEW COMPUTER SALES. Apple's installed base was like 20% of all PCs (it has to be more, the statistic dates before the iMac became a bestseller), because they seem to last longer (I know people who still routinely use a Mac classic, but I haven't seen any 386's anymore).
Windows 98 didn't seem like much of a killer seller. Windows 95 SP2 I believe had USB support. It was when all those USB peripherals came out that were compatible with both the iMac as well as the PC. Those ports were included but rarely used, until the iMac became a bestseller and people started getting PC/Mac USB Zip Drives and colored mice and stuff.
The wikipedia authors aren't supposed to do that without permission, and they will remove it if there's a complaint. I did that myself once, posted someone else's everything2 article to Wikipedia without telling him, and he got their editors to remove it and scold me. In the other direction, I've lifted passages from wikipedia and used them in everything2 nodes, but always gave credit.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes! Especially since they started sending letters to vendors, claiming they too are liable for infringement. Can't you sue a company for trying to spread FUD about your product? Isn't AT&T shooting itself in the foot by trying to dry up the revenue stream that they claim royalties over?
What's this going towards with news sites?
"That pro-Palestine article is helping the terrorists! Remove it under the PATRIOT act."
My guess is that while they hated Saddam Hussein, they didn't think the US had noble and honest intentions, and were concerned about high civillian casualties. I'm assuming that they didn't support the war, but for different reasons than the secularists and the pan-Arabists (like Arafat claimed to be).
Clinton's airstrikes in Afghanistan didn't cause a lot of anger, I don't think. It was a militant camp. The Sudan strike drew criticism from a lot of places, they wound up bombing nothing but an aspirin factory. Perhaps the militants used that in propaganda, but they were so tiny and irrelevant anyway. Muslims worldwide supported Clinton because he helped intervene in Bosnia, where the Muslim population was being "ethnicly cleansed" (victims of Genocide by Serbs). That got a lot of goodwill, and the Oslo accords made some also happy.
you appear to be contradicting yourself. You say Clinton provoked terrorism by firing missiles into Afghanistan in order to kill Bin Laden, and you then blame Clinton for ignoring Bin Laden and letting him get away with attacks? Explain yourself.
This Constitution... and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.
--Article VI of the US Constitution
Tell me, were we being pushed around by terrorists before we helped the coup in Chile, Guatemala, or Panama? Were we being pushed around by terrorists before we backed the assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem? Were we being pushed around by terrorists before the U.S. overthrew Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran, and installed the Shah as dictator?
These terrorists aren't Islamic. Palestinians and Indonesians and Bengalis and Iranians have all organized protests against terorrism and suicide bombing. The terrorists are extremist, but you only make them stronger and distance your allies if you call them Islamic. Muslims worldwide, and the highest scholarly authorities have condemned suicide bombing and terrorism. If we strengthen them, then maybe we can see support for Al Qaeda dry up, as it was before the Iraq war.
We don't have to make a truce with Bin Laden, we just have to pull out of Iraq and quit messing around in the middle east. The Iraqis and Arabs want us to do that anyway, and then Saudi Arabians can overthrow their king since our soldiers won't be on their soil anymore. The US gives Billions to Mubarak in Egypt, but he's not democratizing and we haven't cut off his money either.
Hey, the Serbs were bad. Look at the Genocide at Srebrenica massacre.
Why would Paypal's businessman openly say he's a skeptic? If he's publicly worried, his stock will decline based on expectations and forecasts. Complaining in public will do no good, think that will stop google? How was this practical?
"...So you're just noticing members of the sex: "Girls girls, ooo". Naturally you want to look your best, and God says "No! You will look the worst you've ever looked in your life!""
... or maybe Iraq just didn't have any? Honestly now, what is the proof that WMDs existed? Sarin decays after a few years, if Saddam Hussein stockpiled any after the first Gulf war, it would have been water by 2002.
You can't have it both ways. If Saddam Hussein was smart enough not to use WMDs on us because he knew we'd retaliate, then why was he labeled such a threat by Bush and why did we invade? Wouldn't that be forcing his hand if he had WMDs but knew better than to use them? You're saying he's too smart to use them, you mean risk getting tried as a war criminal or killed by the US? By not using them (IF he had them), wouldn't it be obvious that he'd be trapped and stuck in his current fate?
If Saddam Hussein was such a lunatic as Bush led some to believe, why didn't he actually use the WMDs? You're trying to push two conflicting rationales on me.
If Iraq was under attack by America, and had WMDs to repel those invading troops, then why didn't they use them? Why are the former nuclear scientists like Imad Khadduri coming forward and saying that all along there was no WMD program, it was abandoned in the 1990s.
Besides, where would they be moved to? Iran and Iraq were enemies in a war with millions of casualties, they cheered loudly when Saddam was captured. Syria didn't like the Ba'ath party of Iraq, and they didn't support one another and still don't. Saudi Arabia didn't like Saddam Hussein and felt threatened by him, to the point where they had thousands of US troops protect the border from him. Who else would take the WMDs from him then, if Iraq had any?
Retina scans work by scanning the back of the eyeball, something which doesn't show up in a typical photograph. There was some sort of retainal photograh used to fool the scanner in "Entrapment" but I dunno how real that was.
All chips have errata, and custmarily are well documented and are published on the vendor's web site. BTW, errata can be something as simple as a correction to the datasheet. Most are usually minor and are dealt with by the compiler. For example, if there's an error with calculations dealing with a certain registry and decimal values, the compiler would just not use that registry for the calculations.
The documented and known errata are not what you should be concerned with. It's the unknown ones that freeze your computer or cause all robots to attack their masters.
If someone's complaining about this, they should just turn off their computers, because as we ALL know, every operating system (the OS is what runs on chips that have the errata) also are shipped with hundreds, if not thousands, of known bugs. You're not going to find a perfect chip in the real world. How many errata did the G4/G5 have? By comparison the IBM PowerPC 970FX has 24 errata, none of which is planned for a fix. When you consider the 970FX is a fairly mature chip, 34 errata on a new chip is hardly news worthy. As transistors get more and more compact and miniaturized, I'm sure we're bound to see more.
It didn't crack the LCD? That is below the storage tempurature limits.
Where are you getting that 1.5% figure from? Your ear? Apple's sales during their slump were like 5% (and that was before the iMac became a bestseller).
Also, Apple has like 80% of the MP3 player market.
Try the new update. The old version crashed or something under the latest Quicktime 7.0.4 update.
Now I remember! He had an accelerometer attached to the iBook and the live reading graphs on Steve's iBook, so when Phil fell you could see the spike on Steve's iBook.
Mac OS X had a 5% market share of NEW COMPUTER SALES. Apple's installed base was like 20% of all PCs (it has to be more, the statistic dates before the iMac became a bestseller), because they seem to last longer (I know people who still routinely use a Mac classic, but I haven't seen any 386's anymore).
Windows 98 didn't seem like much of a killer seller. Windows 95 SP2 I believe had USB support. It was when all those USB peripherals came out that were compatible with both the iMac as well as the PC. Those ports were included but rarely used, until the iMac became a bestseller and people started getting PC/Mac USB Zip Drives and colored mice and stuff.
ADB is 10Kbps. USB1 (low speed) was 1.5Mbps and USB 1.1 was 12Mbps. This comes from Apple's original USB webpage.
*BLAM* "Don't interrupt me." Priceless.
WPIX is the call sign, and they have always been on channel 11 in New York and the tri-state area. Now, they are a WB affiliate.
The wikipedia authors aren't supposed to do that without permission, and they will remove it if there's a complaint. I did that myself once, posted someone else's everything2 article to Wikipedia without telling him, and he got their editors to remove it and scold me. In the other direction, I've lifted passages from wikipedia and used them in everything2 nodes, but always gave credit.