Should I notify Apple that when you leave the tabs on all the time and "Open in tabs" a docked bookmark that the first tab always looks "active" (though the windowing for the tabs works fine)?
Sure. Dave Hyatt has been known to possibly fix hypothetical bugs that may or may not occur in Safari versions that may or may not exist.
Yes, with Iraq having a substantially higher probability of exporting such weapons than, say, Paraguay.
I sure as hell wasn't paying any attention to North Korea before Bush decided to play cowboy.
Well, that's not your job. But I prefer that our leaders take notice of psychopaths with nuclear weapons (and not assist them in development of said weapons, as our previous administration did).
As in "they failed to cave in to US demands, despite the opposition of most of the rest of the world"
As in they unanimously agreed that Saddam had blatantly violated the terms of the cease-fire and numerous resolutions, and not only refused to do anything about it, but (tried to) refuse to let us and our allies do anything about it.
You know, if we weren't an enormous arms producer, and hadn't trained and equipped terrorists in the *past* against other countries
Irrelevant. Yes, we helped some unsavory characters in the past because of our struggle against communism. Just like at one time we allied with Stalin. (Hopefully skirting the edge of Godwin there). Maybe in retrospect it was a mistake, but the fact is that it's done and we have to deal with the present.
Saddam's missles can barely reach Israel, much less the US.
True, but chemical and biological weapons can be sold to the highest bidder and smuggled into the US.
you've also failed to explain why Iraq is more of a threat than Iran, North Korea, Pakistan or even China.
I'm not saying they are. Iran and North Korea are also on the "axis of evil" list, so don't think we're ignoring them. But Iraq is the only one of these for which conventional military force is a reasonable option.
And no, "because they broke UN resolutions" is not a valid reason.
Correct, the UN has pretty well established its irrelevance. The reason is that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction pose a threat to Americans. You may disagree, and that's fine. But then you're taking the chance that these weapons will not find their way into the US (or other countries) and be used against civilians. Disarming Iraq by force is actually the *safer* choice.
I may not totally agree with Bush but I'll do the job I was trained to do.
And you have my thanks for that.
Re:Not necessarily the war yet
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Dissent is not disloyalty.
I support this war but I agree with you here. There's no inconsistency in opposing the policy of war while hoping that our troops are safe, and I don't like the far-right rhetoric that equates antiwar protests with treason any more than I like the far-left propaganda that compares Bush to Hitler.
anyone who thinks that Iraq is stupid enough to not accept a peace offer is on crack
Um, have you been paying attention at all for the last 3 months? We were perfectly willing to allow Saddam to remain in power and continue abusing his subjects as long as he got rid of his banned weapons, which he has repeatedly refused to do.
What Blix turned up was some guesswork, a very small number of warheads
And a complete lack of cooperation from Saddam. The mission of the inspectors isn't to find the hidden weapons, that simply isn't possible. Their mission is to verify Iraqi claims that the weapons have been destroyed, which they have been unable to do.
Yeah, Iraq is such a terribly nasty threat to your family. Christ. I can just see it now "January 2007 -- Iraq Invades United States!"
More like "8000 dead from gas attack in San Francisco". Saddam and his army aren't a threat. His weapons are.
Yes, and you seem to be omitting an incident involving some planes and buildings. No, I'm not saying Iraq was responsible for 9/11. I am saying that 9/11 opened our eyes to the dangers of terrorist groups armed with weapons of mass destruction such as those that Saddam continues to build in violation of the cease-fire terms and piles of UN resolutions.
Not concidentally, the price of gas will probably hit 3.00 a gallon
I'd gladly bet $1000 against that. And even if it does, that would cause people to use less oil, which is good, right?
>Oh, and that bit about France and Germany not wanting to upset their deals? They're just looking out for their national interests
Fine, then we're agreed that they don't have any kind of moral high ground. At least we've been honest about what our interests are.
No, there are dozens of other leaders supporting Bush, usually because they have been bribed or threatened.
And I'm sure you have evidence for this.
the War for Oil
Good grief, can you guys please get some more intelligent arguments? If we wanted Iraqi oil, we'd lift the sanctions and buy it, which would be far cheaper than military action. The main oil considerations here come from the French and Germans who don't want their deals with Saddam nullified by the new government.
By the way, were you this opposed to war when Clinton was bombing civilian targets in Serbia?
how much Shrub has managed to piss the rest of the world off in an incredibly short space of time
France, Germany, and Belgium do not constitute "the rest of the world". You wouldn't know it from the way the media lets the idiotic "unilateral" accusations go unchallenged, but there are dozens of other countries supporting the US.
Please. Who signed the DMCA? Who is the leading proponent of the SSSCA or whatever it's called this week? Who receives the vast majority of Hollywood contributions? Hint: not Republicans.
then companies have the right to distribute your personal information to whomever they want, under whatever circumstances they want.
Yes, that's correct. Although if they make a statement that they will not reveal my information and do so anyway, that's fraud.
Not letting people screen scrape isn't even something I'd consider a "price".
And how do you plan on enforcing this? Are you going to empower the government to hunt down all Watson users? It's like the War on Drugs: to me the inability to legally smoke pot isn't a cost, but the expense and violations of privacy and civil liberties required by enforcement are.
The eyeTV is doing the compression itself, compressing the video stream to a MPEG1 stream (otherwise it wouldn't have a hope in hell of feeding it over USB), so basically your PC has been relieved of the most difficult task
Ah, that makes sense. I thought video cards that supported TV recording did the compression themselves, but apparently not.
With a 5400RPM 30GB drive, it is IMPOSSIBLE to time shift (watching one part of the show while a later part records) as the machine simply doesn't have the power
Wow. I've used an EyeTV with a 400 MHz G4 Mac and 7200 rpm drive, and performance was excellent. It took around 50% of the CPU to watch one part while recording another, and I could easily run other moderately CPU-intensive apps without causing problems.
when everyone agrees to split the bill, most people orders frugally and similarly to everyone else because they don't want to look like assholes.
Yes, *if* everyone sees what everyone else is ordering. But if you went to a large restaurant and were told that you would be splitting the bill with 10 other randomly chosen patrons and you wouldn't know who they were, you probably wouldn't be as motivated to be frugal.
Having said that, 2GB/month is ridiculously low. 10, maybe.
They are doing it because they are greedy assholes who want to rip you off.
So conversely customers who use dealnews.com are are also greedy assholes? Of course not, this is how free markets work. Sellers want the maximum possible price, buyers want the minimum. Both groups have access to technology to assist them. What's the problem?
We do something similar. The backdoor is off by default and must be specifically turned on via a command line argument; it's not something that can happen accidentally. Yes, a rogue employee could deliberately enable it on production, but there are more damaging things he could more easily do.
Maintaining a closed platform, charging double for comparable hardware, or charging their loyal customers for email?
1. Darwin.
2. Please tell me where I find a laptop "comparable" to the iBook for $500. The towers are too expensive right now, but only because Motorola has been terrible at G4 development. Check back later this year when the PPC 970 is out.
3. I agree the.mac thing was cheesy. At least they should offer email-only for $20/year or so. But Steve was correct in that giving stuff away for free and making it up in volume is no longer a viable business strategy. (Not that it ever was, but the stock market finally figured it out).
VPC does this also, it's just heavily optimized for the PowerPC. That's why you can run Linux and OpenStep and other OSes easily. Unfortunately I wouldn't be surprised if MS improves" VPC by adding Windows-specific "enhancements" that break support for anything other than WinXP.
Didn't Apple do something similar with either System 7 or System 8, several years ago?
No. System 7 broke some apps but generally only those that were using APIs and techniques that Apple had clearly stated were deprecated. The move to Mac OS X was worse, Mac OS 9 apps had to be at least recompiled and nearly all required at least minor code changes to support Carbon.
Ok, that sounds more reasonable. Perhaps I was reading things into your original post that weren't there, I've just seen too many Gaia-worshipper types.
If everyone did that (ie. became less self-centred and lazy) then it would make a huge difference
Maybe. The problem is, it's not going to happen. You can try to convince people to work for the common good, or you can channel their self-interest so that the public good is advanced as a side effect. One of these strategies basically works albeit with some imperfections, the other resulted in 100 million citizens murdered by their own governments in the last century.
If it's the case that people are driving too much and causing quantifiable harm to the environment, that just means there are externalities that the price of gas doesn't cover. So rather than messing with car fuel-economy standards (which created the SUV fiasco) or trying to browbeat people into public transit, just raise the gas tax to a level sufficient to compensate for the harm done, and the market will take care of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. Dave Hyatt has been known to possibly fix hypothetical bugs that may or may not occur in Safari versions that may or may not exist.
No kidding. If he's not reflecting Sun's official position, he needs to be smacked down. If he is, that doesn't speak well for Sun at all.
Yes, with Iraq having a substantially higher probability of exporting such weapons than, say, Paraguay.
I sure as hell wasn't paying any attention to North Korea before Bush decided to play cowboy.
Well, that's not your job. But I prefer that our leaders take notice of psychopaths with nuclear weapons (and not assist them in development of said weapons, as our previous administration did).
As in "they failed to cave in to US demands, despite the opposition of most of the rest of the world"
As in they unanimously agreed that Saddam had blatantly violated the terms of the cease-fire and numerous resolutions, and not only refused to do anything about it, but (tried to) refuse to let us and our allies do anything about it.
You know, if we weren't an enormous arms producer, and hadn't trained and equipped terrorists in the *past* against other countries
Irrelevant. Yes, we helped some unsavory characters in the past because of our struggle against communism. Just like at one time we allied with Stalin. (Hopefully skirting the edge of Godwin there). Maybe in retrospect it was a mistake, but the fact is that it's done and we have to deal with the present.
True, but chemical and biological weapons can be sold to the highest bidder and smuggled into the US.
you've also failed to explain why Iraq is more of a threat than Iran, North Korea, Pakistan or even China.
I'm not saying they are. Iran and North Korea are also on the "axis of evil" list, so don't think we're ignoring them. But Iraq is the only one of these for which conventional military force is a reasonable option.
And no, "because they broke UN resolutions" is not a valid reason.
Correct, the UN has pretty well established its irrelevance. The reason is that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction pose a threat to Americans. You may disagree, and that's fine. But then you're taking the chance that these weapons will not find their way into the US (or other countries) and be used against civilians. Disarming Iraq by force is actually the *safer* choice.
And I have no problem with that. I'd much rather kill one psychotic leader than 10,000 of his conscripted soldiers.
And you have my thanks for that.
I support this war but I agree with you here. There's no inconsistency in opposing the policy of war while hoping that our troops are safe, and I don't like the far-right rhetoric that equates antiwar protests with treason any more than I like the far-left propaganda that compares Bush to Hitler.
Um, have you been paying attention at all for the last 3 months? We were perfectly willing to allow Saddam to remain in power and continue abusing his subjects as long as he got rid of his banned weapons, which he has repeatedly refused to do.
What Blix turned up was some guesswork, a very small number of warheads
And a complete lack of cooperation from Saddam. The mission of the inspectors isn't to find the hidden weapons, that simply isn't possible. Their mission is to verify Iraqi claims that the weapons have been destroyed, which they have been unable to do.
Yeah, Iraq is such a terribly nasty threat to your family. Christ. I can just see it now "January 2007 -- Iraq Invades United States!"
More like "8000 dead from gas attack in San Francisco". Saddam and his army aren't a threat. His weapons are.
Yes, and you seem to be omitting an incident involving some planes and buildings. No, I'm not saying Iraq was responsible for 9/11. I am saying that 9/11 opened our eyes to the dangers of terrorist groups armed with weapons of mass destruction such as those that Saddam continues to build in violation of the cease-fire terms and piles of UN resolutions.
Not concidentally, the price of gas will probably hit 3.00 a gallon
I'd gladly bet $1000 against that. And even if it does, that would cause people to use less oil, which is good, right?
>Oh, and that bit about France and Germany not wanting to upset their deals? They're just looking out for their national interests
Fine, then we're agreed that they don't have any kind of moral high ground. At least we've been honest about what our interests are.
Good answer, that's my test for detecting hypocrisy. Although I disagree on this issue, I fully respect your opinions.
Australia, Japan, South Korea, Denmark, Italy, Israel, Poland, and Portugal, for starters.
And I'm sure you have evidence for this.
the War for Oil
Good grief, can you guys please get some more intelligent arguments? If we wanted Iraqi oil, we'd lift the sanctions and buy it, which would be far cheaper than military action. The main oil considerations here come from the French and Germans who don't want their deals with Saddam nullified by the new government.
By the way, were you this opposed to war when Clinton was bombing civilian targets in Serbia?
France, Germany, and Belgium do not constitute "the rest of the world". You wouldn't know it from the way the media lets the idiotic "unilateral" accusations go unchallenged, but there are dozens of other countries supporting the US.
Please. Who signed the DMCA? Who is the leading proponent of the SSSCA or whatever it's called this week? Who receives the vast majority of Hollywood contributions? Hint: not Republicans.
It looks like 1.3.1 final is available here.
Apple is also working on running aqua and X apps side by side in the next version of MacOSX. Apple will introduce its own X server.
Done. Technically it's still beta, but it works great.
Yes, that's correct. Although if they make a statement that they will not reveal my information and do so anyway, that's fraud.
Not letting people screen scrape isn't even something I'd consider a "price".
And how do you plan on enforcing this? Are you going to empower the government to hunt down all Watson users? It's like the War on Drugs: to me the inability to legally smoke pot isn't a cost, but the expense and violations of privacy and civil liberties required by enforcement are.
Ah, that makes sense. I thought video cards that supported TV recording did the compression themselves, but apparently not.
Wow. I've used an EyeTV with a 400 MHz G4 Mac and 7200 rpm drive, and performance was excellent. It took around 50% of the CPU to watch one part while recording another, and I could easily run other moderately CPU-intensive apps without causing problems.
Yes, *if* everyone sees what everyone else is ordering. But if you went to a large restaurant and were told that you would be splitting the bill with 10 other randomly chosen patrons and you wouldn't know who they were, you probably wouldn't be as motivated to be frugal.
Having said that, 2GB/month is ridiculously low. 10, maybe.
So conversely customers who use dealnews.com are are also greedy assholes? Of course not, this is how free markets work. Sellers want the maximum possible price, buyers want the minimum. Both groups have access to technology to assist them. What's the problem?
We do something similar. The backdoor is off by default and must be specifically turned on via a command line argument; it's not something that can happen accidentally. Yes, a rogue employee could deliberately enable it on production, but there are more damaging things he could more easily do.
1. Darwin.
2. Please tell me where I find a laptop "comparable" to the iBook for $500. The towers are too expensive right now, but only because Motorola has been terrible at G4 development. Check back later this year when the PPC 970 is out.
3. I agree the
VPC does this also, it's just heavily optimized for the PowerPC. That's why you can run Linux and OpenStep and other OSes easily. Unfortunately I wouldn't be surprised if MS improves" VPC by adding Windows-specific "enhancements" that break support for anything other than WinXP.
No. System 7 broke some apps but generally only those that were using APIs and techniques that Apple had clearly stated were deprecated. The move to Mac OS X was worse, Mac OS 9 apps had to be at least recompiled and nearly all required at least minor code changes to support Carbon.
If everyone did that (ie. became less self-centred and lazy) then it would make a huge difference
Maybe. The problem is, it's not going to happen. You can try to convince people to work for the common good, or you can channel their self-interest so that the public good is advanced as a side effect. One of these strategies basically works albeit with some imperfections, the other resulted in 100 million citizens murdered by their own governments in the last century.
If it's the case that people are driving too much and causing quantifiable harm to the environment, that just means there are externalities that the price of gas doesn't cover. So rather than messing with car fuel-economy standards (which created the SUV fiasco) or trying to browbeat people into public transit, just raise the gas tax to a level sufficient to compensate for the harm done, and the market will take care of it.