So, to be guerilla, you need to have the financial and organisational ressorces needed to charter, lease, and fuel several jet liners?
You're generalizing from a specific case. I was specifying under what conditions flying large jets into buildings might be considered guerilla war and not be considered terrorism. If you had been reading entire thread for comprehension, you would have noted that the distinction being made was between civilian and military targets.
And, lest we forget, Steve Jobs produced the Mach operating system for his Next Cubes.
Wrong. Jobs hired the guy who produced the Mach operating system at Carnegie Mellon, Avie Tevanian.
Tevanian started his professional career at Carnegie Mellon University, where he was a principal designer and engineer of the Mach operating system upon which NEXTSTEP is based.
Mach is the spiritual godfather of OS X
Not only that, it's the kernel!
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, though. Are MKs especially well suited to this Cell architecture? Or are you just trying to play connect-the-dots? Hmmmm. Vectors. . . . Connect-the-dots. ..
Hey, I didn't mean to imply that any iBook toting linux developer was a poseur, I just meant it was a popular choice. Because it is nifty hardware. And I personally know one prominent developer who's more or less been won over by OS X, though he continues to develop for linux because it's still the good cause worth fighting for.
In #1, I am referring to the civilians in and around the World Trade Center, as well as the passengers and staff aboard the planes.
I would contend that had the group chartered, leased, or purchased their own planes, and then flown them into strictly military targets (I would count the Pentagon as strictly military, despite the civilian workers), then this would not constitute a terrorist attack, but a guerilla attack.
I'll admit that #3 is not clear cut in all cases, but let me try to address your two points.
After the attack, but before the US invaded Afghanistan, we demanded that the Taliban turn over Bin Laden and the Al Kaida. The Taliban was not accused of funding Al Kaida, but of harboring them. We (the public) have since learned that almost all of Al Kaida's funding comes from Saudi Arabia, including from the House of Saud itself (with appropriate cut outs and plausible deniability, of course). So, if Al Kaida was sponsored by anyone, they were sponsored by the Saudis, though not officially, of course. And I am not suggesting that the Saudi Government masterminded the 911 attacks.
My main objection to such groups claiming that they are striving towards an inclusive nation of Islam is that they really have shown no interest in merging the various Middle Eastern countries. I don't believe that unification is their real aim or their motive. Their only real aim seems to be to eject the US and to abolish Israel. Their motive. . . well, here it gets very complicated, but to oversimplify, they are very angry with a situation created by their own fundamentalism. However, because any attempts to really deal with the source of the problem(s) threatens that fundamentalism, they must project their anger outwards, to an external enemy. If they didn't have the Great Satan and the Little Satan, they'd have to make them up. Probably India would be the Satan, or Turkey, because of it's close ties to the West. Who knows?
Anyway, this projection of evil is a common enough human phenomena. I know I do it myself. And it should be screamingly clear that the US is engaged in the same form of self-deception, else why the need to mislabel combatants as terrorists? Indeed, the longer this goes on, the more I am seeing it as a clash between two fundamental-ISMs, and show the great lengths people will go to avoid examining their basic assumptions.
Depending on how tight one's tinfoil is wrapped, the involvement of democrats in the Carlyle Group might only emphasize the point. Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. Indeed.
I think you missed his whole point. War is not something that should be entered into lightly. If replacing brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, etc. with robot warriors makes it easier to enter into war unnecessarily, then this is not a good thing.
The attack on Iraq, as we now know and as many tried to tell us before hand, was not a preemptive war. It was an elective war. If you're going to trot out "911 changed everything", I would say that no, it didn't. The threat existed before, and the President was made aware of it, or should have been made aware of it by his advisors. What seems to have changed is that Bush has been given an excuse to do whatever the hell he wants without political consequence.
Slight difference in that we were attacked first by Japan, then had Germany and Italy declare war on us shortly thereafter. In fact, we didn't get into the war until a good two years after it had been going.
Unless you still believe that Iraq was behind 911? If you believe that, you probably still think we'll find those WMDs.
The three elements that make the attack on the Pentagon a terrorist act are these:
1) Was part of a coordinated attack that did include primarily civillians in NY.
2) In order to fly the plane into the Pentagon, they first hijacked a civillian plane, killing a plane load of civvilians in the process. The hijacking was an act of terrorism, and carries over to the primary act of flying the plane into the Pentagon.
3) The groups that created and executed the plan were not part of a nation that was at war with the US or could claim that the US was occupying their country. I'm sorry, but a few air bases in Saudi Arabia doesn't count as occupation. Contrast with the current situation in Iraq or the situation in Vietnam in the 60s/70s, where we were an occupying force.
Bombing a military mess hall is a guerilla action. Bombing a bus filled with civilians is terrorism.
As I've suggested on previous occasions, it'd be better to start up a pool as to when it's posted again, and who posts it. My guess is Cmdr Taco, next Tuesday.
Odds are pretty long that Timothy would post it again, but never say never. =)
Keyspan makes two models, one of which also works with the Airport Express, if you want remote control of Airtunes.
If you have a bluetooth phone and you buy a mini with the bluetooth option, you can use Salling Clicker which is a pretty cool bit of software for controlling your mac with your phone. I use it for iTunes, but it's usable to control the DVD player. Actually you can use it to control pretty much anything that is scriptable on your mac.
If you didn't get the Bluetooth BTO option on you mini, you can always add a USB Bluetooth adapter
There might be other solutions as well. These are just the ones I know about.
I can think of a reason. if someone were a die hard F/OSS person, they wouldn't want to use proprietary software for philosophical reasons, but they still might want the nifty hardware. Quite recently, it was considered hip amongst a certain segment of linux developers to sport Apple laptops with linux installed. They liked the nifty hardware.
I'm a die hard kool aid drinking card carrying Apple zealot, myself. But that's one possible reason, and I think it's a valid one.
Well keep in mind that the main difference between the G4 and the G3 is that the G4 has an Alti vec sub processor. If you're mostly going to be running postgre, the alti vec isn't going to buy you anything. I'm sure some of OS X's Aqua display technology leverages alti-vec, but probably not a lot.
What I mean to say is that despite your comparison using a G3 rather than a G4, it's probably not that far off from a G4.
Sorry, that was lame. I haven't been feeling like my old self lately. I've temporarily lost my sense of outrage.
Anyway, back to GPU requirements. I did a cursory look, and didn't find anything at Apple or ADC mentioning that the requirements had been lowered. Do you have a link or cite? Or did Apple drop mention of the requirements, so you're making an educated guess?
For the audio, the cheapest solution would be an adapter/splitter to go from the Mac mini headphone out to two RCA plugs, which go to either the TV or your stereo system. Or use a set of powere computer speakers, which should plug into the mini without the need for an adapter.
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't the PDP-8 one for the first minis? I knew Apple had stolen their idea from somewhere!
In fact if you compare this picture with this picture you'll see exactly what I mean. Clearly, Apple is ripping of DEC. =)
So, to be guerilla, you need to have the financial and organisational ressorces needed to charter, lease, and fuel several jet liners?
You're generalizing from a specific case. I was specifying under what conditions flying large jets into buildings might be considered guerilla war and not be considered terrorism. If you had been reading entire thread for comprehension, you would have noted that the distinction being made was between civilian and military targets.
Wrong. Jobs hired the guy who produced the Mach operating system at Carnegie Mellon, Avie Tevanian.
Hey, I didn't mean to imply that any iBook toting linux developer was a poseur, I just meant it was a popular choice. Because it is nifty hardware. And I personally know one prominent developer who's more or less been won over by OS X, though he continues to develop for linux because it's still the good cause worth fighting for.
In #1, I am referring to the civilians in and around the World Trade Center, as well as the passengers and staff aboard the planes.
I would contend that had the group chartered, leased, or purchased their own planes, and then flown them into strictly military targets (I would count the Pentagon as strictly military, despite the civilian workers), then this would not constitute a terrorist attack, but a guerilla attack.
I'll admit that #3 is not clear cut in all cases, but let me try to address your two points.
After the attack, but before the US invaded Afghanistan, we demanded that the Taliban turn over Bin Laden and the Al Kaida. The Taliban was not accused of funding Al Kaida, but of harboring them. We (the public) have since learned that almost all of Al Kaida's funding comes from Saudi Arabia, including from the House of Saud itself (with appropriate cut outs and plausible deniability, of course). So, if Al Kaida was sponsored by anyone, they were sponsored by the Saudis, though not officially, of course. And I am not suggesting that the Saudi Government masterminded the 911 attacks.
My main objection to such groups claiming that they are striving towards an inclusive nation of Islam is that they really have shown no interest in merging the various Middle Eastern countries. I don't believe that unification is their real aim or their motive. Their only real aim seems to be to eject the US and to abolish Israel. Their motive. . . well, here it gets very complicated, but to oversimplify, they are very angry with a situation created by their own fundamentalism. However, because any attempts to really deal with the source of the problem(s) threatens that fundamentalism, they must project their anger outwards, to an external enemy. If they didn't have the Great Satan and the Little Satan, they'd have to make them up. Probably India would be the Satan, or Turkey, because of it's close ties to the West. Who knows?
Anyway, this projection of evil is a common enough human phenomena. I know I do it myself. And it should be screamingly clear that the US is engaged in the same form of self-deception, else why the need to mislabel combatants as terrorists? Indeed, the longer this goes on, the more I am seeing it as a clash between two fundamental-ISMs, and show the great lengths people will go to avoid examining their basic assumptions.
If we don't support our brothers in the Point Man Union from this robotic threat, we might all be sent home!
Actually, now that I think of it, why don't we outsource the war? That'd probably be cheaper than robots.
Depending on how tight one's tinfoil is wrapped, the involvement of democrats in the Carlyle Group might only emphasize the point. Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. Indeed.
Spoken like a true LAN warrior.
Relying on a perimeter is so 19th Century.
Only old people are robots.
You don't think we say the same thing about our soldiers that die? Just change the vocabulary.
"Some have shown their devotion to our country in deaths that honored their whole lives - and we will always honor their names and their sacrifice."
Sound familiar? Care to guess the source?
I think you missed his whole point. War is not something that should be entered into lightly. If replacing brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, etc. with robot warriors makes it easier to enter into war unnecessarily, then this is not a good thing.
The attack on Iraq, as we now know and as many tried to tell us before hand, was not a preemptive war. It was an elective war. If you're going to trot out "911 changed everything", I would say that no, it didn't. The threat existed before, and the President was made aware of it, or should have been made aware of it by his advisors. What seems to have changed is that Bush has been given an excuse to do whatever the hell he wants without political consequence.
Slight difference in that we were attacked first by Japan, then had Germany and Italy declare war on us shortly thereafter. In fact, we didn't get into the war until a good two years after it had been going.
Unless you still believe that Iraq was behind 911? If you believe that, you probably still think we'll find those WMDs.
The three elements that make the attack on the Pentagon a terrorist act are these:
1) Was part of a coordinated attack that did include primarily civillians in NY.
2) In order to fly the plane into the Pentagon, they first hijacked a civillian plane, killing a plane load of civvilians in the process. The hijacking was an act of terrorism, and carries over to the primary act of flying the plane into the Pentagon.
3) The groups that created and executed the plan were not part of a nation that was at war with the US or could claim that the US was occupying their country. I'm sorry, but a few air bases in Saudi Arabia doesn't count as occupation. Contrast with the current situation in Iraq or the situation in Vietnam in the 60s/70s, where we were an occupying force.
Bombing a military mess hall is a guerilla action. Bombing a bus filled with civilians is terrorism.
Don't forget the lifelike simulated vagina with embedded penis pump.
I was, but I thought he was going to dupe a different story. =)
who wants to bet they'll post it a third time?
As I've suggested on previous occasions, it'd be better to start up a pool as to when it's posted again, and who posts it. My guess is Cmdr Taco, next Tuesday.
Odds are pretty long that Timothy would post it again, but never say never. =)
Timothy do you actually read Slashdot?
Wouldn't that be like eating from the toilet?
You've got several options.
Keyspan makes two models, one of which also works with the Airport Express, if you want remote control of Airtunes.
If you have a bluetooth phone and you buy a mini with the bluetooth option, you can use Salling Clicker which is a pretty cool bit of software for controlling your mac with your phone. I use it for iTunes, but it's usable to control the DVD player. Actually you can use it to control pretty much anything that is scriptable on your mac.
If you didn't get the Bluetooth BTO option on you mini, you can always add a USB Bluetooth adapter
There might be other solutions as well. These are just the ones I know about.
More importantly, is there an easy way, that the average joe could use?
I can think of a reason. if someone were a die hard F/OSS person, they wouldn't want to use proprietary software for philosophical reasons, but they still might want the nifty hardware. Quite recently, it was considered hip amongst a certain segment of linux developers to sport Apple laptops with linux installed. They liked the nifty hardware.
I'm a die hard kool aid drinking card carrying Apple zealot, myself. But that's one possible reason, and I think it's a valid one.
Well keep in mind that the main difference between the G4 and the G3 is that the G4 has an Alti vec sub processor. If you're mostly going to be running postgre, the alti vec isn't going to buy you anything. I'm sure some of OS X's Aqua display technology leverages alti-vec, but probably not a lot.
What I mean to say is that despite your comparison using a G3 rather than a G4, it's probably not that far off from a G4.
OK. Mea culpa. I wasn't reading for comprehension. =)
You poo eater.
Sorry, that was lame. I haven't been feeling like my old self lately. I've temporarily lost my sense of outrage.
Anyway, back to GPU requirements. I did a cursory look, and didn't find anything at Apple or ADC mentioning that the requirements had been lowered. Do you have a link or cite? Or did Apple drop mention of the requirements, so you're making an educated guess?
For the audio, the cheapest solution would be an adapter/splitter to go from the Mac mini headphone out to two RCA plugs, which go to either the TV or your stereo system. Or use a set of powere computer speakers, which should plug into the mini without the need for an adapter.