To me it looks as though Apple have been working on this for a while. The first XP boot on a mac/intel box was only a few weeks ago, right? And in that time they've done this:
- built a drive repartitioner and tested the hell out of it. A bug here, bye bye personal documents and OS.
- added a bootloader keyboard hook and a system for specifying multiple bootloaders. (may have already existed?)
- compiled a complete set of XP drivers for the hardware
- writen an installer application to take you through the process.
That's quite a lot of work. This is definately a part of Apple's road map in my opinion, but even if I'm wrong, it shows Apple have the ability to adapt and that they aren't scared of just diving in at the deep end when the inevitable (dual boot) happened. Many companies would have languished, others would have sued. Apple said "nah, we can do better". Good job Apple!
How can something be both "ultra-modern" and "industry standard". It's the old "new and improved" quandry; you can't have both. To become an "industry standard", you have to be around a while.
The whole right sidebar on the official Apple page you linked to is not really the behaviour I would expect from a large company that has a "friendly" image. Wasn't there a discussion here on slashdot just yesterday regarding CEO and other workers posting as anon cowards on various sites to spread dirt about competitors? Some pointed out that many companies also openly did it, but I didn't expect Apple to be amoung them. Witness this little cherry:
Windows running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means it'll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world.
Sure, Windows does have a piss-poor security history, but the language here is a little bit off.
Despite the fact that they've specifically stated so?
When? Cite a time and place where they say they want to remove personal freedom in the USA. Bush says "they hate freedom" often enough, but it doesn't make it true. Banging the freedom and liberty drum is a great way to get patriotic Americans on side, without them asking too many questions.
You're getting normal middle-easterners mixed up with the terrorists. Very sloppy. The terrorists (Islamic theocrats) have always been against democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. They've even published books saying so.
So what? Democracy is not compatible with their traditional culture. That's not why they are flying planes into buildings.
They've distributed pamphlets in Iraq listing how democracy is against sharia law.
It probably is against Sharia law, whatever, that's not the issue here. The question is; are they attacking us because of our freedom? The answer to that is no. They have stated our reasons for their hate many times, and never has it had anything to do with the fact we can gamble and watch porno. Now, when we bring those things to their world, that's what pisses them off. When we use our power to dispose of Islamic governments (e.g. Iran) or station troops to guard other corrupt dictatorships (e.g. Saudi Arabia), then we make enemies. Bin Laden iterates this in every one of the messages that you are not allowed to see.
Huh? You mean turned against them after Sept 11th? Or maybe you're complaining that we stopped interfering once we helped them drive the Soviets out.
No, the fallout with the Taliban came around the end of the 1990s. The main reason was the allocation of a key strategic oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea. In 1997, they visited the USA to discuss this deal. In the end the contract went to an Argentinian firm. Then all of a sudden "the evil Taliban" seems to get mentioned a lot. Funny that, one minute they are strategic allies and partners, the next they are supposedly the most evil regime on the planet. It's almost comical. Towards the end of end of negotiations, the phrase "we'll either carpet you in gold or carpet you in bombs" appeared in the press.
Work on the pipeline started very soon after the Taliban was regime-changed for a more ecconically friendly govenment. US troops were used to guard the construction of the pipeline, and are still there today. I have friends who served in both Iraq and Afganistan; they spent a large ammount of time defending these "strategic institutions" and at least one resigned from the army as a result of this ("not what I signed up for").
However, the key thing to remember here is that Al Qaida != Taliban. The Taliban were just folks who hadn't expelled the terrorists from their country (most other countries had). The Taliban owed it's existance to groups like Al Qadia and could not turn their back on them. Their biggest crime, not giving up Bin Laden, was becase they asked for proof that he was involved in 9-11 (something Al Qaida still deny to this day).
The idea that it's the free world verses a globally united force is a complete fabrication. Each party has their own reasons for being involved, and my or your personal freedom here in the west has nothing to do with it.
Both the CIA and Al-Qaida have stated that they didn't work together in Afghanistan. Both say that the CIA worked with other groups in the area. The idea that the CIA named Al Qaida is as crazy as it sounds.
It does sound utterly preposterous, but it's true. The name originally comes from a database in Langley, which was later adopted by those seeking to align themselves against the west. Bin Laden originally anounced the group in 1998 as: "The Islamic World Front for the struggle against the Jews and the Crusaders" (Al-Jabhah al-Islamiyyah al-`Alamiyyah li-Qital al-Yahud wal-Salibiyyin).
The excuse for all of this is "the rise in global terrorism", well if that were really the reason then the terrorists have won, they have fundamentally changed our societies.
ARGGHHHH! Stop it, stop it, STOP IT RIGHT THERE!!
They do not hate our freedom. They don't want us to change our countries. They don't want you to lose unrestricted travel. While they might think your lifestyle is immoral, as long as you are on the other side of the world, they'll happilly let you reserve your place in the Islamic equivalent of hell.
What they do hate is the policies of our governments. They hate how we have interfered in their own governments for our own ends. They hate how we overthrow their democraticly elected governments with crackpot dictators, and then give those dictatorships/monarchies the arms and financial means to survive. They hate how we used them in Afganistan to fight the soviets, then turned on them when it suited us. Al Qaida used to be our friend; the name itself was given to them by the CIA and they adopted it themselves.
Every time someone says "the terrorists have already won", the only winner is liars such as Bush and Blair who claim it is a war on freedom. Until people start calling them out publically on these patriotic-manipulation lies, things like Austrailia's email snooping habits will be the tip of the iceberg.
Why is the Australian government even doing this? Has there been any major terrorist attack on Australia? Do they really think there will be one in the future?
Well, they jumped gung-ho into the Iraq invasion, which didn't work out too well for the UKs "zero islamic terrorism evar!!!" record on one warm, sunny July morning in 2005.
Despite our politicians attempts to mislead us from the truth, these terrorists don't hate freedom. They hate our actions, and rightly so. And now they hate Austrailia as well. Isn't being in the firing line fun!?!
I once talked to some Australian friends about the US and WW2 and they had some _very_ decent points to make about "freeing the world from Hitler et al.".
Any discussion about "freeing the world from Hitler" WITHOUT mentioning the Soviets is dangerous revisionist nonsense. And for Austrailians, who's forces played a relatively large part in the war, it's an unforgivable point of view. Not that the Russians didn't do the same, but it's a road you don't want to go down. Witness the current state of the US, where people have this idea that it's impossible for Americans to torture anyone, and that all of America's actions are inherently just. That "follow the leader and don't ask questions" approach is about as unamerican as you can get, and leads to the world we have today.
Another example you might be more familiar with is the intro sequence to Enterprise. Kinda gives the impression that the US led the space race, doesn't it?
United States has such military hegenomy that with its potential if it goes 100% totalian regime with some how people ACCEPTING casualties in war (emphaisis mine)
Why do you think they are putting so much effort in drones? Remember, the Iraq war has only killed 3,000 people. Thats 3,000 real people, the tanned coloured ones don't matter to anyone it seems.
You must give up freedom to protect freedom. That is, unless you hate freedom. How did this happen to my country in 6 years?
Fear has been used for a lot longer than 6 years. DUCK AND COVER CITIZEN, and be sure to report those communist spies should Y2K cause the AIDS epidemic to reach Bird Flu proportions after terrorists have interbred it with the "poison" ricin and antrax.
That's if your kids haven't been kidnapped by perverts...that goes without saying.
I once talked to some Australian friends about the US and WW2 and they had some _very_ decent points to make about "freeing the world from Hitler et al."
Your Austrailan friends need some history lessons. The Western ALLIES (not just the US, which included Austrailan forces) freed EUROPE from Hitler. The Soviets freed Russia from Hitler, and ultimately destroyed them. If they are looking for someone to thank over WW2, they are looking on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain.
Even with the more recent Sony devices that *can* play mp3, drag and drop won't work. The tracks need to be entered into the devices database, then linked to a system-named object on the file system. This means going through SonicStage. 100% user-unfriendly.
Sonic Stage is a pile of junk. A friend set up her Sony "mp3" player at mine then disappeared off for a year. When she came back, it wouldn't let her use it on the same computer; it insisted on blanking the drive for this "new computer" (same box), thinking that we wished to conduct a large-scale criminal bootlegging operation. So, I did the most obvious thing...I commited a "crime" by downloading the "Japanese only" version and fooling it into installing. This version did not have the DRM restriction...;-)
Your phone sounds pretty nasty but they aren't all like that. Get one that takes SD-card or MMC card media; you can get a gigabite card for about 30 USD and they can be used in any modern PC using a card reader without the need for any drivers or other such nonsense. My phone comes with a dock that gives you read/write access to the entire filesystem on the phone.
I'm really beginning to dislike Australia. I keep hearing about more and more laws that restrict the behavior of individuals
I concur. Last year I was planning to move over there this summer, but it's off now. Internet censorship, race riots and the PM is Bush's bitch apparently. Perhaps New Zealand, but the accent on some chicks really puts me off.;-)
Can someone tell me what this has got to do with spam?
If your ISP are able to map IPs to users, they can take a spam complaint and find out where the spam came from. Most spam doesn't go through an ISPs mail gateway; the spammer (or zombie PC) simply connects directly to the target mailserver. That mailserver will log the IP source of all messages.
7 days is a bit of a joke.. what this means in reality is that ISP's will now have to store your account name, IP address and logon-logoff times in a db.
If you live in the UK or the USA, they already do this and keep it way longer than 7 days. It's several years here in the UK and I think there are already laws stating the minimum period.
Even weirder: On my old laptop sometimes I could hear heavy network traffic, maybe from the onboard ethernet adapter.
That is EM radiation, but not something that's affecting you. The shielding in computer audio is usually non-existant. In the tight spaces of a laptop, this gets even worse. On my laptop you can "hear" the IR device giving out light.;-)
Personally though I still think placing a million troops in Saudi Arabia would have been much more effective.
At what? Creating more terrorist attacks? The principal reason Al Qaida have sworn against the US is because of the existing troops in Saudi Arabia. Obviously the US likes a keep a force in the middle east to keep an eye on the region. What hasn't really been mentioned on the news is that the Saudi-deployed troops are now in Iraq (or rotated home). They are still in the region, and essentially Bin Laden got his wish, everyone's happy*. Your guess is as good as mine on whether that was a quirk of fate, or a well designed plan. The PNAC has previously stated it's goal is gaining a foothold into the middle east via Iraq (prior to them getting into a position to execute this goal), so you can probably make a safe bet where I lie on that issue.
I appreciate your need to vent at the stoopeed Americains, really, I do.
Nothing personal, and no, I don't have some view that Americans are in some way different from everyone else on the planet. Are they putting something in the water in some states or something?;-)
But what exactly is the difference between "there was evidence" and "there were facts?" You're splitting hairs and attacking someone who probably already agrees with you.
Because it made it sound like there was some doubt. Yes, we seem to be agreeing on the point here, but the language in which people express themselves is important. The way you said it came across as "it might have a grain of truth" when essentially the worlds largest armed robbery is taking place right now. It's like you expected disagreement and were testing the water. We should screaming this from the tallest buildings!
FWIW, criticisms of the Project for a New American Century, investigations into its history and of its members, and so forth can be found in various conservative (or perhaps "classic liberal") magazines
Interesting. I'm in no way suggesting that the information is hidden away or anything, but it honestly terrifies me that the vast majority of Americans have a 9-11 -> Iraq relationship in their minds. Even though many know there is no smoking gun, they still believe that the war was valid due to the "post-9/11 world" we need to be reminded of anytime a neocon gets near a public address system. The plan to invade Iraq is so publicly nothing to do with our supposed "changed world" and no one in mainstream media seems to care. Why is this not on CNN? ABC? I understand FOX, but what about PBS? Surely ONE mainstream media organisation has started to veer from the official party line? What the hell is going on over there? Is someone so wrapped up in patriotism that no one is willing to point out the obvious? Weren't we critizing Saddam for having the exact same "bubble" leadership problem, where everyone was too scared to speak out?
What am I saying; things aren't much better here either. And that's the truth.
...to some future researchers to find out what really happened and when. There's so much evidence that they were planning for the war from the first few weeks after Bush took office, but it wasn't until after 9/11 that they had a story they could successfully sell to the public.
I have all but lost my patience with you Americans. The intent to invade Iraq was published BEFORE 2000 by The Project for A New American century, to which most of the current administration are members. They only got into politics to achieve this goal after appeals to existing politicians for an Iraqi war (e.g. Clinton) fell on deaf ears. There isn't "so much evidence", it's a cold hard documented FACT. And no one is complaining about this? The invasion of Iraq was one of the principle goals of the current administration. If I had lost friends/family in 9-11, I would screaming from the rooftops about how their death has been abused to cause more unjust death.
Do you guys get lobotomised early on in school, or is your news media really so corrupt that you have no idea what's going on? How can you people not know this stuff? It's all out in the open; the link above is their offical website for fecks sake!! I really have no hope for the future of the world now, so long as you guys have the big guns.
Godwin be dammed; at least now I understand a lot more about how the Germans allowed some of the WW2 nastiness to happen. They were completely oblivious the truth and frankly don't care enough to find out. It's the same story here.
If you think there were no weapons of mass destruction why do you suppose Saddam kept stalling the UN inspectors over all those years?
He didn't. He threw them out after he learned they were spies more interested in his own location for additional assasination attempts than the location of any weapons. Then, after we did the "let them in or we'll invade" ultimatum, he let them back in again. We invaded anyway, there was lots and lots and lots of money to be made and strategic assets to secure.
Recall that Clinton bombed Iraq in '98 for not letting the UN inspectors in.
Was it not because of breaches to the no-fly zones and other agressive behaviour?
I know that Lockheed-Martin engineers their naval systems to take more shock/damage than a human could take and be functional.
Humans have an advantage over that; we can move away from the danger and then return to fix the damage. Or return to remove the bloody corpse of your former crewman, then fix the damage.*
Most machines don't have legs and most are specifically adapted to one job. This alone will keep the meat on these ships.
* the spanner-in-the-works here is that "fixing" the damage nowadays isn't the same as jury-rigging a couple of supports to hold the ship together. Things are a hell of a lot more complicated now and I'd guess that most fixes would be swaping out a module with a replacement, then do the fixing in the maintainence deck. Some day, somewhere, someone will fix naval engagment damage using a gcc command. That disturbs me in some way...
I fail to understand how Carleson's theorems have been used in making the iPod.
The iPod reference got this story greenlighted on slashdot. Otherwise it might not have made it. If you want to guarantee acceptance, mention something bad about M$, something good about Linux, or anything about Apple (preferably good, but there is the odd flame article).
This advice was brought to you by someone with a 100% submission record. (ok, one of one;-)
I really hate Quicktime in Firefox. First, you can't go full screen in videos.
That's pretty much my mail dislike of Quicktime. Most of us are running at or near 1600x1200 now and any Quicktime movies in my browser are the size of a postage stamp.
At least with Real Media and Windows media you can double-click the video to get full screen. But by far the worst is the recent trend of embedding videos in Flash objects. I've not looked in to this in detail, but IMHO they probably don't have access to the video acceleration on the PC in the way other media players have. You can see the repaints in some videos as it struggles to render it. And there is no way of saving the media locally.
I just tell that it's a free player that won't "present movie" and if you get the pro version it will do that and much more.
Why should I pay? There are numerous, superiour players that are FREE. Some as in BEER, but some as in SPEACH.
Apple will always look bad in my eyes as long as they seek to lock people in via proprietry formats that they strictly enforce to prevent competition. Why do I need a separate media players just for *.mov files? Why can't I play *.mov files on my mobile; all my other media works just fine. Full screen video came to us via a Weezer track in Windows fucking 98. And Apple still don't do full screen, eight years later?
What is this figure trying to say? Is it refering to the installed base, as in, how many unique software installs you have? Or is it saying that you have X users who fire up the app everyday to browse their music?
If the former is the case, then it is completely bogus. It is very difficult to get Quicktime without the iTunes bundle, first you need to know that they are bundled, then you need to google the link as the standalone Quicktime installer is hidden away on the site. I've never found a link to it on the Apple site.
And everyone has the Quicktime player on their PC. It's in the list of bog-standard things you do when installing e.g. Windows for someone. Quicktime, Firefox, RealPlayer (maybe) and Acrobad Reader. The reason RealPlayer is a maybe is because they have been doing some pretty shoddy tactics to get their marketshare and profits up. Things like hiding the free cut-down version on the site, so that you have to download other nonsense that you don't want.
Sounds like Apple has been reading Real's playbook. Just because someone has iTunes on their PC, it doesn't mean that they are an iTunes user. Especially when they trojaned the iTunes install in via a Quicktime download. The bottom line however is that Apple want to be able to say to the music industry that "we have X million users" when really they are saying "we have X million users running iTunesService.exe, but only a fraction of them actually use iTunes, but we want to omit that detail as the former marketing point is technically correct and way more sexy".
You don't own land; you lease it from the state in the form of property taxes.
Land ownership is like that everywhere.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Capitalism is the very definition of freedom.
No it bloody well is not!! You have been brainwashed by the Cold War into thinking Capitalism == good, Socialism == evil. It's not as simple as that and Capitism IN NO WAY defines freedom. Freedom requires freedom of speach, freedom of expression and freedom of religion. They are WAY MORE IMPORTANT than owning land. I mean, come on, be serious here. You might own your own house, but you can't vote or believe in $DIETY? That is not freedom.
Freedom is also having independent thought. Most of you cold-war children seem to have a little problem with doing that...
Slashdot Mirror
- built a drive repartitioner and tested the hell out of it. A bug here, bye bye personal documents and OS.
- added a bootloader keyboard hook and a system for specifying multiple bootloaders. (may have already existed?)
- compiled a complete set of XP drivers for the hardware
- writen an installer application to take you through the process.
That's quite a lot of work. This is definately a part of Apple's road map in my opinion, but even if I'm wrong, it shows Apple have the ability to adapt and that they aren't scared of just diving in at the deep end when the inevitable (dual boot) happened. Many companies would have languished, others would have sued. Apple said "nah, we can do better". Good job Apple!
How can something be both "ultra-modern" and "industry standard". It's the old "new and improved" quandry; you can't have both. To become an "industry standard", you have to be around a while.
The whole right sidebar on the official Apple page you linked to is not really the behaviour I would expect from a large company that has a "friendly" image. Wasn't there a discussion here on slashdot just yesterday regarding CEO and other workers posting as anon cowards on various sites to spread dirt about competitors? Some pointed out that many companies also openly did it, but I didn't expect Apple to be amoung them. Witness this little cherry:
Sure, Windows does have a piss-poor security history, but the language here is a little bit off.
When? Cite a time and place where they say they want to remove personal freedom in the USA. Bush says "they hate freedom" often enough, but it doesn't make it true. Banging the freedom and liberty drum is a great way to get patriotic Americans on side, without them asking too many questions.
You're getting normal middle-easterners mixed up with the terrorists. Very sloppy. The terrorists (Islamic theocrats) have always been against democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. They've even published books saying so.
So what? Democracy is not compatible with their traditional culture. That's not why they are flying planes into buildings.
They've distributed pamphlets in Iraq listing how democracy is against sharia law.
It probably is against Sharia law, whatever, that's not the issue here. The question is; are they attacking us because of our freedom? The answer to that is no. They have stated our reasons for their hate many times, and never has it had anything to do with the fact we can gamble and watch porno. Now, when we bring those things to their world, that's what pisses them off. When we use our power to dispose of Islamic governments (e.g. Iran) or station troops to guard other corrupt dictatorships (e.g. Saudi Arabia), then we make enemies. Bin Laden iterates this in every one of the messages that you are not allowed to see.
Huh? You mean turned against them after Sept 11th? Or maybe you're complaining that we stopped interfering once we helped them drive the Soviets out.
No, the fallout with the Taliban came around the end of the 1990s. The main reason was the allocation of a key strategic oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea. In 1997, they visited the USA to discuss this deal. In the end the contract went to an Argentinian firm. Then all of a sudden "the evil Taliban" seems to get mentioned a lot. Funny that, one minute they are strategic allies and partners, the next they are supposedly the most evil regime on the planet. It's almost comical. Towards the end of end of negotiations, the phrase "we'll either carpet you in gold or carpet you in bombs" appeared in the press.
Work on the pipeline started very soon after the Taliban was regime-changed for a more ecconically friendly govenment. US troops were used to guard the construction of the pipeline, and are still there today. I have friends who served in both Iraq and Afganistan; they spent a large ammount of time defending these "strategic institutions" and at least one resigned from the army as a result of this ("not what I signed up for").
However, the key thing to remember here is that Al Qaida != Taliban. The Taliban were just folks who hadn't expelled the terrorists from their country (most other countries had). The Taliban owed it's existance to groups like Al Qadia and could not turn their back on them. Their biggest crime, not giving up Bin Laden, was becase they asked for proof that he was involved in 9-11 (something Al Qaida still deny to this day).
The idea that it's the free world verses a globally united force is a complete fabrication. Each party has their own reasons for being involved, and my or your personal freedom here in the west has nothing to do with it.
Both the CIA and Al-Qaida have stated that they didn't work together in Afghanistan. Both say that the CIA worked with other groups in the area. The idea that the CIA named Al Qaida is as crazy as it sounds.
It does sound utterly preposterous, but it's true. The name originally comes from a database in Langley, which was later adopted by those seeking to align themselves against the west. Bin Laden originally anounced the group in 1998 as: "The Islamic World Front for the struggle against the Jews and the Crusaders" (Al-Jabhah al-Islamiyyah al-`Alamiyyah li-Qital al-Yahud wal-Salibiyyin).
Al Qaida is not
ARGGHHHH! Stop it, stop it, STOP IT RIGHT THERE!!
They do not hate our freedom. They don't want us to change our countries. They don't want you to lose unrestricted travel. While they might think your lifestyle is immoral, as long as you are on the other side of the world, they'll happilly let you reserve your place in the Islamic equivalent of hell.
What they do hate is the policies of our governments. They hate how we have interfered in their own governments for our own ends. They hate how we overthrow their democraticly elected governments with crackpot dictators, and then give those dictatorships/monarchies the arms and financial means to survive. They hate how we used them in Afganistan to fight the soviets, then turned on them when it suited us. Al Qaida used to be our friend; the name itself was given to them by the CIA and they adopted it themselves.
Every time someone says "the terrorists have already won", the only winner is liars such as Bush and Blair who claim it is a war on freedom. Until people start calling them out publically on these patriotic-manipulation lies, things like Austrailia's email snooping habits will be the tip of the iceberg.
Well, they jumped gung-ho into the Iraq invasion, which didn't work out too well for the UKs "zero islamic terrorism evar!!!" record on one warm, sunny July morning in 2005.
Despite our politicians attempts to mislead us from the truth, these terrorists don't hate freedom. They hate our actions, and rightly so. And now they hate Austrailia as well. Isn't being in the firing line fun!?!
That was my point. You wrote:
Any discussion about "freeing the world from Hitler" WITHOUT mentioning the Soviets is dangerous revisionist nonsense. And for Austrailians, who's forces played a relatively large part in the war, it's an unforgivable point of view. Not that the Russians didn't do the same, but it's a road you don't want to go down. Witness the current state of the US, where people have this idea that it's impossible for Americans to torture anyone, and that all of America's actions are inherently just. That "follow the leader and don't ask questions" approach is about as unamerican as you can get, and leads to the world we have today.
Another example you might be more familiar with is the intro sequence to Enterprise. Kinda gives the impression that the US led the space race, doesn't it?
Why do you think they are putting so much effort in drones? Remember, the Iraq war has only killed 3,000 people. Thats 3,000 real people, the tanned coloured ones don't matter to anyone it seems.
Fear has been used for a lot longer than 6 years. DUCK AND COVER CITIZEN, and be sure to report those communist spies should Y2K cause the AIDS epidemic to reach Bird Flu proportions after terrorists have interbred it with the "poison" ricin and antrax.
That's if your kids haven't been kidnapped by perverts...that goes without saying.
Your Austrailan friends need some history lessons. The Western ALLIES (not just the US, which included Austrailan forces) freed EUROPE from Hitler. The Soviets freed Russia from Hitler, and ultimately destroyed them. If they are looking for someone to thank over WW2, they are looking on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain.
Sonic Stage is a pile of junk. A friend set up her Sony "mp3" player at mine then disappeared off for a year. When she came back, it wouldn't let her use it on the same computer; it insisted on blanking the drive for this "new computer" (same box), thinking that we wished to conduct a large-scale criminal bootlegging operation. So, I did the most obvious thing...I commited a "crime" by downloading the "Japanese only" version and fooling it into installing. This version did not have the DRM restriction... ;-)
Your phone sounds pretty nasty but they aren't all like that. Get one that takes SD-card or MMC card media; you can get a gigabite card for about 30 USD and they can be used in any modern PC using a card reader without the need for any drivers or other such nonsense. My phone comes with a dock that gives you read/write access to the entire filesystem on the phone.
I'm guessing you've never played a musical instrument then? This one time, at band camp, we called it "c sharp".
I concur. Last year I was planning to move over there this summer, but it's off now. Internet censorship, race riots and the PM is Bush's bitch apparently. Perhaps New Zealand, but the accent on some chicks really puts me off. ;-)
If your ISP are able to map IPs to users, they can take a spam complaint and find out where the spam came from. Most spam doesn't go through an ISPs mail gateway; the spammer (or zombie PC) simply connects directly to the target mailserver. That mailserver will log the IP source of all messages.
7 days is a bit of a joke.. what this means in reality is that ISP's will now have to store your account name, IP address and logon-logoff times in a db.
If you live in the UK or the USA, they already do this and keep it way longer than 7 days. It's several years here in the UK and I think there are already laws stating the minimum period.
That is EM radiation, but not something that's affecting you. The shielding in computer audio is usually non-existant. In the tight spaces of a laptop, this gets even worse. On my laptop you can "hear" the IR device giving out light. ;-)
At what? Creating more terrorist attacks? The principal reason Al Qaida have sworn against the US is because of the existing troops in Saudi Arabia. Obviously the US likes a keep a force in the middle east to keep an eye on the region. What hasn't really been mentioned on the news is that the Saudi-deployed troops are now in Iraq (or rotated home). They are still in the region, and essentially Bin Laden got his wish, everyone's happy*. Your guess is as good as mine on whether that was a quirk of fate, or a well designed plan. The PNAC has previously stated it's goal is gaining a foothold into the middle east via Iraq (prior to them getting into a position to execute this goal), so you can probably make a safe bet where I lie on that issue.
* except the 30,000+ dead Iraqi civilians
Nothing personal, and no, I don't have some view that Americans are in some way different from everyone else on the planet. Are they putting something in the water in some states or something? ;-)
But what exactly is the difference between "there was evidence" and "there were facts?" You're splitting hairs and attacking someone who probably already agrees with you.
Because it made it sound like there was some doubt. Yes, we seem to be agreeing on the point here, but the language in which people express themselves is important. The way you said it came across as "it might have a grain of truth" when essentially the worlds largest armed robbery is taking place right now. It's like you expected disagreement and were testing the water. We should screaming this from the tallest buildings!
FWIW, criticisms of the Project for a New American Century, investigations into its history and of its members, and so forth can be found in various conservative (or perhaps "classic liberal") magazines
Interesting. I'm in no way suggesting that the information is hidden away or anything, but it honestly terrifies me that the vast majority of Americans have a 9-11 -> Iraq relationship in their minds. Even though many know there is no smoking gun, they still believe that the war was valid due to the "post-9/11 world" we need to be reminded of anytime a neocon gets near a public address system. The plan to invade Iraq is so publicly nothing to do with our supposed "changed world" and no one in mainstream media seems to care. Why is this not on CNN? ABC? I understand FOX, but what about PBS? Surely ONE mainstream media organisation has started to veer from the official party line? What the hell is going on over there? Is someone so wrapped up in patriotism that no one is willing to point out the obvious? Weren't we critizing Saddam for having the exact same "bubble" leadership problem, where everyone was too scared to speak out?
What am I saying; things aren't much better here either. And that's the truth.
I have all but lost my patience with you Americans. The intent to invade Iraq was published BEFORE 2000 by The Project for A New American century, to which most of the current administration are members. They only got into politics to achieve this goal after appeals to existing politicians for an Iraqi war (e.g. Clinton) fell on deaf ears. There isn't "so much evidence", it's a cold hard documented FACT. And no one is complaining about this? The invasion of Iraq was one of the principle goals of the current administration. If I had lost friends/family in 9-11, I would screaming from the rooftops about how their death has been abused to cause more unjust death.
Do you guys get lobotomised early on in school, or is your news media really so corrupt that you have no idea what's going on? How can you people not know this stuff? It's all out in the open; the link above is their offical website for fecks sake!! I really have no hope for the future of the world now, so long as you guys have the big guns.
Godwin be dammed; at least now I understand a lot more about how the Germans allowed some of the WW2 nastiness to happen. They were completely oblivious the truth and frankly don't care enough to find out. It's the same story here.
He didn't. He threw them out after he learned they were spies more interested in his own location for additional assasination attempts than the location of any weapons. Then, after we did the "let them in or we'll invade" ultimatum, he let them back in again. We invaded anyway, there was lots and lots and lots of money to be made and strategic assets to secure.
Recall that Clinton bombed Iraq in '98 for not letting the UN inspectors in.
Was it not because of breaches to the no-fly zones and other agressive behaviour?
Humans have an advantage over that; we can move away from the danger and then return to fix the damage. Or return to remove the bloody corpse of your former crewman, then fix the damage.*
Most machines don't have legs and most are specifically adapted to one job. This alone will keep the meat on these ships.
* the spanner-in-the-works here is that "fixing" the damage nowadays isn't the same as jury-rigging a couple of supports to hold the ship together. Things are a hell of a lot more complicated now and I'd guess that most fixes would be swaping out a module with a replacement, then do the fixing in the maintainence deck. Some day, somewhere, someone will fix naval engagment damage using a gcc command. That disturbs me in some way...
The iPod reference got this story greenlighted on slashdot. Otherwise it might not have made it. If you want to guarantee acceptance, mention something bad about M$, something good about Linux, or anything about Apple (preferably good, but there is the odd flame article).
This advice was brought to you by someone with a 100% submission record. (ok, one of one ;-)
That's pretty much my mail dislike of Quicktime. Most of us are running at or near 1600x1200 now and any Quicktime movies in my browser are the size of a postage stamp.
At least with Real Media and Windows media you can double-click the video to get full screen. But by far the worst is the recent trend of embedding videos in Flash objects. I've not looked in to this in detail, but IMHO they probably don't have access to the video acceleration on the PC in the way other media players have. You can see the repaints in some videos as it struggles to render it. And there is no way of saving the media locally.
Why should I pay? There are numerous, superiour players that are FREE. Some as in BEER, but some as in SPEACH.
Apple will always look bad in my eyes as long as they seek to lock people in via proprietry formats that they strictly enforce to prevent competition. Why do I need a separate media players just for *.mov files? Why can't I play *.mov files on my mobile; all my other media works just fine. Full screen video came to us via a Weezer track in Windows fucking 98. And Apple still don't do full screen, eight years later?
If the former is the case, then it is completely bogus. It is very difficult to get Quicktime without the iTunes bundle, first you need to know that they are bundled, then you need to google the link as the standalone Quicktime installer is hidden away on the site. I've never found a link to it on the Apple site.
And everyone has the Quicktime player on their PC. It's in the list of bog-standard things you do when installing e.g. Windows for someone. Quicktime, Firefox, RealPlayer (maybe) and Acrobad Reader. The reason RealPlayer is a maybe is because they have been doing some pretty shoddy tactics to get their marketshare and profits up. Things like hiding the free cut-down version on the site, so that you have to download other nonsense that you don't want.
Sounds like Apple has been reading Real's playbook. Just because someone has iTunes on their PC, it doesn't mean that they are an iTunes user. Especially when they trojaned the iTunes install in via a Quicktime download. The bottom line however is that Apple want to be able to say to the music industry that "we have X million users" when really they are saying "we have X million users running iTunesService.exe, but only a fraction of them actually use iTunes, but we want to omit that detail as the former marketing point is technically correct and way more sexy".
Land ownership is like that everywhere.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Capitalism is the very definition of freedom.
No it bloody well is not!! You have been brainwashed by the Cold War into thinking Capitalism == good, Socialism == evil. It's not as simple as that and Capitism IN NO WAY defines freedom. Freedom requires freedom of speach, freedom of expression and freedom of religion. They are WAY MORE IMPORTANT than owning land. I mean, come on, be serious here. You might own your own house, but you can't vote or believe in $DIETY? That is not freedom.
Freedom is also having independent thought. Most of you cold-war children seem to have a little problem with doing that...