How amusing. You can't argue your point successfully, so you resort to name calling. How typical.
To address your, rather obtuse, point. Yes. I believe America's military as it is presently constituted is capabable of winning such a war... assuming as I do (and did in my central point) that America has no desire for empire.
Yes, during the Korean War, millions of Chinese soldiers made a huge difference in the outcome of that war.
Yes Chiina still has lots and lots of soldiers. But please explain to me how you might deploy these troops to fight America on the modern battlefield? For Pete's sake, they're currently not even capable of mounting an attack across a few miles of water (see Taiwan).
2nd, assuming you could somehow magically move these soldiers into position to fight the U.S, how would they reposition their forces in reaction to changes in the battlefield, given the American supremecy in Air Power.
The Korean War was a long, long time ago. During that period, the N. Koreans and the Chinese actually had the better air forces. (they were even using Russian pilots).
That air superiority allowed them to move their ground forces around without fear of attack from the air.
Today, by most accounts, the Chinese Airforce is at least one generation behind America in Air Power.
Sorry. But your post made me laugh out loud. Fear? You've got to be kidding.
Fear is something the people of Iraq had while living under Saddam Hussein. Fear is what people living in the former U.S.S.R and NAZI Germany felt for simply criticizing their own governments.
No. What you and others like you feel is resentment and envy.
If any of the aforementioned regimes had the kind of military power currently held by the U.S., then you would know fear.
The reality is, the U.S currently has enough military and economic power to wipe out all the other militaries in the world, if it so desired. But it doesn't.
The U.S. has no desire for empire.
Once again, we hear whining from the former Colonial powers in Europe about the excesses of American power. Please.
Fear? No.
You sometimes Hate us?
Of that, I have no doubt. But once again, that springs only from your own insecurities and envious nature.
All his fellow fighters who were captured in that battle were deported to America. He was in his early 20s, unmarried with no children. In fact, his brother was also captured and deported.
As for your other point, I could go on and on about my own family history. Huguenots, Anabaptists, and others. It could be argued that perhaps they should have stayed and fought
But for what gain, their own deaths? What chance did they have when the majority of the population in their home countries at least tacitly agreed with the bigoted spirit of the times.
No. Instead, they came to America seeking the liberties that were denied them in Europe.
I think the only exception that I can think of in my family would be my great, great grandfather a German who emmigrated from Posen (now Poznan province in Poland) in the 1860s. He clearly came here looking for better economic opportunities.
But as for the rest of my family, most of whom arrived here in the early to mid 1600s, they were simply seeking freedom.
-dj
>>>Other thing, did he have children in Europe? (Even if he didn't a great number of his fellow freedom fighters probably had) There are thousands of Europeans alive today who descend from them (I'm pretty sure you could find someone important among them)
Well, I tend to doubt your interpretation of MY family history.
I am descended from John MacBean who was born in 1634 in Strathdearn, Inverness-Shire, Scotland.
He was a Scottsman and tried fighting for his liberty in 1652 at the Battle of Worcestor. His side lost. He was captured, deported to America as a prisoner. (Arriving in Boston on Feb. 24, 1652 on the ship, The Sarah and John)
He was sold there by the British authorities as an indentured servant. It was in America though that he won his freedom.
-dj
There are thousands of Americans alive today who descend from John MacBean. (one of them was Alan Bean, who landed on the Moon in 1969 with Apollo 12)
Yes. My ancestors came from Europe. But they left to find the liberty and freedom that they weren't allowed to have in Europe.
They left their families, their property, everything to make a new life in America. This during a time when it took three months for the mail to make the trip back to their homes.
But they left because of the tyranny and small-mindedness of those they left behind. It's amusing that the descendants of those who created and allowed the tyranny to exist now lecture me on freedom and liberty.
One last thing, Soviet soldiers had nothing to do with the "Freedom" of anything.
With the Russians, Europe would have traded one lunatic (Hitler) for another (Stalin)
-dj
>>>The freedom of Europe was payed for with the life of allied soldiers; soviets, british, canadians, frence, norwegians, poles, US-ians*, dutch, maltese, kiwis, australians and so on.
I believe you ought to go visit some of the U.S. cemeteries in France. Those soldiers didn't die of old age.
My uncle fought at Normandy. His best friend was obliterated by a German howitzer shell that left nothing of him but his boots on the beaches of france.
Yes. The U.S. helped our former European allies via lend lease. But without the millions of U.S. troops sent to England to create the Western Front, the Russians would have lost the war. England alone wasn't capable of doing anything but defending itself.
Place the millions of German troops who fought in the West on the eastern front and suddenly, the Nazis are right back at the doors of Moscow.
I never would have believed I could write this before the events of the last two years. But I sincerely believe it's time to end NATO. Our so-called allies have proven they are only fair-weather friends.
The europeans are like the spoiled children of rich people. They've never had to work for anything, so they take everything for granted. Everything seems rosy to them now. But perhaps if the United States would stop subsidizing their defense and make them pay their own way, they'd have more appreciation for the price of freedom.
But please, when the Russian experiment in democracy fails, please don't come crying to the United States for help.
-dj
why is it that europeans need to post inane questions like
"Why is that people from the USA insist on calling themself 'americans'? There is a lot more to the americas than just the US."
While I share concerns about POTENTIAL infringement of civil liberties. I think a little perspective is in order.
Abraham Lincoln, in my opinion, was one of the greatest U.S. presidents. But he also threw out the writ of habeous corpus. You know... the section of the Constitution prohibiting the government from simply throwing people in jail without a cause.
Northern citizens who criticized Lincoln in the press routinely were thrown in prison. When the U.S. Supreme Court ordered him to stop it, he just ignored the order.
Lincoln is still remembered as one of our greatest presidents.
I understand the fear of infringement of our civil liberties. But "the constitution isn't a suicide pact."
As for our "allies" in Europe and their opinions of this mess. The reality there is, if their own freedoms had depended on their own sense of right and wrong -- and their resolve to confront evil, the French would be speaking German and the Germans would still be goose stepping throughout most of Europe.
The Europeans like to talk of freedom and democracy. But they lack the intestinal fortitude required to do anything about it for those lacking in both of the above.
>>>I graduated from Princeton, so you need not respond that I'm being anti-elitist and technophobic.
Sorry. But I'm afraid you are being technophobic. The people against using this technology frequently build up straw men to justify their opposition to genetic engineering.
I often hear people objeçt to this technology because it means tampering with what's "normal." Well, let's take a look at what's normal.
Polio. Smallpox AIDS
Why did we work, or continue to work, for a cure to these "normal" diseases. They occur in nature. What makes this any different?
Often the debate about GM centers around issues like eye, skin and hair color. But these issues are a side show. GM has the potental to put an end to hundreds, if not thousands, of inherited diseases.
Yes, Genetic Modification has the potential for abuse, as does most other scientific endeavors. But does that mean we shouldn't pursue medical advances in these areas?
I say yes to debating the possible consequences of this technology.
But at the same time, we should continue to move forward with the research and even implementation of these advances when deemed medically safe.
It's just an academic debate for those not carrying genes predisposing them and their children to certain diseases.
For those that do carry such traits, it's life and death.
Actually, if you know anything about the American prison system, he'll spend little - if no time in jail.
Assuming this is his first criminal offense, he'll likely have to serve as little as 1/5 of his sentence. I worked in a court house in NJ where I saw a women, who was a supervisor for the state's child abuse welfare agency and who had pleaded guilty for beating her 5-year-old son to death with a club, sentenced to seven years in jail.
She actually served 17 months in jail before being released on parole.
The guy in this case may serve less than 30 days. I think that qualifies as a slap on the wrist.
Sorry it took so long to respond to this.
Agreed. It was wrong for the U.S. to encourage a rebellion among the Shia and Kurds and then not support them militarily. A circumstance that the U.S. is rectifying now.
As for Reading up on Scott Ritter, the last thing I read about him was a few weeks ago and it involved allegations of soliciting underage girls: (see http://www.wiredpatrol.org/wiredworld/pervy.html)
I would beg to differ. The Germans seemingly have learned nothing from history. It is the British and the Americans who know that appeasing a dictator only leads to war, but on a time and place of the dictator's choosing.
I believe it was the then British Prime Appeaser, Chamberlain who proclaimed "peace in our time" after meeting with Hitler.
Peace at ANY cost ironically usually leads to war. In this case, Saddam has launched two wars of aggression against his neighbors, murdered thousands of his own people, simply for opposing him, kicked U.N weapons inspectors out of his country. (only allowing them to return when the U.S. began it's military buildup) and withstood over a decade of sanctions. (by the way, many of the same people opposed to this war were also calling for an end to those sanctions).
I'm not sure how much more we could have expected to accomplish via diplomatic means. The folks opposed to this war increasingly remind me of Chamberlain and his ilk. They meant well, but ultimately cost the lives of millions more people by not stopping Hitler before his military grew too powerful.
Well, the main one would obviously be the cpu. That aside, a better reason for Apple to go Intel is that they avoid the problem of being the only mainstream computer maker relying on Motorola and IBM for its CPUs.
If Moto or IBM have chip production problems, the only computer maker that gets hurt is Apple. You can't sell new, faster computers, if you can't obtain enough new, faster cpus to go into the computer. Meanwhile, Dell continues to release new computer with Intel or AMD chips.
On the other hand, if they go over to Intel, chip supply constraints affect all computer makers equally. If Intel or AMD have supply problems, they are hurt no more or no less than Dell, IBM, etc.
Also, while I completely understand the Megahertz myth. The average comsumer doesn't and isn't likely to "get it" anytime soon.
Apple fights a losing PR war in trying to convince people that it's chips are just as fast, even though the numbers don't indicate it.
Finally, going Intel opens all kinds of other possibilities for Mac Users. The least of which might be much better performance from Windows emulation software (and there's others out there besides Virtual PC).
Performance of these programs will dramatically improve, if they don't have to emulate the hardware. Some might scoff at the need for this last item. But believe me, there are plenty of folks who won't "switch" simply because there are one or two windows applications they "Need" and can't get on the Mac.
As for Microsoft, they really won't care about this last part. They're in the business of selling Windows. You still have to buy a copy of Windows in some form to get these emulation programs running. Microsoft really doesn't care, as long as it gets its money.
Actually, there's no reason Apple can't switch to Intel, while remaining a proprietary platform as well.
Apple simply needs to add a proprietary ASIC (application integrated circuit) to the motherboard to keep clone makers at bay.
Apple could use the cheap pc components to bring their prices down. They'd be able to say their machines run at the same MHz as pcs. But if you wanted to run Mac OS X on Intel, you'd still have to buy a computer from Apple.
Hence, no need for the drivers you mention.
(You may also recall, that Motorola and IBM briefly made PowerPC machines (I'm not talking about the Mac clones either) that were NOT capable of running Mac OS 8/9. These machines ran AIX or other unix OSes. But the motherboards lacked the correct ASICs to run the Mac OS.
So I assume that you would then agree that ALL countries should pay an equal share of the costs in these organizations?
The U.S. still pays for the defense of most of the Western European countries. The Europeans scoff at the amount of money we spend on defense. But they should look at themselves first. Do they realize how much of the American defense budget is directed at the defense of Western Europe?
The European contribution to their own defense is pathetic. It's time that the U.S. stops paying for the defense of these countries. They are all grown up and prosperous.
If the Europeans would simply pay a fair share of the costs of their own defense, the United States could then reduce its own defense spending and allocate that money to our own domestic needs.
If the United States had been able to spend all the money that we spent defending these European countries on our own domestic needs, we here in the U.S. would have a truly utopian society. We're talking on the scale of hudreds of trillions of dollars.
I'll make the analogy of a young adult still living at home with his parents. He wants to voice his own opinion and do things his own way. But he is not truly an adult until he moves out of his parents house, takes responsibiity for his own life and starts paying his own bills.
It's nice to see that the Europeans want to voice their own opinions on world events. It would be nicer still if they'd be willing to pay for their own defense.
You miss the point. When I wrote:
>>The only reason western Europe has the luxuary of looking down its nose at the U.S. today is that they've essentially been a collection of welfare states of the United States for the last half century.
I wasn't criticizing Europe's social welfare programs. I was criticizing European countries for being essentially what we in the United States used to refer to as "Welfare Queens."
In other words, Europe has been given a free ride for decades. Almost every other country in the world has to spend money on it's own defense. Western European countries have been the exception because the American taxpayers have done it for them.
By the way, The United States spends less than five percent of it's Gross National Product on Defense, not 40. Germany and France spend less than 2 percent.
The reason both countries can do that is the United States has spent it's own money defending Europe. A situation I really, really hope ends in the very near future.
-rj
Oh Yeah. I forgot. The Europeans have always done such a good job cleaning up.
Kosovo. Thousands of innocents murdered in their own backyard, but they're incapable of bringing themselves to do the right thing, until the U.S. steps in.
Or, perhaps that failure was just a lack of European intestinal fortitude.
It's so typically European. They'd rather have stable despots than the liberation of millions of people. This isn't only a recent development.
The cowardly response to the above will be that stability is better than chaos where millions may starve.
But that's a position that is could only be held by people who've been protected for the last 50 years by the American Taxpayer. A people, I might add, that have for several decades now not known what it's like to live in fear of tyranny.
How many hundreds of trillions of dollars have Americans spent to maintain the current European lifestyle? This is money that was spent on European defense, but ultimately, allowed the Europeans to neglect their own defense spending and focus on domestic needs.
The only reason western Europe has the luxuary of looking down its nose at the U.S. today is that they've essentially been a collection of welfare states of the United States for the last half century.
I for one hope we bring an end to that situation very, very soon. Let the Germans and French worry about their own security. And if the Russian experiment with democracy fails, let's see how critical these same people will be of America then.
Britain aside, NATO has become nothing more than a Welfare program for Western Europe. We stand by them when the Russians are at the door. But where are these folks when we tell them we need them? It's a one-way relationship. One that the American people need to reexamine.
The very threat of military retaliation by the United States allowed western Europe to remain free during the cold war.
Let's see how the European economies do when they have to increase their portion of defense spending, to offset the end of American subsidies. (The only reason European countries have been able to spend so little of their Gross Domestic Product on defense these past five or six decades)
Europeans complain of "The American Empire," as a previous post put it. But I for one would love to see a time arise when my country could go back to being an isolationist one. But ultimately, the same spineless folks who complain about the U.S. today, will be the same ones clamoring for our help tomorrow.
It reminds me of something the comedian David Letterman said after the fall of the Berlin Wall. He had a list of the top 10 things the French were doing to prepare for German reunification.
Number one was "Practicing Blowing kisses while marching backwards."
Slashdot Mirror
>>hey, idiot
How amusing. You can't argue your point successfully, so you resort to name calling. How typical.
To address your, rather obtuse, point. Yes. I believe America's military as it is presently constituted is capabable of winning such a war... assuming as I do (and did in my central point) that America has no desire for empire.
Yes, during the Korean War, millions of Chinese soldiers made a huge difference in the outcome of that war.
Yes Chiina still has lots and lots of soldiers. But please explain to me how you might deploy these troops to fight America on the modern battlefield? For Pete's sake, they're currently not even capable of mounting an attack across a few miles of water (see Taiwan).
2nd, assuming you could somehow magically move these soldiers into position to fight the U.S, how would they reposition their forces in reaction to changes in the battlefield, given the American supremecy in Air Power.
The Korean War was a long, long time ago. During that period, the N. Koreans and the Chinese actually had the better air forces. (they were even using Russian pilots).
That air superiority allowed them to move their ground forces around without fear of attack from the air.
Today, by most accounts, the Chinese Airforce is at least one generation behind America in Air Power.
-dj
Sorry. But your post made me laugh out loud. Fear? You've got to be kidding.
Fear is something the people of Iraq had while living under Saddam Hussein. Fear is what people living in the former U.S.S.R and NAZI Germany felt for simply criticizing their own governments.
No. What you and others like you feel is resentment and envy.
If any of the aforementioned regimes had the kind of military power currently held by the U.S., then you would know fear.
The reality is, the U.S currently has enough military and economic power to wipe out all the other militaries in the world, if it so desired. But it doesn't.
The U.S. has no desire for empire.
Once again, we hear whining from the former Colonial powers in Europe about the excesses of American power. Please.
Fear? No.
You sometimes Hate us?
Of that, I have no doubt. But once again, that springs only from your own insecurities and envious nature.
-dj
Sorry for the delay in responding.
All his fellow fighters who were captured in that battle were deported to America. He was in his early 20s, unmarried with no children. In fact, his brother was also captured and deported.
As for your other point, I could go on and on about my own family history. Huguenots, Anabaptists, and others. It could be argued that perhaps they should have stayed and fought
But for what gain, their own deaths? What chance did they have when the majority of the population in their home countries at least tacitly agreed with the bigoted spirit of the times.
No. Instead, they came to America seeking the liberties that were denied them in Europe.
I think the only exception that I can think of in my family would be my great, great grandfather a German who emmigrated from Posen (now Poznan province in Poland) in the 1860s. He clearly came here looking for better economic opportunities.
But as for the rest of my family, most of whom arrived here in the early to mid 1600s, they were simply seeking freedom.
-dj
>>>Other thing, did he have children in Europe? (Even if he didn't a great number of his fellow freedom fighters probably had) There are thousands of Europeans alive today who descend from them (I'm pretty sure you could find someone important among them)
Well, I tend to doubt your interpretation of MY family history.
I am descended from John MacBean who was born in 1634 in Strathdearn, Inverness-Shire, Scotland.
He was a Scottsman and tried fighting for his liberty in 1652 at the Battle of Worcestor. His side lost. He was captured, deported to America as a prisoner. (Arriving in Boston on Feb. 24, 1652 on the ship, The Sarah and John)
He was sold there by the British authorities as an indentured servant. It was in America though that he won his freedom.
-dj
There are thousands of Americans alive today who descend from John MacBean. (one of them was Alan Bean, who landed on the Moon in 1969 with Apollo 12)
Yes. My ancestors came from Europe. But they left to find the liberty and freedom that they weren't allowed to have in Europe.
They left their families, their property, everything to make a new life in America. This during a time when it took three months for the mail to make the trip back to their homes.
But they left because of the tyranny and small-mindedness of those they left behind. It's amusing that the descendants of those who created and allowed the tyranny to exist now lecture me on freedom and liberty.
-dj
One last thing, Soviet soldiers had nothing to do with the "Freedom" of anything.
With the Russians, Europe would have traded one lunatic (Hitler) for another (Stalin)
-dj
>>>The freedom of Europe was payed for with the life of allied soldiers; soviets, british, canadians, frence, norwegians, poles, US-ians*, dutch, maltese, kiwis, australians and so on.
I believe you ought to go visit some of the U.S. cemeteries in France. Those soldiers didn't die of old age.
My uncle fought at Normandy. His best friend was obliterated by a German howitzer shell that left nothing of him but his boots on the beaches of france.
Yes. The U.S. helped our former European allies via lend lease. But without the millions of U.S. troops sent to England to create the Western Front, the Russians would have lost the war. England alone wasn't capable of doing anything but defending itself.
Place the millions of German troops who fought in the West on the eastern front and suddenly, the Nazis are right back at the doors of Moscow.
I never would have believed I could write this before the events of the last two years. But I sincerely believe it's time to end NATO. Our so-called allies have proven they are only fair-weather friends.
The europeans are like the spoiled children of rich people. They've never had to work for anything, so they take everything for granted. Everything seems rosy to them now. But perhaps if the United States would stop subsidizing their defense and make them pay their own way, they'd have more appreciation for the price of freedom.
But please, when the Russian experiment in democracy fails, please don't come crying to the United States for help.
-dj
why is it that europeans need to post inane questions like
"Why is that people from the USA insist on calling themself 'americans'? There is a lot more to the americas than just the US."
While I share concerns about POTENTIAL infringement of civil liberties. I think a little perspective is in order.
Abraham Lincoln, in my opinion, was one of the greatest U.S. presidents. But he also threw out the writ of habeous corpus. You know... the section of the Constitution prohibiting the government from simply throwing people in jail without a cause.
Northern citizens who criticized Lincoln in the press routinely were thrown in prison. When the U.S. Supreme Court ordered him to stop it, he just ignored the order.
Lincoln is still remembered as one of our greatest presidents.
I understand the fear of infringement of our civil liberties. But "the constitution isn't a suicide pact."
As for our "allies" in Europe and their opinions of this mess. The reality there is, if their own freedoms had depended on their own sense of right and wrong -- and their resolve to confront evil, the French would be speaking German and the Germans would still be goose stepping throughout most of Europe.
The Europeans like to talk of freedom and democracy. But they lack the intestinal fortitude required to do anything about it for those lacking in both of the above.
-dj
Yes. And ironically enough, all those various freedoms were paid for with the lives of AMERICAN soldiers.
-dj
You're right. But the post is wrong. The code also doesn't crash IE 5.2 on Mac OS X. I just tried it and it didn't crash.
Maybe it's a windows thing. I'll try it later.
-dj
who uses both all sorts of operating systems and doesn't foam at the mouth.
>>>I graduated from Princeton, so you need not respond that I'm being anti-elitist and technophobic.
Sorry. But I'm afraid you are being technophobic. The people against using this technology frequently build up straw men to justify their opposition to genetic engineering.
I often hear people objeçt to this technology because it means tampering with what's "normal." Well, let's take a look at what's normal.
Polio.
Smallpox
AIDS
Why did we work, or continue to work, for a cure to these "normal" diseases. They occur in nature. What makes this any different?
Often the debate about GM centers around issues like eye, skin and hair color. But these issues are a side show. GM has the potental to put an end to hundreds, if not thousands, of inherited diseases.
Yes, Genetic Modification has the potential for abuse, as does most other scientific endeavors. But does that mean we shouldn't pursue medical advances in these areas?
I say yes to debating the possible consequences of this technology.
But at the same time, we should continue to move forward with the research and even implementation of these advances when deemed medically safe.
It's just an academic debate for those not carrying genes predisposing them and their children to certain diseases.
For those that do carry such traits, it's life and death.
-dj
Actually, if you know anything about the American prison system, he'll spend little - if no time in jail.
Assuming this is his first criminal offense, he'll likely have to serve as little as 1/5 of his sentence. I worked in a court house in NJ where I saw a women, who was a supervisor for the state's child abuse welfare agency and who had pleaded guilty for beating her 5-year-old son to death with a club, sentenced to seven years in jail.
She actually served 17 months in jail before being released on parole.
The guy in this case may serve less than 30 days. I think that qualifies as a slap on the wrist.
-dj
Sorry it took so long to respond to this. Agreed. It was wrong for the U.S. to encourage a rebellion among the Shia and Kurds and then not support them militarily. A circumstance that the U.S. is rectifying now. As for Reading up on Scott Ritter, the last thing I read about him was a few weeks ago and it involved allegations of soliciting underage girls: (see http://www.wiredpatrol.org/wiredworld/pervy.html)
I would beg to differ. The Germans seemingly have learned nothing from history. It is the British and the Americans who know that appeasing a dictator only leads to war, but on a time and place of the dictator's choosing.
I believe it was the then British Prime Appeaser, Chamberlain who proclaimed "peace in our time" after meeting with Hitler.
Peace at ANY cost ironically usually leads to war. In this case, Saddam has launched two wars of aggression against his neighbors, murdered thousands of his own people, simply for opposing him, kicked U.N weapons inspectors out of his country. (only allowing them to return when the U.S. began it's military buildup) and withstood over a decade of sanctions. (by the way, many of the same people opposed to this war were also calling for an end to those sanctions).
I'm not sure how much more we could have expected to accomplish via diplomatic means. The folks opposed to this war increasingly remind me of Chamberlain and his ilk. They meant well, but ultimately cost the lives of millions more people by not stopping Hitler before his military grew too powerful.
Well, the main one would obviously be the cpu. That aside, a better reason for Apple to go Intel is that they avoid the problem of being the only mainstream computer maker relying on Motorola and IBM for its CPUs.
If Moto or IBM have chip production problems, the only computer maker that gets hurt is Apple. You can't sell new, faster computers, if you can't obtain enough new, faster cpus to go into the computer. Meanwhile, Dell continues to release new computer with Intel or AMD chips.
On the other hand, if they go over to Intel, chip supply constraints affect all computer makers equally. If Intel or AMD have supply problems, they are hurt no more or no less than Dell, IBM, etc.
Also, while I completely understand the Megahertz myth. The average comsumer doesn't and isn't likely to "get it" anytime soon.
Apple fights a losing PR war in trying to convince people that it's chips are just as fast, even though the numbers don't indicate it.
Finally, going Intel opens all kinds of other possibilities for Mac Users. The least of which might be much better performance from Windows emulation software (and there's others out there besides Virtual PC).
Performance of these programs will dramatically improve, if they don't have to emulate the hardware. Some might scoff at the need for this last item. But believe me, there are plenty of folks who won't "switch" simply because there are one or two windows applications they "Need" and can't get on the Mac.
As for Microsoft, they really won't care about this last part. They're in the business of selling Windows. You still have to buy a copy of Windows in some form to get these emulation programs running. Microsoft really doesn't care, as long as it gets its money.
Actually, there's no reason Apple can't switch to Intel, while remaining a proprietary platform as well.
Apple simply needs to add a proprietary ASIC (application integrated circuit) to the motherboard to keep clone makers at bay.
Apple could use the cheap pc components to bring their prices down. They'd be able to say their machines run at the same MHz as pcs. But if you wanted to run Mac OS X on Intel, you'd still have to buy a computer from Apple.
Hence, no need for the drivers you mention.
(You may also recall, that Motorola and IBM briefly made PowerPC machines (I'm not talking about the Mac clones either) that were NOT capable of running Mac OS 8/9. These machines ran AIX or other unix OSes. But the motherboards lacked the correct ASICs to run the Mac OS.
Died?
Think again.
Try Mac OS X.
It's the biggest selling Unix operating system on the market today (better than four million copies per year)
It's also a BSD unix.
So I assume that you would then agree that ALL countries should pay an equal share of the costs in these organizations?
The U.S. still pays for the defense of most of the Western European countries. The Europeans scoff at the amount of money we spend on defense. But they should look at themselves first. Do they realize how much of the American defense budget is directed at the defense of Western Europe?
The European contribution to their own defense is pathetic. It's time that the U.S. stops paying for the defense of these countries. They are all grown up and prosperous.
If the Europeans would simply pay a fair share of the costs of their own defense, the United States could then reduce its own defense spending and allocate that money to our own domestic needs.
If the United States had been able to spend all the money that we spent defending these European countries on our own domestic needs, we here in the U.S. would have a truly utopian society. We're talking on the scale of hudreds of trillions of dollars.
I'll make the analogy of a young adult still living at home with his parents. He wants to voice his own opinion and do things his own way. But he is not truly an adult until he moves out of his parents house, takes responsibiity for his own life and starts paying his own bills.
It's nice to see that the Europeans want to voice their own opinions on world events. It would be nicer still if they'd be willing to pay for their own defense.
-dj
You miss the point. When I wrote: >>The only reason western Europe has the luxuary of looking down its nose at the U.S. today is that they've essentially been a collection of welfare states of the United States for the last half century. I wasn't criticizing Europe's social welfare programs. I was criticizing European countries for being essentially what we in the United States used to refer to as "Welfare Queens." In other words, Europe has been given a free ride for decades. Almost every other country in the world has to spend money on it's own defense. Western European countries have been the exception because the American taxpayers have done it for them. By the way, The United States spends less than five percent of it's Gross National Product on Defense, not 40. Germany and France spend less than 2 percent. The reason both countries can do that is the United States has spent it's own money defending Europe. A situation I really, really hope ends in the very near future. -rj
Oh Yeah. I forgot. The Europeans have always done such a good job cleaning up.
Kosovo. Thousands of innocents murdered in their own backyard, but they're incapable of bringing themselves to do the right thing, until the U.S. steps in.
Or, perhaps that failure was just a lack of European intestinal fortitude.
It's so typically European. They'd rather have stable despots than the liberation of millions of people. This isn't only a recent development.
The cowardly response to the above will be that stability is better than chaos where millions may starve.
But that's a position that is could only be held by people who've been protected for the last 50 years by the American Taxpayer. A people, I might add, that have for several decades now not known what it's like to live in fear of tyranny.
How many hundreds of trillions of dollars have Americans spent to maintain the current European lifestyle? This is money that was spent on European defense, but ultimately, allowed the Europeans to neglect their own defense spending and focus on domestic needs.
The only reason western Europe has the luxuary of looking down its nose at the U.S. today is that they've essentially been a collection of welfare states of the United States for the last half century.
I for one hope we bring an end to that situation very, very soon. Let the Germans and French worry about their own security. And if the Russian experiment with democracy fails, let's see how critical these same people will be of America then.
Britain aside, NATO has become nothing more than a Welfare program for Western Europe. We stand by them when the Russians are at the door. But where are these folks when we tell them we need them? It's a one-way relationship. One that the American people need to reexamine.
The very threat of military retaliation by the United States allowed western Europe to remain free during the cold war.
Let's see how the European economies do when they have to increase their portion of defense spending, to offset the end of American subsidies. (The only reason European countries have been able to spend so little of their Gross Domestic Product on defense these past five or six decades)
Europeans complain of "The American Empire," as a previous post put it. But I for one would love to see a time arise when my country could go back to being an isolationist one. But ultimately, the same spineless folks who complain about the U.S. today, will be the same ones clamoring for our help tomorrow.
It reminds me of something the comedian David Letterman said after the fall of the Berlin Wall. He had a list of the top 10 things the French were doing to prepare for German reunification.
Number one was "Practicing Blowing kisses while marching backwards."
-dj