The US desecrated his Holy Land, Saudi Arabia, when US troops were stationed there after Saddam invaded Kuwait. Thinking Saddam may invade Saudi Arabia, bin Laden offered the Saudi crown protection from Saddam. Instead the Saudis asked the US.
I don't agree with it but that was bin Laden's reasoning.
Hell, people are pissed that they have to show friggin ID before boarding a plane!
As they should be, checking ID to board a plane does nothing for safety, everyone of the 911 hijackers had ID. And these new "Real ID" cards will only give people a false sense of safety, they'll only be good until someone cracks them, which is only a matter of tyme.
Do you want to catch these guys BEFORE an attack or AFTER?
"Anyone who will give up a little liberty for safety will never get nor deserve either." From Benjamin Franklin, who lived in a tyme when the enemy could enter a person's home and drag them away.
Hopefully they'll tell Disney to go die in a fire, but most likely that's not what will happen, it's likely that whatever they'd end up paying Disney would slowly be sneaked into the broadband bills as a few extra dollars, barely noticeable.
ISPs would be stupid to pay Disney. Word gets out, and it would, then other content providers would demand tribute too. Five dollars, heck a penny, per subscriber may not sound like much but when there are 100 others demanding their pound of flesh too then it becomes obvious ISPs shouldn't pay anything. If content providers what to be paid then they need to provide a service people are willing to pay for a subscription. Someone in the thread mentioned the "Wall Street Journal", well the WSJ has an online subscription service as do others.
Well, I'd except anyone capable of using his or her brain to call the ESPN customer service number but sadly a lot of people will most likely call their ISPs and bitch, moan, scream, threaten and generally abuse the customer service agents until the ISP gives up and pays Disney their protection money^W^Wsubscription fees.
And what will the ISP do when a bunch of customers call and complain that they have to pay more for access? If I had to pay $100 instead of $50 for my access not only would I call my ISP and complain, I'd also tell them I would get my access from another business, or go without.
It cost money to install the infrastructure. It costs money to power the equipment.
And I pay for my access to that infrastructure. Only I've paid more than once, I pay once when ComCast makes a charge on my credit card and I pay again when government takes taxpayer money and gives it to ComCast.
If ALL content providers stopped uploading content the internet would die.
There was content before people had to pay for content, they only needed to pay for net access, and there will be continue to be content without people paying for content.
Using this model the itunes store could distribute music for "free" although it would be charged at the per GB rate.
Then when every content provider demands "their pound of flesh" only the rich could afford access.
Market competition should keep the costs down.
There is no competition in broadband access. Many don't have an option to get broadband and most of those who do have access to broadband have either cable or DSL through one company. And that's how it's going to remain unless and until there is an open infrastructure.
An ISP would pay big bucks to host the WSJ
If I want I can already get an online subscription to WSJ. WSJ does not need to demand payments from ISPs. Other services do the same. Heck/. does. However I don't want a subscription and I don't want to have to pay more for my net access.
By pushing the cost to the ISP instead of charging customers upfront, people don't see the direct cost of it, and will probably use the service more. Although their monthly bill will be higher, it will only be a few dollars.
It will only be "a few more dollars" until every other content providers wants "their dollars" too. When you have 10 content providers demanding ISPs pay them those few dollars become $50. That's more than I pay for my cable access. What about the other 90 in top 100, or 990 in the top 1000? Heck, with a plan like that I can post my own website and demand ISPs pay me a penny for each customer and become a multi-millionaire.
Of course it wouldn't work out that way, either everybody would do the same and drive ISPs out of business or ISPs would pass on the cost to subscribers so they end up paying thousands if not millions of dollars for access.
Not just requires Leopard - it runs only on Macs with Core 2 (or some Xeon) processors.
Ump, I didn't know that.
That means not only no PPC love, but even the first several Intel Macs are out of luck. Like my wife's 2-year old laptop (only 1 year old or so when they finally released Java 6).
She must of gotten just before Apple released the Core 2 MBP. Perhaps version 2,x. I got mine about 22 months ago, it's a MacBook Pro 3,1.
Perhaps from that link you can tell I have or want to install Ubuntu 9.04 on my MBP. Because it does not include in the install or repositories CinePaint I'm thinking about installing Ubuntu Studio 9.04 which does have CinePaint.
And here I was thinking Disney was primarily a kids company, and put out over half of the childrens grade content coming out of America.
No, Disney's not a kids company, it's a young at heart company. I used to live near Disney World in Florida and if I had to choice who I thought was in greater numbers there, the old or the young, I'd have to say the old.
If you want your cable company to let you look at whatever YOU want, regardless of how much of a "good deal" they can get on providing it for you, you need to fucking hunker down and support the tards who want to look at Disney content.
I see this as a twist on what broadband providers want. They opposed net neutrality because they wanted to be able to charge content providers fees for not slowing down content but now the content providers have turned it around and want to be paid to provide the content. People talked about how Time Warner or ComCast would try to charge Google, but now they won't want Google to charge them for providing searches. Now let's see if those who opposed net neutrality now come out in support of it.
Don't know if it's still true, but Disneyland used to prohibit their employees form having facial hair. Even though Walt sported a mustache.
Disneyworld as well as all other Disney properties had the same rule, no facial hair. Years ago I knew someone who worked in construction and I was told even employees of construction companies who worked on Disney property had to be clean shaven. However according to ABC News Disney ended that rule in 2000.
I hate to use the stale "I have a black friend" interjectory, but I do have a black friend and asked her opinion of "Song of the South" and the whole Uncle Remus thing. She stated that it was a depiction and a snapshot of historical standards and expectations and should be considered as such.
Something like this happened in the "Black Like Monica" episode of "Touched By An Angel". In it a small city is preparing a celebration for someone who was part of the Underground Railroad with Rosa Parks as a guest. One white city councilman asks a black councilwoman if they should use a better term instead of "Negro preacher" and she says that in her historical research that was the term used and she was comfortable with it. At one tyme Negro was a neutral term and not racist.
A smart police force can and will use the power of the masses (think "Amber alert"), but it is still in control of the investigation.
Amber alerts can lead to the same thing. A mob can attack a person who's with someone in an Amber Alert as easily as they can someone like this person who stomped on the kitten.
The NAZIs just played on an undercurrent of antisemitism. For centuries Jews were discriminated against and harassed. And they weren't the only ones. Agnostics, Muslims, Wiccans and other Pagans were as well. As queen of Castile Isabella, who created a united Spain, demanded that either non-Christians convert to Christianity or leave Spain. Sephardim or Spanish Jews and Spanish Moors left en mass. Others such as Agnostic Christians were persecuted or massacred.
Also it was not the NAZIs' goal to exterminate all Jews, what they wanted was for all Jews to leave Europe, ie the "Final Solution" of the Holocaust when some Jews would not leave. In 1932-3 the NAZis negotiated with Jewish leaders in Europe wherein those Jews who wanted to leave would be helped by the NAZIs. The SS and Gestapo even trained Jews. As part of the negotiations there were two agreements made between Jews and NAZIs, the Haavara Agreement or Transfer Agreement and the Rublee-Wohlthat-Abkommen. The first one was an agreement for Jewish emigration to Palestine and the second was to anywhere outside of Europe. Now with the British Mandate of Palestine the British barred Jews from immigrating to Palestine, thus the NAZI's training of Jews. Today it's Palestinians who are called terrorists but through the 1930s until the independence of Israel in 1948 it was Jews who were the terrorists.
This rookie kid might just as well land the RIAA a win. The odds may look good for Kiwi right now but if the rookie screws up he may end up handing the RIAA a free ticket to tyranny.
This "Rookie" is teamed up with a Harvard law professor who's called the "Billion Dollar Charlie" and has a 1998 movie, "A Civil Action", about a case of his about a toxic polluter.
Someone tell the democrats! They'll borrow 50 trillion dollars from the Chinese and get that fixed up in a jiffy!
Actually good lighting can cut light pollution and energy costs. In many places street lights shine every which way when it's only needed close to the ground. Lights that only shine down reduces light pollution as well as reduces energy. Not many but some areas are requiring lights that do illuminate downward. Above someone mentioned Phoenix and Tucson, because of the observatory in Tucson they are one of the places that regulate street lights so they don't light up the sky. This makes Tucson's night sky more visible than Phoenix's.
That aside, I don't see how any government can possibly take light pollution seriously. Too much investment to satisfy too small a group - who cares if it's world heritage.
Except it's not just astronomers that suffers from light pollution. Animals suffer as well. For instance sea turtles. Turtle hatchlings mistake beach front lights as light being reflected from water. Some in the US are concerned about the effects of net fishing wherein trawlers drag large nets which ensnares dolphins, ie the "Dolphin Safe" labels on some tuna cans, and turtles. But light pollution can have as much a negative impact on for instance leatherback turtles as nets do. There are many other species that are impacted by light pollution.
I grew up outside of Orlando, now it's encompassed by the city limits but not city itself, and I used to be able to lay down in the yard for a terrific view of the starts. It was rural then but it's urban now.
Of course, Alligator Alley has it's name for a reason. I grew up in rural Florida, and I knew the sound of alligators.
One thing I miss since moving is going to a BBQ and having gator tail, frog legs, and wild boar.
I stand by what I said. Now if you can provide a link saying Apple was also slapped with a lawsuit, I'll evaluate it in which case I may change my mind, unlike some I do change when I am convinced I was wrong. Do you?
First I need to be convinced. Saying that OS X doesn't perform badly on slow machines because no-one has filed a lawsuit, is not a convincing argument.
Okay, I'm willing to say Leopard doesn't run so well on older Macs. Are you willing to say Vista was bad? An article dated 2 June 2009, so it's not dated, says "
Windows 7 already biting into Vista but XP still king". Not even out of the gate but Windows 7 looks to do doing better than Vista, Windows 7 has slowed Vista sales. I still stand by what I said, that "Vista sucks".
There is no way I'm paying £900 for a 13 inch laptop. I'll likely get a Mac Book Pro in the near future and I'm ok with the larger ones being priced high but the 13 inch ones just don't feel priced right for what you're getting.
Slashdot Mirror
When exactly did we do that to Bin Laden?
The US desecrated his Holy Land, Saudi Arabia, when US troops were stationed there after Saddam invaded Kuwait. Thinking Saddam may invade Saudi Arabia, bin Laden offered the Saudi crown protection from Saddam. Instead the Saudis asked the US.
I don't agree with it but that was bin Laden's reasoning.
Falcon
Hell, people are pissed that they have to show friggin ID before boarding a plane!
As they should be, checking ID to board a plane does nothing for safety, everyone of the 911 hijackers had ID. And these new "Real ID" cards will only give people a false sense of safety, they'll only be good until someone cracks them, which is only a matter of tyme.
Do you want to catch these guys BEFORE an attack or AFTER?
"Anyone who will give up a little liberty for safety will never get nor deserve either."
From Benjamin Franklin, who lived in a tyme when the enemy could enter a person's home and drag them away.
Falcon
Hopefully they'll tell Disney to go die in a fire, but most likely that's not what will happen, it's likely that whatever they'd end up paying Disney would slowly be sneaked into the broadband bills as a few extra dollars, barely noticeable.
ISPs would be stupid to pay Disney. Word gets out, and it would, then other content providers would demand tribute too. Five dollars, heck a penny, per subscriber may not sound like much but when there are 100 others demanding their pound of flesh too then it becomes obvious ISPs shouldn't pay anything. If content providers what to be paid then they need to provide a service people are willing to pay for a subscription. Someone in the thread mentioned the "Wall Street Journal", well the WSJ has an online subscription service as do others.
Falcon
Well, I'd except anyone capable of using his or her brain to call the ESPN customer service number but sadly a lot of people will most likely call their ISPs and bitch, moan, scream, threaten and generally abuse the customer service agents until the ISP gives up and pays Disney their protection money^W^Wsubscription fees.
And what will the ISP do when a bunch of customers call and complain that they have to pay more for access? If I had to pay $100 instead of $50 for my access not only would I call my ISP and complain, I'd also tell them I would get my access from another business, or go without.
Falcon
It cost money to install the infrastructure. It costs money to power the equipment.
And I pay for my access to that infrastructure. Only I've paid more than once, I pay once when ComCast makes a charge on my credit card and I pay again when government takes taxpayer money and gives it to ComCast.
Falcon
If ALL content providers stopped uploading content the internet would die.
There was content before people had to pay for content, they only needed to pay for net access, and there will be continue to be content without people paying for content.
Falcon
Using this model the itunes store could distribute music for "free" although it would be charged at the per GB rate.
Then when every content provider demands "their pound of flesh" only the rich could afford access.
Market competition should keep the costs down.
There is no competition in broadband access. Many don't have an option to get broadband and most of those who do have access to broadband have either cable or DSL through one company. And that's how it's going to remain unless and until there is an open infrastructure.
An ISP would pay big bucks to host the WSJ
If I want I can already get an online subscription to WSJ. WSJ does not need to demand payments from ISPs. Other services do the same. Heck /. does. However I don't want a subscription and I don't want to have to pay more for my net access.
Falcon
By pushing the cost to the ISP instead of charging customers upfront, people don't see the direct cost of it, and will probably use the service more. Although their monthly bill will be higher, it will only be a few dollars.
It will only be "a few more dollars" until every other content providers wants "their dollars" too. When you have 10 content providers demanding ISPs pay them those few dollars become $50. That's more than I pay for my cable access. What about the other 90 in top 100, or 990 in the top 1000? Heck, with a plan like that I can post my own website and demand ISPs pay me a penny for each customer and become a multi-millionaire.
Of course it wouldn't work out that way, either everybody would do the same and drive ISPs out of business or ISPs would pass on the cost to subscribers so they end up paying thousands if not millions of dollars for access.
Falcon
A la carte cable would be the death of 75% of cable channels out there.
Yet nothing of value would be lost.
Would you think the same if your favorite channels were dropped?
Falcon
Not just requires Leopard - it runs only on Macs with Core 2 (or some Xeon) processors.
Ump, I didn't know that.
That means not only no PPC love, but even the first several Intel Macs are out of luck. Like my wife's 2-year old laptop (only 1 year old or so when they finally released Java 6).
She must of gotten just before Apple released the Core 2 MBP. Perhaps version 2,x. I got mine about 22 months ago, it's a MacBook Pro 3,1.
Perhaps from that link you can tell I have or want to install Ubuntu 9.04 on my MBP. Because it does not include in the install or repositories CinePaint I'm thinking about installing Ubuntu Studio 9.04 which does have CinePaint.
Falcon
And here I was thinking Disney was primarily a kids company, and put out over half of the childrens grade content coming out of America.
No, Disney's not a kids company, it's a young at heart company. I used to live near Disney World in Florida and if I had to choice who I thought was in greater numbers there, the old or the young, I'd have to say the old.
Falcon
the ISPs.
The only thing to understand is greed.
Falcon
If you want your cable company to let you look at whatever YOU want, regardless of how much of a "good deal" they can get on providing it for you, you need to fucking hunker down and support the tards who want to look at Disney content.
I see this as a twist on what broadband providers want. They opposed net neutrality because they wanted to be able to charge content providers fees for not slowing down content but now the content providers have turned it around and want to be paid to provide the content. People talked about how Time Warner or ComCast would try to charge Google, but now they won't want Google to charge them for providing searches. Now let's see if those who opposed net neutrality now come out in support of it.
Falcon
Don't know if it's still true, but Disneyland used to prohibit their employees form having facial hair. Even though Walt sported a mustache.
Disneyworld as well as all other Disney properties had the same rule, no facial hair. Years ago I knew someone who worked in construction and I was told even employees of construction companies who worked on Disney property had to be clean shaven. However according to ABC News Disney ended that rule in 2000.
Falcon
I hate to use the stale "I have a black friend" interjectory, but I do have a black friend and asked her opinion of "Song of the South" and the whole Uncle Remus thing. She stated that it was a depiction and a snapshot of historical standards and expectations and should be considered as such.
Something like this happened in the "Black Like Monica" episode of "Touched By An Angel". In it a small city is preparing a celebration for someone who was part of the Underground Railroad with Rosa Parks as a guest. One white city councilman asks a black councilwoman if they should use a better term instead of "Negro preacher" and she says that in her historical research that was the term used and she was comfortable with it. At one tyme Negro was a neutral term and not racist.
Falcon
A smart police force can and will use the power of the masses (think "Amber alert"), but it is still in control of the investigation.
Amber alerts can lead to the same thing. A mob can attack a person who's with someone in an Amber Alert as easily as they can someone like this person who stomped on the kitten.
Falcon
The NAZIs just played on an undercurrent of antisemitism. For centuries Jews were discriminated against and harassed. And they weren't the only ones. Agnostics, Muslims, Wiccans and other Pagans were as well. As queen of Castile Isabella, who created a united Spain, demanded that either non-Christians convert to Christianity or leave Spain. Sephardim or Spanish Jews and Spanish Moors left en mass. Others such as Agnostic Christians were persecuted or massacred.
Also it was not the NAZIs' goal to exterminate all Jews, what they wanted was for all Jews to leave Europe, ie the "Final Solution" of the Holocaust when some Jews would not leave. In 1932-3 the NAZis negotiated with Jewish leaders in Europe wherein those Jews who wanted to leave would be helped by the NAZIs. The SS and Gestapo even trained Jews. As part of the negotiations there were two agreements made between Jews and NAZIs, the Haavara Agreement or Transfer Agreement and the Rublee-Wohlthat-Abkommen. The first one was an agreement for Jewish emigration to Palestine and the second was to anywhere outside of Europe. Now with the British Mandate of Palestine the British barred Jews from immigrating to Palestine, thus the NAZI's training of Jews. Today it's Palestinians who are called terrorists but through the 1930s until the independence of Israel in 1948 it was Jews who were the terrorists.
Falcon
This rookie kid might just as well land the RIAA a win. The odds may look good for Kiwi right now but if the rookie screws up he may end up handing the RIAA a free ticket to tyranny.
This "Rookie" is teamed up with a Harvard law professor who's called the "Billion Dollar Charlie" and has a 1998 movie, "A Civil Action", about a case of his about a toxic polluter.
Falcon
Someone tell the democrats! They'll borrow 50 trillion dollars from the Chinese and get that fixed up in a jiffy!
Actually good lighting can cut light pollution and energy costs. In many places street lights shine every which way when it's only needed close to the ground. Lights that only shine down reduces light pollution as well as reduces energy. Not many but some areas are requiring lights that do illuminate downward. Above someone mentioned Phoenix and Tucson, because of the observatory in Tucson they are one of the places that regulate street lights so they don't light up the sky. This makes Tucson's night sky more visible than Phoenix's.
Falcon
That aside, I don't see how any government can possibly take light pollution seriously. Too much investment to satisfy too small a group - who cares if it's world heritage.
Except it's not just astronomers that suffers from light pollution. Animals suffer as well. For instance sea turtles. Turtle hatchlings mistake beach front lights as light being reflected from water. Some in the US are concerned about the effects of net fishing wherein trawlers drag large nets which ensnares dolphins, ie the "Dolphin Safe" labels on some tuna cans, and turtles. But light pollution can have as much a negative impact on for instance leatherback turtles as nets do. There are many other species that are impacted by light pollution.
Falcon
I grew up outside of Orlando, now it's encompassed by the city limits but not city itself, and I used to be able to lay down in the yard for a terrific view of the starts. It was rural then but it's urban now.
Of course, Alligator Alley has it's name for a reason. I grew up in rural Florida, and I knew the sound of alligators.
One thing I miss since moving is going to a BBQ and having gator tail, frog legs, and wild boar.
Falcon
I'm a Comcast user, and I run a DNS server for a few private domains that only I use
Are you running that and hoping that your dynamic IP address doesn't change or do you have a business account with a fixed IP?
My access is through Comcast, though like TFA's writer I get it from Earthlink, and I have a static IP with a consumer not a business account.
Falcon
I stand by what I said. Now if you can provide a link saying Apple was also slapped with a lawsuit, I'll evaluate it in which case I may change my mind, unlike some I do change when I am convinced I was wrong. Do you?
First I need to be convinced. Saying that OS X doesn't perform badly on slow machines because no-one has filed a lawsuit, is not a convincing argument.
Okay, I'm willing to say Leopard doesn't run so well on older Macs. Are you willing to say Vista was bad? An article dated 2 June 2009, so it's not dated, says " Windows 7 already biting into Vista but XP still king". Not even out of the gate but Windows 7 looks to do doing better than Vista, Windows 7 has slowed Vista sales. I still stand by what I said, that "Vista sucks".
Falcon
There is no way I'm paying £900 for a 13 inch laptop. I'll likely get a Mac Book Pro in the near future and I'm ok with the larger ones being priced high but the 13 inch ones just don't feel priced right for what you're getting.
Did you look at the 13" MacBook Pro?
Falcon
Newer DLSR's are pretty much moving in bulk to SD cards already.
Canon's EOS 5D Mark II, which most certainly is a pro model, uses CF but not SD cards. Now the EOS-1Ds Mark III uses both as does the EOS-1D Mark III.
Falcon