All of them have been purposely taught to hate America, Christians, and Jews and that killing them will delight Allah.
This is just not true. The majority of them do not hate America, or Christians, or Jews. Most of them strongly dislike America and Christians because of all of the things that we have done to their countries. Christians invaded their countries, killing, raping, and pillaging, repeatedly. You know the red cross, well they call themselves the red crescent there because the red cross was what people used to carry while burning their cities and raping their women. They look at us sort of the way Japan looks at the Chinese. They don't like or trust us. There are a few people who do hate us. There are some who hate us so much they will go to any length to hurt us. Some of them have very justifiable reasons for their hatred. Of those that hate us, many of them have decided the reason we do such horrible things is because we want to destroy their religion (as we have tried to in the past). They are fighting what they see as a holy war. Most Muslims are pretty peace loving, only a few are radical and hate filled. Think of the KKK, or the Spanish Inquisition for parallels in Christianity.
What exactly did the USA do to the Egyptians, Saudi's, Iraqi's?
Well, lately we dropped bombs on their cities, killing thousands of people, burned their fields, stole everything worth owning, sold all of the natural resources, borrowed hundred of millions of dollars on their behalf, built 10 huge military bases in their country, built a giant concrete wall around the middle of their capital, and filled it with foreign businessmen who now now everything. We left them without power or proper water, with half the country unemployed. We tortured and sexually abused members of their armed forces, then published pictures of them on TV all over the world. How is that for starters?
Muslims worldwide would rather go about their daily lives without bothering with the "great evil" of the USA.
I agree, most of them would like to. The question is, will we leave them alone to do so, or will we invade them or arm terrorists and dictators in the hopes of gaining control of them? Will we do things that make them so angry and hopeless that they are willing to die for a little payback?
We already are sued for saying "Merry Christmas"
Not me, I said it earlier today, and I saw it on TV.
They even go about defending terrorists and captured soldiers held at Guantanamo.
Have you ever heard of the phrase "innocent until proven guilty?" Some of those people held at Guantanamo bay are American citizens. One of them was captured in his home in South Dakota, before being let go when the Spanish captured the real person responsible. The army has already let many of these "terrorists" go back to Sweden and the other countries they are from. Just because someone says someone else is a terrorist does not mean that they are, or that they should be tortured and given no basic human rights. Maybe you are a terrorist, if I call you one does that mean you should not be given a trial?
I do not believe in a theocracy either. I believe people should be able to choose for themselves between right and wrong. The problem I have is when a minority of the people try to push or promote a wrong (homosexual marriage, pornography as free speech, etc.) as a right.
I have no problem with you voicing your opinions. That is fine. Just don't try to keep other's from voicing theirs. Yours is not the only opinion on what is right and wrong, and just because you think something is wrong, does not make it so. Make decisions for yourself and feel free to try to convince others of your opinions. But stop there. Don't try to pass laws to stop people from saying or doing things you think are wrong. If they don't affect you, it is none of your business. Butt out. If someone is doing something wrong, then they will have to live with it,
How else do you explain that prices in the UK are almost twice steeper than those in the US?
The prices are higher, probably because they are being charged a different price by the UK version of the RIAA. Obviously I don't know that for certain, since the agreement is a trade secret, but I do know that Apple has publicly stated that the iTunes Music Store is a break even proposition for them, and they have told their shareholders that they are operating it to promote ipods. You can find both of those as facts on the record. As to the pricing trying to meet a 99 cent price point, or something equivalent, Apple is just trying to make it an attractive, round number, just like every thing you buy these days. nobody wants to buy something for 1.136 dollars, 1.15 is easier to remember and easier to add.
Basically, I imagine the prices are set mostly to cover whatever cost they have, and be not to strange of a value. Do you really think Apple plans to make it's money by having higher prices in the UK, and thus fleece them for all that extra money? That is pretty unlikely. I'm sure they would be quite happy if the EU would allow licensing across the entire Union for one fee. I'm sure they have already spent more money in legal fees trying to negotiate with every nation's RIAA, and more in technical fees setting up different stores with different music than they will will make for years selling music there.
P.S. as for being an Apple zealot, I don't buy music from the iTunes music store (except for one hard-to-find album).
If the IP providers object, they can be easily taken to court, everybody's happy.
If only it were that easy. There is no actual law that says IP providers have to offer the same price as IP providers in other EU countries. (There is an EU directive for each country to pass laws to that effect.) And a license to music is contingent upon your location under laws in most EU member states (Thanks to pressure from the U.S.). The problem is that the UK council is not seeing is that according to EU law, Apple is offering different services in each country, even though the end result for the user, is the same song. This is further complicated by the fact that although their end user license says you can only buy from the country in which you reside, their only control is through the address listed for the credit card, so the UK authorities are seeing it as credit card based.
The article you link to lists 31 of 67 precincts using an electronic voting system. Note, there are plenty of fishy things in the story and it set off my BS detector as well, but really you're off on this one.
Apple's an American company. They should just set the price at $0.99 and let everyone do the math at checkout.
It is not a matter of exchange rates. Apple has to license the songs from a different organization, for a different price, in each country. All they can do to be compliant is either charge an average across the EU, funneling money from one EU country's version of the RIAA to another's version of the RIAA, or set the price as the highest price in any EU country and charge more money in some countries than they would otherwise need to.
You are in idiot for believing that. They felt *wronged*. Give me a break... terrorists and their kind are IDIOTS and Satanists.
Wow, where to start. First you seem to have a habit of naming anyone who does not think just like you an idiot. Second, you seem very confused about what a satanist is. Very few people act in a way that they think is wrong. Most people do what they see as right, although you may not understand or agree with their reasons for doing what they do. Calling someone evil, and saying that they are inhuman, or satanists, or insane is just a pathetic cop out. It is way to avoid trying to understand them, their point of view, or even knowing basics facts about their existence. The terrorists we are discussing felt so strongly about their beliefs that they were willing to kill thousands and die themselves. What do you suppose could motivate someone so strongly?
The truth of the matter is that the United States and its allies have done some pretty awful things to people all around the world, and we are still doing them. People whose children have been killed by landmines or bombs, whose brother was executed by bullets supplied by the U.S., whose mother was slaughtered by religious fundamentalists after we destabilized their government and locked up all their police... these people have a lot of hate, and not much reason to continue living. If you don't want more terrorist attacks, maybe you should consider why they took place, why the people were so willing to kill and die.
That does not make what they did right, or noble, or acceptable. It does make it understandable, and perhaps more events of the same kind preventable.
you should be ashamed for even symathizing with their *plight*
I refuse to be ashamed for sympathizing with anyone's plight. Given the chance, I'd probably shoot them in the head before allowing them another try. But I'd still sympathize with their pain and suffering, because that is what the noble part of humanity is.
I will teach my children about sex. I will teach them honestly and frankly because there is no other way. I will also teach them abstinence until marriage, if they choose otherwise, so be it, but I've taught them.
That is an interesting statement. If everyone was just like you, sex education would be a word of mouth teaching and I'm sure you will pass on some of your misinformation to your children. As far as teaching abstinence goes, well you can teach good reasons to be abstinent, and you can order them to be abstinent, but unless you are going to stand in from of them and not have sex, teaching abstinence is really not necessary. I also note, you qualify your statement, implying that you don't think they will necessarily follow your teaching. Why is that?
Seriously, if the European Union would get off it's butt and actually make the various European versions of the RIAA offer the same licensing across all of Europe, like they have already ordered them too, then this would not be an issue. Apple charges different prices because they are charged different prices. Now the UK has ruled that Apple is violating a EU law, but obeying it would break the law in any given member of the European Union. This is largely a matter of considering intellectual property to be a good or service, when sold by Apple, but not otherwise considered a good or service across the EU as a whole.
Mostly this is just the UK pissing and moaning because they are getting ripped off more by their RIAA clone than other countries are and they want Apple to do something about it. Apple doesn't really care how much the songs cost, they just want them as cheap as possible. They don't even make any money on the issue, it is just a way to get people to buy computers and mp3 players.
I'm sure this will result in the EU ordering each country to license IP across the EU under the same terms as locally, and in another 10 years most of the countries will actually get around to doing so. In the mean time, Apple will fight things out in the courts, stop selling in the UK, raise prices across all of the EU, or take a loss selling into the UK for the sake of good will. None of which seems like a good deal for anyone involved.
Yes they did. They even used electronic voting machines in 1996. Maybe this story is true, or maybe it is bunk. Your reasoning, however, is very flawed. I'm sure you are thinking of the famous "hanging chad" when you think of voting in Florida, but different machines are used in different districts.
they are not *taking* away anyone's speech, just to make sure that the "speech" in question is done in a different venue
Yes, freedom of speech does not mean you can say what you want anywhere, it means you can say what you want while hiding in your basement. Sigh. Have you ever heard of "the tyranny of the majority?" It is why we have a bill of rights. The majority should not be able to take basic human rights away from a minority, including the freedom of speech. That is why it takes a constitutional amendment to do so, because otherwise any group that had more voting power, and was intent on changing everyone else, could just deny basic rights to everyone else.
You are very cavalier about your opinions. How would you like to be on the other side of the numbers game? Would you be so willing to let a majority decide? What if 60% of the U.S. converted to Islam by the year 2010. Would you support their right to make saying the name "Jesus" on television or in newspapers illegal? How about their right to prevent anyone else from seeing the faces of women on television or in public. After all you can still talk about Jesus and look at women's faces in your own home.
Removing anything that does not directly harm anyone from television is censorship and an illegal infringement of the freedom of speech. But hey, the bill of rights is pretty much shredded at this point anyway, so continue on with your foolish, and anti-american ideas.
know a good 75% of you are left-wing nutjobs that think anyone who is a Christian or Jew (and adheres to the standards of their respective religions) is a whacko in the same vein as those idiot terrorist who killed over 3,000 people on 9/11.
Prejudiced much? I don't care if anyone is a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or a Satanist. Good for them, I hope it helps them meet people and find spiritual peace. The terrorists who killed people on 9/11 were not idiots. They decided that their beliefs were more important than other people's and took away the rights of others to choose. They did so because of their religion, philosophy, and because they felt wronged. I would not claim that censoring TV was in any way the same magnitude as blowing up some a huge building full of people. Both you and the terrorists, however, seem interested in taking away other people's rights because of your religious and philosophical beliefs.
Finally, I'd like to address your grievances against pornography. Pornography can cause harm, in that it informs people much like the rest of television, poorly and inaccurately. If our country had a decent sex education program, most of them would be moot. Unfortunately a bunch of "religious wackos" have made it so that in a blind study 11 of the 13 sex ed programs in the U.S. have been found to be teaching factually incorrect information. Taboos on accurate information are the religious stupidity I have the least sympathy for. Keeping people ignorant by design is sickening, and has caused more pain and suffering than pornography ever has.
In summary I'd like to paraphrase your savior, "How long must I suffer these fools?"
If Apple is going to license their OS, they better make sure they are prepared to compete in the hardware world.
Ridiculous! Apple would never again license their OS without protection from competition. It would be impossible for Apple to compete with IBM on hardware prices when IBM is supplying the CPU. That is just dumb.
That is not to say that there will not be a partnership where IBM licenses OSX (although that is also unlikely). If anything IBM will provide services that include both Apple desktops/laptops and IBM servers, support, and services. IBMs bread and butter is service contracts, which would be a dream with a enterprise full of macs.
I gues the short of it is, everyone in town already knows all of this stuff about me.
Everyone in town knows how much income you have, your political party affiliation, and whether or not you have a concealed weapons permit??? Where exactly do you live?
I think you are drastically underestimating the potential abuses of this database. Do you really want the crackhead on the corner to know everything about you? Now think about this in ten years when everyone has access to the internet all the time, and the potential criminal abuses.
Most of the Apple hardcore loyalists would drop Apple like it had a big nasty worm.
I doubt this. What percentage of Apple users would care if Apple got together with IBM. Fashion conscious people don't notice, tech people would not care.
I doubt Jobs would sell Apple.
Jobs may run Apple, but he sure doesn't own it. Apple is pretty profitable, and could be more so if partnered with IBMs enterprise customers. IBM already makes money off the chip sales, and Apple doing well helps them. They already can't keep up with the demand for chips from Apple.
say this is a speculative unlikelyhood.
That is probably true, but not for the reasons you cite. I would not put it past IBM to try to partner with some companies to make the PowerPC the choice for desktops. They might even be able pull it off.
ncompitence in a secret po^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hhomeland security department is not such a bad thing.
I hope that government incompetence pervades the homeland security initiative. They are more of a danger to citizens than terrorists, although I'm sure there will be more and more terrorists in the future, since our foreign policy seems bent on enraging everyone possible. Perhaps the future will not be like 1984, maybe it will be more like Brazil, or better yet, Hogan's Heroes. "I SAW NOTHING!"
...oh, so you mean 99% of users on the Internet (the masses are dumb). Anything that can take advantage of clueless people is a threat in my book.
Nah this exploit would target the clueless 50% of the 6% that are surfing with Safari. If someone is doing a phishing scam, they are probably better off using a more pervasive exploit.
In my example people would still need to work to acquire all of the luxuries in life. Want a video game or a car or a steak, well then you will need to work for them. I think that only a few people would be happy with just the basics for survival. It's removing the need for money that is important. Right now the value of money is undeniable, without it, you will die. I think if money was a luxury, rather than a necessity, people would be more likely to use their money charitably, and place less social value on it's acquisition. This would benefit us all, and complaints about the uneven distribution of funds would be less important. Who do you think commits most of the violent crimes in this world? People who are desperate, who have nothing, and who don't care if they go to prison because it is better than their lives if they don't commit crimes. This would kill a lot of the desperation and motivation for violence in our society. It would not end violent crime, there is plenty of other evil lurking inside the human animal. It would, however, make a change for the better.
Is anyone aware of any malware that takes advantage of the exploits?
There was a demo exploit of the Safari pop-up redirection. Anyone could have grabbed that and set up an exploit site. That one was pretty weak though. It might have been good for phishing clueless people.
Every last one of them was -- and still is -- theoretical.
Well, not quite. The second Safari fix had a demo exploit published. I never got it to work on my system, but several people reported it working for them. (This was a pretty minor issue possibly tricking someone into thinking a pop-up was opened by another window). As for the other exploits, I don't know of any being leveraged either by a hacker or a worm, but that does not mean they were not found by anyone. The tiff and postscript overflows, for example, are not too different from exploits on windows and someone may have been using them.
This patch encompasses about 5 possible remote code executions most of which were discovered by the open source community or by security firms. I find it encouraging that Apple is able to leverage the OS community to help secure their system, but it seems like Apple would benefit from some more thorough security reviews internally.
Please note, I am not trying to pick on OSX here. OSX has an excellent security record, and I would trust it more than Windows or the average Linux distribution at this point. Eweek's coverage was not too bad, they mentioned them as potential vulnerabilities. I could have done without Secunia's 2 cents, and it might have been nice if they had emphasized that even with these vulnerabilities unpatched, there is little practical danger to the average user. All in all though, I did not think the article was too bad.
Suddenly the population of the planet has doubled to over 12 billion in 100 years time.
Unless of course this longevity treatment also extends our reproductively viable timespan as well. In which case the problem will get even worse, faster!
is like asking the Jeffrey Dahmer to protect you from your alcoholic father's drunken rage
Your analogy is close to being accurate. There are two distinct problems. One is that money is power. When large corporations (whose entire purpose is to gather money) have sufficient funds, they can bribe their way out of anything. The second problem is that governments are corrupt, and filled with the bribable. I still think both of these come down to the "money is the root of all evil" saying. If society valued something other than money, I think it would be better off all around. The problem is, in society as it exists now, money is necessary. If I don't have it, I can't pay taxes and thus can't own land and have no way to feed/cloth/shelter myself. Money is needed, and thus valued. I'm pretty sure that if 3% of the worlds resources were devoted to providing basic food, clothing, and shelter to every single person, for no charge and without any expectation of payback the world would become a very different place in a short amount of time. There are other things necessary to keep our society functioning, like education, basic law enforcement, and health care. But I think just meeting the basic requirements for survival, for most people could be accomplished with little effort and would benefit the world immensely. How many people would change their value systems, if they did not have to constantly procure money just to live? How much work would it really take to satisfy these basic requirements for everyone? It would probably cost a very small fraction of the wealth.
Perhaps I am being overly optimistic. Human nature will probably prevent anything like that from ever happening and I don't see any realistic path towards reaching that state. How does one change an entire planet's social values?
If a company's activities are illegal, they will be likely to lose money when caught.
Hahahahahaha. Yeah. Not in this country bub. At least not as much as they made. Legal actions in the U.S. are not about punishing the guilty, they are about getting a cut of the proceeds.
If they are immoral, they may lose investors, and will carry a large regulatory risk.
Have you ever heard of a mutual fund? Most investment by individuals in the U.S. is in the form of a mutual fund. Investors have no idea what the companies in the fund are doing, or in most cases, who they are. Immoral actions make money, for the companies involved, and more often for the crooks who run the companies.
The problem is not just corporations. The problem is a value system that values wealth, and a government that is enslaved by it.
I notice that your comments are all very unspecific. You complain that cold fusion theories conflict with established quantum physics theories, and some of them do. How can you, however, dismiss a searched for phenomenon as being fraud? Even a sophomore logic student knows that negative proofs are a fallacy.
You assert that I do not understand your argument, maybe that is because you did not present any facts. All you have presented is conjecture, and stubborn opinions. "X has never happened and never will" is the kind of entrenched thinking that holds science back. If I recall correctly the procedure is supposed to be something like: look at available data, make hypothesis, test hypothesis, allow peers to evaluate, repeat as necessary. I don't remember the part where you decide the results in advance.
I remember seeing article not that long ago about a canadian troop transport that had hit a mine in Iraq. The troops were saying they sure were thankful that their truck had armor, unlike most of the ones the U.S. uses. On a related note, I know someone making 70K in 6 months welding armor on U.S. vehicles in Iraq.
Fission was a a clear cut, easily demonstrated physical phenomenon... Cold fusion is murky, quirky, irreplicable, and almost certainly some combination of experimental errors, incompetence, and outright fraud.
Just because you do not understand a phenomenon, does not make it unlikely to exist. Fission obviously exists. Given that one presumption, I think it more likely than not, that fission can be done at relatively low temperatures, given the right set of variables. Whether it will ever be a practical energy source is another matter. Those who do not learn from history etc. etc.
Slashdot Mirror
All of them have been purposely taught to hate America, Christians, and Jews and that killing them will delight Allah.
This is just not true. The majority of them do not hate America, or Christians, or Jews. Most of them strongly dislike America and Christians because of all of the things that we have done to their countries. Christians invaded their countries, killing, raping, and pillaging, repeatedly. You know the red cross, well they call themselves the red crescent there because the red cross was what people used to carry while burning their cities and raping their women. They look at us sort of the way Japan looks at the Chinese. They don't like or trust us. There are a few people who do hate us. There are some who hate us so much they will go to any length to hurt us. Some of them have very justifiable reasons for their hatred. Of those that hate us, many of them have decided the reason we do such horrible things is because we want to destroy their religion (as we have tried to in the past). They are fighting what they see as a holy war. Most Muslims are pretty peace loving, only a few are radical and hate filled. Think of the KKK, or the Spanish Inquisition for parallels in Christianity.
What exactly did the USA do to the Egyptians, Saudi's, Iraqi's?
Well, lately we dropped bombs on their cities, killing thousands of people, burned their fields, stole everything worth owning, sold all of the natural resources, borrowed hundred of millions of dollars on their behalf, built 10 huge military bases in their country, built a giant concrete wall around the middle of their capital, and filled it with foreign businessmen who now now everything. We left them without power or proper water, with half the country unemployed. We tortured and sexually abused members of their armed forces, then published pictures of them on TV all over the world. How is that for starters?
Muslims worldwide would rather go about their daily lives without bothering with the "great evil" of the USA.
I agree, most of them would like to. The question is, will we leave them alone to do so, or will we invade them or arm terrorists and dictators in the hopes of gaining control of them? Will we do things that make them so angry and hopeless that they are willing to die for a little payback?
We already are sued for saying "Merry Christmas"
Not me, I said it earlier today, and I saw it on TV.
They even go about defending terrorists and captured soldiers held at Guantanamo.
Have you ever heard of the phrase "innocent until proven guilty?" Some of those people held at Guantanamo bay are American citizens. One of them was captured in his home in South Dakota, before being let go when the Spanish captured the real person responsible. The army has already let many of these "terrorists" go back to Sweden and the other countries they are from. Just because someone says someone else is a terrorist does not mean that they are, or that they should be tortured and given no basic human rights. Maybe you are a terrorist, if I call you one does that mean you should not be given a trial?
I do not believe in a theocracy either. I believe people should be able to choose for themselves between right and wrong. The problem I have is when a minority of the people try to push or promote a wrong (homosexual marriage, pornography as free speech, etc.) as a right.
I have no problem with you voicing your opinions. That is fine. Just don't try to keep other's from voicing theirs. Yours is not the only opinion on what is right and wrong, and just because you think something is wrong, does not make it so. Make decisions for yourself and feel free to try to convince others of your opinions. But stop there. Don't try to pass laws to stop people from saying or doing things you think are wrong. If they don't affect you, it is none of your business. Butt out. If someone is doing something wrong, then they will have to live with it,
How else do you explain that prices in the UK are almost twice steeper than those in the US?
The prices are higher, probably because they are being charged a different price by the UK version of the RIAA. Obviously I don't know that for certain, since the agreement is a trade secret, but I do know that Apple has publicly stated that the iTunes Music Store is a break even proposition for them, and they have told their shareholders that they are operating it to promote ipods. You can find both of those as facts on the record. As to the pricing trying to meet a 99 cent price point, or something equivalent, Apple is just trying to make it an attractive, round number, just like every thing you buy these days. nobody wants to buy something for 1.136 dollars, 1.15 is easier to remember and easier to add.
Basically, I imagine the prices are set mostly to cover whatever cost they have, and be not to strange of a value. Do you really think Apple plans to make it's money by having higher prices in the UK, and thus fleece them for all that extra money? That is pretty unlikely. I'm sure they would be quite happy if the EU would allow licensing across the entire Union for one fee. I'm sure they have already spent more money in legal fees trying to negotiate with every nation's RIAA, and more in technical fees setting up different stores with different music than they will will make for years selling music there.
P.S. as for being an Apple zealot, I don't buy music from the iTunes music store (except for one hard-to-find album).
If the IP providers object, they can be easily taken to court, everybody's happy.
If only it were that easy. There is no actual law that says IP providers have to offer the same price as IP providers in other EU countries. (There is an EU directive for each country to pass laws to that effect.) And a license to music is contingent upon your location under laws in most EU member states (Thanks to pressure from the U.S.). The problem is that the UK council is not seeing is that according to EU law, Apple is offering different services in each country, even though the end result for the user, is the same song. This is further complicated by the fact that although their end user license says you can only buy from the country in which you reside, their only control is through the address listed for the credit card, so the UK authorities are seeing it as credit card based.
The article you link to lists 31 of 67 precincts using an electronic voting system. Note, there are plenty of fishy things in the story and it set off my BS detector as well, but really you're off on this one.
Apple's an American company. They should just set the price at $0.99 and let everyone do the math at checkout.
It is not a matter of exchange rates. Apple has to license the songs from a different organization, for a different price, in each country. All they can do to be compliant is either charge an average across the EU, funneling money from one EU country's version of the RIAA to another's version of the RIAA, or set the price as the highest price in any EU country and charge more money in some countries than they would otherwise need to.
You are in idiot for believing that. They felt *wronged*. Give me a break... terrorists and their kind are IDIOTS and Satanists.
Wow, where to start. First you seem to have a habit of naming anyone who does not think just like you an idiot. Second, you seem very confused about what a satanist is. Very few people act in a way that they think is wrong. Most people do what they see as right, although you may not understand or agree with their reasons for doing what they do. Calling someone evil, and saying that they are inhuman, or satanists, or insane is just a pathetic cop out. It is way to avoid trying to understand them, their point of view, or even knowing basics facts about their existence. The terrorists we are discussing felt so strongly about their beliefs that they were willing to kill thousands and die themselves. What do you suppose could motivate someone so strongly?
The truth of the matter is that the United States and its allies have done some pretty awful things to people all around the world, and we are still doing them. People whose children have been killed by landmines or bombs, whose brother was executed by bullets supplied by the U.S., whose mother was slaughtered by religious fundamentalists after we destabilized their government and locked up all their police... these people have a lot of hate, and not much reason to continue living. If you don't want more terrorist attacks, maybe you should consider why they took place, why the people were so willing to kill and die.
That does not make what they did right, or noble, or acceptable. It does make it understandable, and perhaps more events of the same kind preventable.
you should be ashamed for even symathizing with their *plight*
I refuse to be ashamed for sympathizing with anyone's plight. Given the chance, I'd probably shoot them in the head before allowing them another try. But I'd still sympathize with their pain and suffering, because that is what the noble part of humanity is.
I will teach my children about sex. I will teach them honestly and frankly because there is no other way. I will also teach them abstinence until marriage, if they choose otherwise, so be it, but I've taught them.
That is an interesting statement. If everyone was just like you, sex education would be a word of mouth teaching and I'm sure you will pass on some of your misinformation to your children. As far as teaching abstinence goes, well you can teach good reasons to be abstinent, and you can order them to be abstinent, but unless you are going to stand in from of them and not have sex, teaching abstinence is really not necessary. I also note, you qualify your statement, implying that you don't think they will necessarily follow your teaching. Why is that?
Seriously, if the European Union would get off it's butt and actually make the various European versions of the RIAA offer the same licensing across all of Europe, like they have already ordered them too, then this would not be an issue. Apple charges different prices because they are charged different prices. Now the UK has ruled that Apple is violating a EU law, but obeying it would break the law in any given member of the European Union. This is largely a matter of considering intellectual property to be a good or service, when sold by Apple, but not otherwise considered a good or service across the EU as a whole.
Mostly this is just the UK pissing and moaning because they are getting ripped off more by their RIAA clone than other countries are and they want Apple to do something about it. Apple doesn't really care how much the songs cost, they just want them as cheap as possible. They don't even make any money on the issue, it is just a way to get people to buy computers and mp3 players.
I'm sure this will result in the EU ordering each country to license IP across the EU under the same terms as locally, and in another 10 years most of the countries will actually get around to doing so. In the mean time, Apple will fight things out in the courts, stop selling in the UK, raise prices across all of the EU, or take a loss selling into the UK for the sake of good will. None of which seems like a good deal for anyone involved.
Florida didn't use electronic voting in 2000
Yes they did. They even used electronic voting machines in 1996. Maybe this story is true, or maybe it is bunk. Your reasoning, however, is very flawed. I'm sure you are thinking of the famous "hanging chad" when you think of voting in Florida, but different machines are used in different districts.
they are not *taking* away anyone's speech, just to make sure that the "speech" in question is done in a different venue
Yes, freedom of speech does not mean you can say what you want anywhere, it means you can say what you want while hiding in your basement. Sigh. Have you ever heard of "the tyranny of the majority?" It is why we have a bill of rights. The majority should not be able to take basic human rights away from a minority, including the freedom of speech. That is why it takes a constitutional amendment to do so, because otherwise any group that had more voting power, and was intent on changing everyone else, could just deny basic rights to everyone else.
You are very cavalier about your opinions. How would you like to be on the other side of the numbers game? Would you be so willing to let a majority decide? What if 60% of the U.S. converted to Islam by the year 2010. Would you support their right to make saying the name "Jesus" on television or in newspapers illegal? How about their right to prevent anyone else from seeing the faces of women on television or in public. After all you can still talk about Jesus and look at women's faces in your own home.
Removing anything that does not directly harm anyone from television is censorship and an illegal infringement of the freedom of speech. But hey, the bill of rights is pretty much shredded at this point anyway, so continue on with your foolish, and anti-american ideas.
know a good 75% of you are left-wing nutjobs that think anyone who is a Christian or Jew (and adheres to the standards of their respective religions) is a whacko in the same vein as those idiot terrorist who killed over 3,000 people on 9/11.
Prejudiced much? I don't care if anyone is a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or a Satanist. Good for them, I hope it helps them meet people and find spiritual peace. The terrorists who killed people on 9/11 were not idiots. They decided that their beliefs were more important than other people's and took away the rights of others to choose. They did so because of their religion, philosophy, and because they felt wronged. I would not claim that censoring TV was in any way the same magnitude as blowing up some a huge building full of people. Both you and the terrorists, however, seem interested in taking away other people's rights because of your religious and philosophical beliefs.
Finally, I'd like to address your grievances against pornography. Pornography can cause harm, in that it informs people much like the rest of television, poorly and inaccurately. If our country had a decent sex education program, most of them would be moot. Unfortunately a bunch of "religious wackos" have made it so that in a blind study 11 of the 13 sex ed programs in the U.S. have been found to be teaching factually incorrect information. Taboos on accurate information are the religious stupidity I have the least sympathy for. Keeping people ignorant by design is sickening, and has caused more pain and suffering than pornography ever has.
In summary I'd like to paraphrase your savior, "How long must I suffer these fools?"
If Apple is going to license their OS, they better make sure they are prepared to compete in the hardware world.
Ridiculous! Apple would never again license their OS without protection from competition. It would be impossible for Apple to compete with IBM on hardware prices when IBM is supplying the CPU. That is just dumb.
That is not to say that there will not be a partnership where IBM licenses OSX (although that is also unlikely). If anything IBM will provide services that include both Apple desktops/laptops and IBM servers, support, and services. IBMs bread and butter is service contracts, which would be a dream with a enterprise full of macs.
I gues the short of it is, everyone in town already knows all of this stuff about me.
Everyone in town knows how much income you have, your political party affiliation, and whether or not you have a concealed weapons permit??? Where exactly do you live?
I think you are drastically underestimating the potential abuses of this database. Do you really want the crackhead on the corner to know everything about you? Now think about this in ten years when everyone has access to the internet all the time, and the potential criminal abuses.
Most of the Apple hardcore loyalists would drop Apple like it had a big nasty worm.
I doubt this. What percentage of Apple users would care if Apple got together with IBM. Fashion conscious people don't notice, tech people would not care.
I doubt Jobs would sell Apple.
Jobs may run Apple, but he sure doesn't own it. Apple is pretty profitable, and could be more so if partnered with IBMs enterprise customers. IBM already makes money off the chip sales, and Apple doing well helps them. They already can't keep up with the demand for chips from Apple.
say this is a speculative unlikelyhood.
That is probably true, but not for the reasons you cite. I would not put it past IBM to try to partner with some companies to make the PowerPC the choice for desktops. They might even be able pull it off.
ncompitence in a secret po^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hhomeland security department is not such a bad thing.
I hope that government incompetence pervades the homeland security initiative. They are more of a danger to citizens than terrorists, although I'm sure there will be more and more terrorists in the future, since our foreign policy seems bent on enraging everyone possible. Perhaps the future will not be like 1984, maybe it will be more like Brazil, or better yet, Hogan's Heroes. "I SAW NOTHING!"
The scariest example I have seen, was when I witnessed a woman with a nike logo tattooed on her arm. I sure hope she got paid for that.
Nah this exploit would target the clueless 50% of the 6% that are surfing with Safari. If someone is doing a phishing scam, they are probably better off using a more pervasive exploit.
what incentive would people have to work?
In my example people would still need to work to acquire all of the luxuries in life. Want a video game or a car or a steak, well then you will need to work for them. I think that only a few people would be happy with just the basics for survival. It's removing the need for money that is important. Right now the value of money is undeniable, without it, you will die. I think if money was a luxury, rather than a necessity, people would be more likely to use their money charitably, and place less social value on it's acquisition. This would benefit us all, and complaints about the uneven distribution of funds would be less important. Who do you think commits most of the violent crimes in this world? People who are desperate, who have nothing, and who don't care if they go to prison because it is better than their lives if they don't commit crimes. This would kill a lot of the desperation and motivation for violence in our society. It would not end violent crime, there is plenty of other evil lurking inside the human animal. It would, however, make a change for the better.
Is anyone aware of any malware that takes advantage of the exploits?
There was a demo exploit of the Safari pop-up redirection. Anyone could have grabbed that and set up an exploit site. That one was pretty weak though. It might have been good for phishing clueless people.
Every last one of them was -- and still is -- theoretical.
Well, not quite. The second Safari fix had a demo exploit published. I never got it to work on my system, but several people reported it working for them. (This was a pretty minor issue possibly tricking someone into thinking a pop-up was opened by another window). As for the other exploits, I don't know of any being leveraged either by a hacker or a worm, but that does not mean they were not found by anyone. The tiff and postscript overflows, for example, are not too different from exploits on windows and someone may have been using them.
This patch encompasses about 5 possible remote code executions most of which were discovered by the open source community or by security firms. I find it encouraging that Apple is able to leverage the OS community to help secure their system, but it seems like Apple would benefit from some more thorough security reviews internally.
Please note, I am not trying to pick on OSX here. OSX has an excellent security record, and I would trust it more than Windows or the average Linux distribution at this point. Eweek's coverage was not too bad, they mentioned them as potential vulnerabilities. I could have done without Secunia's 2 cents, and it might have been nice if they had emphasized that even with these vulnerabilities unpatched, there is little practical danger to the average user. All in all though, I did not think the article was too bad.
Suddenly the population of the planet has doubled to over 12 billion in 100 years time.
Unless of course this longevity treatment also extends our reproductively viable timespan as well. In which case the problem will get even worse, faster!
is like asking the Jeffrey Dahmer to protect you from your alcoholic father's drunken rage
Your analogy is close to being accurate. There are two distinct problems. One is that money is power. When large corporations (whose entire purpose is to gather money) have sufficient funds, they can bribe their way out of anything. The second problem is that governments are corrupt, and filled with the bribable. I still think both of these come down to the "money is the root of all evil" saying. If society valued something other than money, I think it would be better off all around. The problem is, in society as it exists now, money is necessary. If I don't have it, I can't pay taxes and thus can't own land and have no way to feed/cloth/shelter myself. Money is needed, and thus valued. I'm pretty sure that if 3% of the worlds resources were devoted to providing basic food, clothing, and shelter to every single person, for no charge and without any expectation of payback the world would become a very different place in a short amount of time. There are other things necessary to keep our society functioning, like education, basic law enforcement, and health care. But I think just meeting the basic requirements for survival, for most people could be accomplished with little effort and would benefit the world immensely. How many people would change their value systems, if they did not have to constantly procure money just to live? How much work would it really take to satisfy these basic requirements for everyone? It would probably cost a very small fraction of the wealth.
Perhaps I am being overly optimistic. Human nature will probably prevent anything like that from ever happening and I don't see any realistic path towards reaching that state. How does one change an entire planet's social values?
You're right, my bad. I looked up the reference and it was the Scottish. Canadian, Scottish whatever :)
If a company's activities are illegal, they will be likely to lose money when caught.
Hahahahahaha. Yeah. Not in this country bub. At least not as much as they made. Legal actions in the U.S. are not about punishing the guilty, they are about getting a cut of the proceeds.
If they are immoral, they may lose investors, and will carry a large regulatory risk.
Have you ever heard of a mutual fund? Most investment by individuals in the U.S. is in the form of a mutual fund. Investors have no idea what the companies in the fund are doing, or in most cases, who they are. Immoral actions make money, for the companies involved, and more often for the crooks who run the companies.
The problem is not just corporations. The problem is a value system that values wealth, and a government that is enslaved by it.
I notice that your comments are all very unspecific. You complain that cold fusion theories conflict with established quantum physics theories, and some of them do. How can you, however, dismiss a searched for phenomenon as being fraud? Even a sophomore logic student knows that negative proofs are a fallacy.
You assert that I do not understand your argument, maybe that is because you did not present any facts. All you have presented is conjecture, and stubborn opinions. "X has never happened and never will" is the kind of entrenched thinking that holds science back. If I recall correctly the procedure is supposed to be something like: look at available data, make hypothesis, test hypothesis, allow peers to evaluate, repeat as necessary. I don't remember the part where you decide the results in advance.
I remember seeing article not that long ago about a canadian troop transport that had hit a mine in Iraq. The troops were saying they sure were thankful that their truck had armor, unlike most of the ones the U.S. uses. On a related note, I know someone making 70K in 6 months welding armor on U.S. vehicles in Iraq.
Fission was a a clear cut, easily demonstrated physical phenomenon... Cold fusion is murky, quirky, irreplicable, and almost certainly some combination of experimental errors, incompetence, and outright fraud.
Just because you do not understand a phenomenon, does not make it unlikely to exist. Fission obviously exists. Given that one presumption, I think it more likely than not, that fission can be done at relatively low temperatures, given the right set of variables. Whether it will ever be a practical energy source is another matter. Those who do not learn from history etc. etc.