I got the job as I'm the "Computer Guy" and can generally help friends and family with there computer problems.
Evidently, you didn't want to endanger your "computer guy" status by actually reading the directions. Besides, I'm sure your friend was very impressed by your extensive but unnecessary disassembly of her Powerbook, and will probably believe you when you blame Apple for the damage that you did.
Oh, by the way, the "easily accessed" slot that you were looking for is on the side, just where it is on a PC, and accepts standard PC wireless cards. The Airport card is for people who don't want to be bothered unplugging their wireless card every time they want to to put something else in that slot.
I've heard that the upgrade interferes with the ability of the ethernet port to "downshift" for slower ethernet speeds, so it may depend upon the speed of your network.
I upgraded 6 systems to 10.2.8, including a Beige G3, an early iMac and a TiBook. Five are fine, one--a dual 450, the most common source of problems--couldn't access the internet until I downgraded the AppleGMACEthernet.kext file.
Actually, that's not correct. France doubted that the threat of force was necessary to induce Iraq to eliminate their WMD. Indeed, they had vowed to veto any resolution which threatened force for non-compliance. THAT was what led to the breakdown in UN talks.
What led to the breakdown in talks was our invasion of Iraq. France didn't actually veto anything, indeed, there would have been no need for them to do so, as we could not get even majority support for what we were demanding--a resolution that would essentially give us UN authority for an immediate invasion.
French officals similarly claim that Chrac would have gone ahead with the use of force if a nine-month schedule had been set at the beginning. The swing voters on the council (Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico, and Pakistan) would have been satisfied with as little as four months....
To secure a second resolution would have also required some compromise on substance, especially the question of timing. London was willing to endorse such an approach, but Washington was not. Had the Bush administration shown some flexibility in early March, however, it would have been France that ended up on the losing side of the tally, not the United States. In fact, a compromise text did emerge that would have had the tacit backing of Blix and the support of ten countries. This resolution would have entailed the following elements: the establlishment of benchmarks for compliance...the setting of a mid-April deadline for Iraq to meet the established tests; and, finally, a presumption that failure to comply would constitute a material breach and thus trigger the use of force...
...but Washington's inflexibilty doomed the effort. Instead, either because of the military timetable or because he was frustrated with the diplomatic process, Bush offered a one-week extension to mid-March--no compromise at all
--James P Rubin, Stumbling Into War
They refused any proposal that had a clause that would automatically trigger an invasion.
Of course not! After all, no proposal can "automatically" trigger an invasion--somebody has to decide to invade. So "automatically" is really a code word for "the US will be authorized to unilaterally decide whether or not Iraq has met the terms of the proposal" -- in other words, a betrayal of the entire multilateral concept of the UN. However, according to James Rubin, who spoke to French and other officials in researching his article for "Foreign Affairs," Russia, France, Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico, and Pakistan were all willing to support a resolution that set a definite deadline. The French wanted 9 months, but most countries were willing to accept as little as four. There was even a compromise plan that had the backing of Blix and 10 other countries, which set definite benchmarks for compliance, a mid April deadline, and included a presumption that failure to comply would constitute a material breach and trigger the use of force. The plan collapsed for lack of US support; Bush was willing to offer only a one-week extension to mid-March. Even if such a plan had been passed and vetoed by France (who might well have had second thoughts if they had found themselves standing alone), it would have put the US in a much better position, with strong international support for its actions.
My suspicion is that key US officials did not want UN backing. Caught up in their own ideology, they had lost touch with reality, and genuinely believed what they were saying publicly--that US forces would be hailed as liberators, and that only a modest contingent of perhaps 30,000 US troops would be required to maintain order post-war. Had this happened, the UN would have looked pretty foolish for its failure to cooperate, and US prestige and international influence would have been greatly enhanced.
The problem with ideologues is that they never seriously consider the question, "What happens if we are wrong?" So now the US military is dangerously overextended, at a cost that will likely cripple an already-weak US economy. And our only prospect of relief is to turn for aid to the UN that we so lately spurned. But to have a serious chance of recruiting strong international support, we will have to acknowledge that we made a mistake. This would require a President and senior staff with the courage and integrity to place the welfare of the nation above their own personal pride and narrow political interests. I can't say that I'm particularly optimistic....
Because Saddam was complying with said inspections and the UN was enforcing the 17 resolutions it had passed. ..Oh wait, that didn't happen did it?
Well, yes, actually, it did. Saddam had complied, but not in a manner that most UN members considered adequate. Most members of the UN were in favor of making further demands upon Iraq, continuing inspections, and setting a deadline for full compliance at some time perhaps a few weeks or months in the future, given that there was no evidence of any WMD. But the US insisted that the WMD were there and posed an immediate and severe threat so great that we could not accept the time frame favored by most of the UN. Instead, we chose to take the drastic step of a pre-emptive invasion without the military or financial support of most of the countries that had backed us previously in the first Gulf War and in Afghanistan.
If we'd chosen instead to continue to work with the UN, it is quite likely that an invasion would have eventually taken place. We just wouldn't be footing virtually the entire bill and taking all of the blame (and almost all of the casualties).
Have you ever had the engine of a large car with power steering/braking die with the car in motion? I did, once. It took all of my strength, literally standing on the brake pedal while yanking on one side of the wheel with both hands, to slow the car down and wrestle it over to the side of the road.
This was a quite a few years ago--perhaps modern cars aren't so bad?
also bush isn't the 1st or only one who said iraq had wmd and saddam was a threat
Well, DUH!
Nobody ever doubted that Iraq had had WMD in the past, and virtually nobody doubted that the threat of force was necessary to induce Iraq to eliminate their WMD. The entire debate was whether Iraq had WMD mobilized and ready to use at the time of the invasion, posing such an urgent and immediate threat that it was necessary for the US to execute a pre-emptive strike, instead of cooperating with the international effort to enforce elimination of Iraq's WMD through the UN and the inspection process.
From a spammers point of view, these blacklists are just another form of DDOS aimed directly at them.
Sure, and from a crook's point of view, the police are a DDOS. Conversely, if you find that argument reasonable, you are probably a crook.
The notion that providing information that individual ISP's are free to use as they choose is in some how equivalent to illegally hacking into private computers and using them to shut down somebody else's internet access is one that only a criminal would take seriously.
"Fair" is a word laden with moral and ethical implication... a child may utter "that's not fair!" much the same way a politician does (and with about the same amount of thought behind it). "Fair" is code for "soak that rich guy, he didn't earn it/doesn't deserve it/can afford it/won't miss it/stole it/inherited it/made it off the backs of others." Ever said any of those things?
Nope. And, frankly, none of them make much sense to me. I work hard for the generous salary that I receive, and I'm sure that you do, too. I am making a simple point: the well-to-do reap a greater proportion of the benefits of society--hardly surprising, since candidates whose policies appeal to wealthy donors and corporate interests are better able to fund their campaigns--and it is only reasonable that they shoulder a greater share of the costs.
I got the job as I'm the "Computer Guy" and can generally help friends and family with there computer problems. I have never seen such a tragedy of design as the TiBook!
Evidently, you didn't want to endanger your "computer guy" status by actually reading the directions. Besides, I'm sure your friend was very impressed by your extensive and unnecessary disassembly of her Powerbook, and will probably believe you when you blame Apple for the damage that you did.
Oh, by the way, the "easily accessed" slot is on the side, just where it is on a PC, and accepts standard wireless cards. The Airport card is for people who don't want to be bothered unplugging their wireless card every time they want to to put something else in that slot.
Except, of course, that its not true. The bottom HALF of the population pays so little in income tax that the majority of them actually receive a positive cash benefit back.
I don't know about Canada, but in the US there are many taxes other than income tax, so it is misleading to talk only about income tax.
Meanwhile, I pay around 30% in income tax and have a total tax burden over 50%. Nowhere am I given greater say over the society (one vote, that's it) or any special benefits over and above being protected from the Big Bad Canadian Military.
I don't know the details of the Canadian economy, but most governments provide a huge number of services that benefit the wealthy more than the poor. Insurance of bank deposits and regulations that limit corporate fraud benefit those with money to invest, but do nothing for those who are just getting by. Those with more possessions derive greater benefit from police protection against theft, and from the maintenance of a stable society and stable economy, etc., etc. The well-to-do have other ways of influencing the political process beyond the vote. They can donate to politcal parties or pressure groups, for example.
Well, I'd have to disagree with that one. I can only drink so much water, use so much electricity, and drive so many miles in a day (all of which I pay for, either directly, or indirectly). I'd also say that my vote doesn't count for any more than joe the garbage collector's vote.
You "use" such things as public security, absence of urban unrest, a stable economy, a court system that protects your investments, federal insurance on your investments, regulations that protect you against fraud, etc., etc. All of these have costs. And the more that you have to lose, the greater the value of these things to you. Somebody with no money in the bank gets zero benefit from the FDIC, for example. And while the vote of the wealthy may count the same as the vote of the poor, the wealthy have other ways to influence the political process, such as making donations to candidates, PAC, or lobbying groups.
I didn't steal my wealth from anyone... I worked hard for it, and I continue to do so. I won't be told that I somehow don't deserve to enjoy it, or that I'm wrong to be well-off.
It's not a matter of not deserving to be well-off. It's a matter of paying a fair share of the costs of maintaining a society that enables you to be well-off.
The progressive taxation argument is simple class warfare, and plays on the baser emotions of jealousy and envy, nothing more.
That is rhetoric, nothing more. The argument that the wealthy receive a greater proportion of the benefits of society is a reasonable one. If you disagree, you need to make detailed, quantitative economic arguments, not throw around slogans like "class warfare."
You utilize a classic socialist argument, the economy as zero-sum game. The resources collected by the wealthy can be used to generate even greater benefits for society, such as easier access to things like information and a wider variety of products. I doubt a poor person living off the public teat could fund the businesses that build your home, deliver your food to the grocery store you visit, and finance the research that led to your computer.
No the argument that the wealthy should pay more taxes because they reap a disproportionate fraction of the benefits is an ethcial argument, not an economic one. The economic argument you make is itself a zero-sum argument, because it frames it as an either-or choice between expenditure of wealth by the state for the benefit of the poor and expenditure of wealth by the rich. But remember, the wealthy don't go away because they are taxed. As long as the tax rate is less than 100%, there are benefits to wealth. So the economic question is at what point the reduction in the trickle-down benefits to society from the self-directed expenditures of the wealthy exceeds the benefits to society, both incidental and direct, of the public expenditure of those tax revenues for the public good. Certainly, in the US, there has historically been no apparent correlation between low rates of taxation and high rates of economic growth, suggesting that tax rates have always been below the levels that would significantly curtail the beneficial economic activities of the wealthy.
People who contribute more to society through judicious use of their increased wealth are punished for having that wealth in the first place. As a result, being wealthy is less desirable, and there will be fewer wealthy people able to finance large projects that benefit society as a whole.
The counterargument is that wealthy people receive a disproportionate proportion of the benefits of a society, and generally have a disproportionate influence over that society's policies, so that they ought to pay a greater proportion of the costs of maintaining that society.
Probably doesn't have anything directly to do with the origin of life on earth (perhaps life on stars, if there is life on stars). But it does make an important point. Some sort of way of separating one organism from another seems to be critical for evolution to occur. This was once thought to constitute a kind of chicken/egg problem. But it turns out that membranes of various sorts, with strikingly pseudo-cellular behavior, form relatively easily out of a variety of materials and under a variety of condtions. This is just a rather extreme example. So probably the primordial cell membranes formed spontaneously. And those that happened to trap the right molecules to maintain their existence lasted longer--and we have the beginnings of natural selection
It is a case of a fundamental divergence between the law and popular ethics. The law says, "You can't distribute copies of this." But most people feel that it is only unethical if they are doing it for profit, the ability to share anything you want on a non-commercial basis being regarded as an absolute, inviolable right. Frankly, I do not think that the Intellectual Property Industry will ever succeed in altering such a deeply-held belief.
The only thing I really miss on the one-button mouse is the scroll wheel. I wouldn't mind a scroll wheel (or maybe a scroll pad, or just a scroll domain of the main pad) on a Powerbook, either
I only tried standard size marbles. I didn't have any of the big ones. I forget how many floors up I was. It would be interesting to see how high you could go...
Same reason if you throw a sheet of paper off a tall building, no one is hurt. You throw a marble instead, and you can split a skull.
THIS is a job for: Empirical experimentation!
Actually, dropping marbles (carefully) from multi-story buildings is an amusing experiment. What one learns is that glass is remarkably strong (dropped upon cement, most of them bounce) and elastic (the height of the bounce compares favorably to the best rubber balls).
Slashdot Mirror
Evidently, you didn't want to endanger your "computer guy" status by actually reading the directions. Besides, I'm sure your friend was very impressed by your extensive but unnecessary disassembly of her Powerbook, and will probably believe you when you blame Apple for the damage that you did. Oh, by the way, the "easily accessed" slot that you were looking for is on the side, just where it is on a PC, and accepts standard PC wireless cards. The Airport card is for people who don't want to be bothered unplugging their wireless card every time they want to to put something else in that slot.
I've heard that the upgrade interferes with the ability of the ethernet port to "downshift" for slower ethernet speeds, so it may depend upon the speed of your network.
I upgraded 6 systems to 10.2.8, including a Beige G3, an early iMac and a TiBook. Five are fine, one--a dual 450, the most common source of problems--couldn't access the internet until I downgraded the AppleGMACEthernet.kext file.
What led to the breakdown in talks was our invasion of Iraq. France didn't actually veto anything, indeed, there would have been no need for them to do so, as we could not get even majority support for what we were demanding--a resolution that would essentially give us UN authority for an immediate invasion.
Of course not! After all, no proposal can "automatically" trigger an invasion--somebody has to decide to invade. So "automatically" is really a code word for "the US will be authorized to unilaterally decide whether or not Iraq has met the terms of the proposal" -- in other words, a betrayal of the entire multilateral concept of the UN. However, according to James Rubin, who spoke to French and other officials in researching his article for "Foreign Affairs," Russia, France, Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico, and Pakistan were all willing to support a resolution that set a definite deadline. The French wanted 9 months, but most countries were willing to accept as little as four. There was even a compromise plan that had the backing of Blix and 10 other countries, which set definite benchmarks for compliance, a mid April deadline, and included a presumption that failure to comply would constitute a material breach and trigger the use of force. The plan collapsed for lack of US support; Bush was willing to offer only a one-week extension to mid-March. Even if such a plan had been passed and vetoed by France (who might well have had second thoughts if they had found themselves standing alone), it would have put the US in a much better position, with strong international support for its actions.
My suspicion is that key US officials did not want UN backing. Caught up in their own ideology, they had lost touch with reality, and genuinely believed what they were saying publicly--that US forces would be hailed as liberators, and that only a modest contingent of perhaps 30,000 US troops would be required to maintain order post-war. Had this happened, the UN would have looked pretty foolish for its failure to cooperate, and US prestige and international influence would have been greatly enhanced.
The problem with ideologues is that they never seriously consider the question, "What happens if we are wrong?" So now the US military is dangerously overextended, at a cost that will likely cripple an already-weak US economy. And our only prospect of relief is to turn for aid to the UN that we so lately spurned. But to have a serious chance of recruiting strong international support, we will have to acknowledge that we made a mistake. This would require a President and senior staff with the courage and integrity to place the welfare of the nation above their own personal pride and narrow political interests. I can't say that I'm particularly optimistic....
If we'd chosen instead to continue to work with the UN, it is quite likely that an invasion would have eventually taken place. We just wouldn't be footing virtually the entire bill and taking all of the blame (and almost all of the casualties).
Have you ever had the engine of a large car with power steering/braking die with the car in motion? I did, once. It took all of my strength, literally standing on the brake pedal while yanking on one side of the wheel with both hands, to slow the car down and wrestle it over to the side of the road.
This was a quite a few years ago--perhaps modern cars aren't so bad?
Well, DUH!
Nobody ever doubted that Iraq had had WMD in the past, and virtually nobody doubted that the threat of force was necessary to induce Iraq to eliminate their WMD. The entire debate was whether Iraq had WMD mobilized and ready to use at the time of the invasion, posing such an urgent and immediate threat that it was necessary for the US to execute a pre-emptive strike, instead of cooperating with the international effort to enforce elimination of Iraq's WMD through the UN and the inspection process.
I wish I had time to go back and relearn all of my mathematics in postfix notation.
Sure, and from a crook's point of view, the police are a DDOS. Conversely, if you find that argument reasonable, you are probably a crook.
The notion that providing information that individual ISP's are free to use as they choose is in some how equivalent to illegally hacking into private computers and using them to shut down somebody else's internet access is one that only a criminal would take seriously.
Oh, by the way, the "easily accessed" slot is on the side, just where it is on a PC, and accepts standard wireless cards. The Airport card is for people who don't want to be bothered unplugging their wireless card every time they want to to put something else in that slot.
It's not a matter of not deserving to be well-off. It's a matter of paying a fair share of the costs of maintaining a society that enables you to be well-off.
That is rhetoric, nothing more. The argument that the wealthy receive a greater proportion of the benefits of society is a reasonable one. If you disagree, you need to make detailed, quantitative economic arguments, not throw around slogans like "class warfare."Probably doesn't have anything directly to do with the origin of life on earth (perhaps life on stars, if there is life on stars). But it does make an important point. Some sort of way of separating one organism from another seems to be critical for evolution to occur. This was once thought to constitute a kind of chicken/egg problem. But it turns out that membranes of various sorts, with strikingly pseudo-cellular behavior, form relatively easily out of a variety of materials and under a variety of condtions. This is just a rather extreme example. So probably the primordial cell membranes formed spontaneously. And those that happened to trap the right molecules to maintain their existence lasted longer--and we have the beginnings of natural selection
It is a case of a fundamental divergence between the law and popular ethics. The law says, "You can't distribute copies of this." But most people feel that it is only unethical if they are doing it for profit, the ability to share anything you want on a non-commercial basis being regarded as an absolute, inviolable right. Frankly, I do not think that the Intellectual Property Industry will ever succeed in altering such a deeply-held belief.
I bought a 2x4 the other day, and it wasn't really 2" by 4".
The only thing I really miss on the one-button mouse is the scroll wheel. I wouldn't mind a scroll wheel (or maybe a scroll pad, or just a scroll domain of the main pad) on a Powerbook, either
I'd been meaning to visit McCloud's site and sign up....
I only tried standard size marbles. I didn't have any of the big ones. I forget how many floors up I was. It would be interesting to see how high you could go...