Why does something have to potentially damage them to be benevolent?
When they open source something it tends to be good for them and good for you. The stuff they don't open source they can't open source without potentially damaging the company.
So in contrast, should we ban cameras or monitoring equipment of any type in public? no
Are cameras in police cars reducing your freedom? no
Red light cameras? yes
Cameras in ATMs? no
Security cameras in retail establishments? no
Roadside emissions sampling? no
Traffic congestion cameras? no
Tourists taking pictures? no
How about a private pilot flying over and taking a picture of your neighborhood? no
"Ease up on the tinfoil."
The problem here is that these cameras are going to be used as law enforcement devices, giving the powers that be greater power. Its important that we have the ability to nonviolently or violently dispose of our own government should the need arise. Technology in general, and surveillance technology in particular, could potentially make that difficult or impossible.
I'm not suggesting we will need to overthrow the government anytime soon or anything. Its just that if the British had had the ability to monitor (and therefor control) the locations of key North American British citizens two hundred some years back, the US would not necessarily exist.
Consider how many of them are buying each other's.xxx domains right now...
I suppose there could be a rule that states if you own the.com of something then you get exclusive rights to buy the.xxx, but what about the.net,.org,.whatever?
Australia Sales Office
Level 20 Tower 2 Darling Park
201 Sussex Street
Sydney 2000 NSW
phone: +61 (0)2 9006 1090
So they technically are subject to AU law. Just because the server isn't located there doesn't get them out of it. It would be like having an HQ in LA, serving up something illegal in the US from a Cayman Island server, and claiming its fine to the LA authorities because the servers are off shore. It wouldn't fly.
Personally, I think Google would save themselves a lot of headache by relinquishing their international offices and worrying about one countries laws instead of 14 (I'm not saying they should be located in the USA exactly, just pick one country). But then again I'm sure I am missing some of the finer points of international capitalism.
Its funny that they go to such great lengths. Generally you just have to take something and walk right out of the store.
A friend of mine used to work at Banana Republic, she told me that they were instructed to not challenge a person if they thought they were stealing because the company could be sued, even if they were right.
This is a bit of a digression:
Another friend of mine used to steal all the time, he was kinda the clepto sort that got a big thrill out of it. Kinda like Winnona Rider. He always just picked something up and just walked out. I remember back in college, one time he went to a drug store and stole a bunch of razor blades. He then walked across the street to Best Buy and used the razors to cut a copy of Perfect Dark out of the packaging (as well as the memory expansion for the N64). I just think its kinda funny that he stole the tool he used to steal the object that was his goal.
He gradually worked up to bigger and bigger capers. In his last one he figured out a way to steal a tower from CompUSA. It had to be the tower because it would be harder to steal and had to be CompUSA because they had better security.
I should say: while I suppose I am glamorizing his actions, I'm glad that he no longer does stuff like that. Its kinda natural that some people will steal, just for the thrill of it; But we can't take such a stance while still maintaining a stable society.
Your argument is ridiculous. However, is also meandering so I'll have to refute it line by line:
"People who do this, do it because they are paid to, and in some cases, because they're desperate for some kind of approval or attention. It's not normal."
1) Many people experiment sexually. They do so in private, many people would prefer not to be recorded when having sex. Hence the need to pay people to participate in a commercial product. Just because people are paid to do something on film doesn't mean that other people don't enjoy similar scenarios in their private lives.
2) Everyone requires some kind of approval or attention, it is normal:-) (a joke)...
Subscribing to the idea that there is some sort of norm by which human sexual behavior can be judged is dangerous. It devalues humans which stray from it and is in-fact a subtle or not so subtle form of bigotry. Its also rather ignorant (of facts) as the individual making the statement usually assumes their own preferences to be the norm, as you do below...
"...boys shouldn't grow up thinking that women orgasm from giving blow-jobs or they're going to be pretty disappointed with their partners...
People often are poorly educated in many ways, blaming a lack of education on pornography is similar to blaming sci-fi on for a warped view of actual science. These are both entertainment mediums designed to allow the viewer to fantasize, they are not intended to educate. For an education on either subject many forums exist in western society.
"US society (...) is deeply repressed on the subject of sex."
This is a unsupportable generalization which has sadly become commonplace. Some elements of all societies are "prudish", some elements of all societies are "liberal". One of the nicer aspects of society is the great diversity of views allows an individual to associate with individuals who share (or challenge) their view point.
"...this is why so many boys grow up thinking of sex as being something purely physical."
There are at least two ways to refute this statement:
1) Both men and women commonly have sex with persons with whom they are not interested in pursuing a monogamous relationship (which I'm subbing in for love as I have no desire to evaluate love rationally). Many individuals facilitate between short term sexual relationships and long term monogamous sexual relationships, it is not a uniquely male behavior.
2) There is the archetype of the tough guy (alternatively "pimp", "playa", "gigolo", etc) who must subjugate his sexual partners to avoid de-masculine-ization (sp). Its often present in young men, suggesting that it is sometimes an immature attitude and that many will "grow out of it". I would speculate that such an attitude is often born from fears of rejection, not pornography. Though pornography will often reflect the attitude of this archetype, I doubt its a primary cause, or even a secondary one.
"There's no exposure to sex between two people who love each other."
On the contrary, this is the most common depiction of sexuality in our popular culture. While I don't have statistics that compare the prevalence of perceived emotional involvement per sexual act viewed (or read, etc), its very, very common for characters to be emotionally involved in most dramas that depict sexual acts.
"Because if it's kept out of normal life, made illicit, then what else do they see but the porn? "
Many would argue that our society is completely saturated with sex. You can view depictions of sexual acts and relationships on prime time tv. There are many other examples.
"...which is going to prepare people for sexual maturity most - (Not work safe) This, or this?"
You reinforce the point I made above by presupposing your own tastes and experiences as the model by which all others should be judged.
Seriously. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Apple, but to have a/. article everytime Apple farts is pretty bad. Worse though is having a/. article everytime ThinkSecret thinks Apple is going to fart. (Followed of course by an article a day later confirming that yes Apple did infact fart.)
I doubt you will be able to run Doom 3 on a mini, unless your FPS standards are pretty low. I mean, you can run Doom 3 on my 1Ghz PB on the lowest possible settings, but its pretty choppy.
Ditto for my brothers 1.5 GHz PB (with 128 VRAM, and 1 GB RAM), its slightly less choppy but still has to be run on the absolute minimum settings (no shadows, lowest rez, etc).
I really doubt that the mini is going to be as powerful as the most powerful 15" PB currently being offered, even with Apple's laptop line stagnant.
I was actually thinking of a sticker under the shrink wrap, but it hardly matters...
Retailers are not supposed to sell M or AO games to kids. The switch to AO is largely symbolic. In practical terms the only thing it will effect is which retailers will carry the game. Wal*mart for instance will not. Neither will a number of other retailers, including Game Stop (as pointed out above).
"I'd just like to state that I find it highly suspicious that the first post in this thread is an ad for a Thinkgeek product. And that it's modded up to +5."
What are you suspicious of, that the parent company of/. and TG might want to sell TG shirts to/.ers?
I don't think that there is any plan to remove the content, just up the rating.
Removing the content would probably be expensive, as they would have to reissue the DVD image and republish it. All they have to do now that it has a higher rating is change the packaging to say AO.
They could even just slap a sticker on the already printed boxes.
Innocence is not legally proven, I think he means. US courts find defendants "not guilty" or in other words: not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Its kinda a fine line, I suppose.
It allows for a civil case after a criminal one, such as was the case with the OJ Simpson case. OJ was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and so could not be incarcerated, but was probably guilty enough that the families could take all his money. If criminal courts pronounced defendants guilty or innocent, you couldn't have a civil case afterward as the person is now innocent.
"The question, as a previous poster pointed out, is whether the premium that Apple charge (more like $500 than the $100-200 mentioned by that poster) is worth it to run OS/X. Simple answer as far as I'm concerned - no way!"
Apple's entire current user base would disagree with you.
This move only means that a potential Apple "switcher" will not have to give up their Windows software to go Mac. Right now, switching to OSX is a much more expensive endeavor then it would be if Win apps could be run on the Mac, because you have to buy Mac versions of all your software. 3% of the current market are still Mac users even given the additional expense of the hardware, the additional expense of buying new versions of software you already own, and the headache of not being able to find Mac versions of certain programs. This switch to x86 architecture will remove much of the current expenses and all of current incompatibility headaches.
Apple has stated that they imagine you will be able to run Windows on the new Macs, and that they will do nothing to prevent this. They have also stated that they will do everything in their power to prevent non-Macs from running OSX. My bet is that someone will work up a nice transparent Windows environment, so that dual booting won't be even needed.
Essentially Apple is positioning themselves as a "luxury computer" in the same way that Mercedes sells luxury cars.
Apple has been trying to do this for some time, but because of the past and current platforms couldn't run software designed for Windows they have met with limited success. Until the x86 switch is made, the metaphor that is more appropriate is:
PCs:cars::Apple:trains.... There are few places that a train can go right now that a car cannot, but many places that a train cannot go that a car can.
Be making Macs compatible with everything, but reserving OSX to Macs only, Apple is making their brand more valuable, helping to "justify" the additional expense.
Thats a good answer as to *why* we don't know the answer to the question, but not exactly an answer to the question itself. Do we have any reason to believe that gravity (or any of the other forces) are less then instantaneous in their effect?
I realize that the scenario couldn't occur (or at least is extremely unlikely). I was actually thinking giant mythic serpent/dragon/fish swallows the sun, rather then massive nuclear reaction.
Aren't the effects of gravity instantanious (like if the sun winked out of existance, the earth would spin off into space instantaniously, not several minutes later)? Or is that a question we can't answer yet?
Its not a matter of evaporating water, its about covering the planet with dust and water vapor to create a green house effect. Essentially you want to do exactly what you don't want to do on earth. I can't think of any other device capable of throwing enough garbage into the "atmosphere" that we could realistically put on Mars. Even transporting the thousands of Nukes we would need to Mars would be really hard.
We are not talking about 60 years here, we are talking about 300 until the algae can be planted, and well over a millennium for "breathable" air (which assumes there is a lot of solid CO2 in the ground now, other wise you get not enough air to support more then bugs).
Also, more radiation is reaching the planet every day (due to its lack of atmosphere) then would be released by detonating nuclear weapons (obviously you would want to use cleaner bombs, not cobalt based ones).
"That would create a lot of radioactive dust (fallout) and I don't think that would help the spread of life (human or otherwise) on the planet."
The fallout would naturally degrade and become harmless long, long before anyone would be trotting around Mars without a pressure suit.
Nuking Mars would be the most efficient way to begin creating an environment capable of supporting life. The first step would be to warm the planet by creating a green house effect. Nuclear devices would be perfect for kicking enough dust and water vapor into the atmosphere to do this. This will allow for liquid water, and thicken the atmosphere by releasing the carbon dioxide frozen in the poles. The second step would be to seed the now-warm-enough martian landscape with hardy oxygen producing algae. These would process the CO2 to breathable oxygen. The algae (or other hardy plant) would need to be selected based on its ability to survive in harsh climates, its ability to process CO2 to oxygen, and its ability to withstand radiation (from the sun, which dwarfs the radiation released by the nukes).
There are still several problems:
First, as pointed out above, o-zone. Its not certain that an ozone layer could form without the benefit of an earth-like magnetic field. We might not need an ozone layer though; Mars receives much less radiation from the sun then Earth, and even with terra-forming, Mars is going to be damn cold. It would be centuries before we could get it warm enough that protective clothing wouldn't be needed, and such garments could be designed to protect against solar radiation.
Second, the atmosphere would still be too thin. You might be able to breath it eventually (or own atmosphere is only 20% oxygen remember), but its going to be similar to being on top of Everest (in both air quality and at some latitudes, temperature). We would need to find ways of thickening the atmosphere.
Well my understanding is that you can sue anyone, for any reason, for any amount, unless specifically prohibited by law (this is what my bother-in-law told me). TOS and other contracts often wind up unenforceable (another thing he told me) in civil cases.
I really wonder how well such an agreement would protect anyone anymore. Don't you just have to convince a jury that the agreement is 51% unfair? IANAL BTW.
"And I'd be willing to bet that many people who buy Apple hardware now resent the premium pricing, especially in the enterprise. If a cheaper alternative were available Apple would see a serious dent in their hardware sales."
You're right, but it should also be pointed out that a lot of consumers buy Apple (especially Apple laptops) based on the physical product. They don't care what's under the hood (just tell them its powerful), and some don't even care what OS it runs. I was one of those people back in the last days of OS9, I wanted a dual usb iBook, and I didn't care what it ran. OSX has just extended the elegance of the external design into the software (which is a big deal, I don't mean to downplay it).
Take, for example, Jaguar (automobiles). They are basically pieces of shit made by Ford at this point, but they look pretty and are expensive, so people buy them. They don't care what is under the hood, they assume the price assures quality. Apple is much better off then Jag, but they still sell as a luxury good based on product design.
Slashdot Mirror
Prior art: Klingon Bird of Prey
Why does something have to potentially damage them to be benevolent?
When they open source something it tends to be good for them and good for you. The stuff they don't open source they can't open source without potentially damaging the company.
they hire a lot of people and pay them well?
So in contrast, should we ban cameras or monitoring equipment of any type in public? no
Are cameras in police cars reducing your freedom? no
Red light cameras? yes
Cameras in ATMs? no
Security cameras in retail establishments? no
Roadside emissions sampling? no
Traffic congestion cameras? no
Tourists taking pictures? no
How about a private pilot flying over and taking a picture of your neighborhood? no
"Ease up on the tinfoil."
The problem here is that these cameras are going to be used as law enforcement devices, giving the powers that be greater power. Its important that we have the ability to nonviolently or violently dispose of our own government should the need arise. Technology in general, and surveillance technology in particular, could potentially make that difficult or impossible.
I'm not suggesting we will need to overthrow the government anytime soon or anything. Its just that if the British had had the ability to monitor (and therefor control) the locations of key North American British citizens two hundred some years back, the US would not necessarily exist.
Consider how many of them are buying each other's .xxx domains right now...
.com of something then you get exclusive rights to buy the .xxx, but what about the .net, .org, .whatever?
I suppose there could be a rule that states if you own the
"... it would be (a) wonderful world if politicians never lied and companies were responsible and truthfull, but it's never going to happen."
;-)
Thank God! No one would ever make any money, and we would all starve to death!
Google does have an office in Australia:
Australia Sales Office
Level 20 Tower 2 Darling Park
201 Sussex Street
Sydney 2000 NSW
phone: +61 (0)2 9006 1090
So they technically are subject to AU law. Just because the server isn't located there doesn't get them out of it. It would be like having an HQ in LA, serving up something illegal in the US from a Cayman Island server, and claiming its fine to the LA authorities because the servers are off shore. It wouldn't fly.
Personally, I think Google would save themselves a lot of headache by relinquishing their international offices and worrying about one countries laws instead of 14 (I'm not saying they should be located in the USA exactly, just pick one country). But then again I'm sure I am missing some of the finer points of international capitalism.
Its funny that they go to such great lengths. Generally you just have to take something and walk right out of the store.
A friend of mine used to work at Banana Republic, she told me that they were instructed to not challenge a person if they thought they were stealing because the company could be sued, even if they were right.
This is a bit of a digression:
Another friend of mine used to steal all the time, he was kinda the clepto sort that got a big thrill out of it. Kinda like Winnona Rider. He always just picked something up and just walked out. I remember back in college, one time he went to a drug store and stole a bunch of razor blades. He then walked across the street to Best Buy and used the razors to cut a copy of Perfect Dark out of the packaging (as well as the memory expansion for the N64). I just think its kinda funny that he stole the tool he used to steal the object that was his goal.
He gradually worked up to bigger and bigger capers. In his last one he figured out a way to steal a tower from CompUSA. It had to be the tower because it would be harder to steal and had to be CompUSA because they had better security.
I should say: while I suppose I am glamorizing his actions, I'm glad that he no longer does stuff like that. Its kinda natural that some people will steal, just for the thrill of it; But we can't take such a stance while still maintaining a stable society.
Your argument is ridiculous. However, is also meandering so I'll have to refute it line by line:
:-) (a joke)...
"People who do this, do it because they are paid to, and in some cases, because they're desperate for some kind of approval or attention. It's not normal."
1) Many people experiment sexually. They do so in private, many people would prefer not to be recorded when having sex. Hence the need to pay people to participate in a commercial product. Just because people are paid to do something on film doesn't mean that other people don't enjoy similar scenarios in their private lives.
2) Everyone requires some kind of approval or attention, it is normal
Subscribing to the idea that there is some sort of norm by which human sexual behavior can be judged is dangerous. It devalues humans which stray from it and is in-fact a subtle or not so subtle form of bigotry. Its also rather ignorant (of facts) as the individual making the statement usually assumes their own preferences to be the norm, as you do below...
"...boys shouldn't grow up thinking that women orgasm from giving blow-jobs or they're going to be pretty disappointed with their partners...
People often are poorly educated in many ways, blaming a lack of education on pornography is similar to blaming sci-fi on for a warped view of actual science. These are both entertainment mediums designed to allow the viewer to fantasize, they are not intended to educate. For an education on either subject many forums exist in western society.
"US society (...) is deeply repressed on the subject of sex."
This is a unsupportable generalization which has sadly become commonplace. Some elements of all societies are "prudish", some elements of all societies are "liberal". One of the nicer aspects of society is the great diversity of views allows an individual to associate with individuals who share (or challenge) their view point.
"...this is why so many boys grow up thinking of sex as being something purely physical."
There are at least two ways to refute this statement:
1) Both men and women commonly have sex with persons with whom they are not interested in pursuing a monogamous relationship (which I'm subbing in for love as I have no desire to evaluate love rationally). Many individuals facilitate between short term sexual relationships and long term monogamous sexual relationships, it is not a uniquely male behavior.
2) There is the archetype of the tough guy (alternatively "pimp", "playa", "gigolo", etc) who must subjugate his sexual partners to avoid de-masculine-ization (sp). Its often present in young men, suggesting that it is sometimes an immature attitude and that many will "grow out of it". I would speculate that such an attitude is often born from fears of rejection, not pornography. Though pornography will often reflect the attitude of this archetype, I doubt its a primary cause, or even a secondary one.
"There's no exposure to sex between two people who love each other."
On the contrary, this is the most common depiction of sexuality in our popular culture. While I don't have statistics that compare the prevalence of perceived emotional involvement per sexual act viewed (or read, etc), its very, very common for characters to be emotionally involved in most dramas that depict sexual acts.
"Because if it's kept out of normal life, made illicit, then what else do they see but the porn? "
Many would argue that our society is completely saturated with sex. You can view depictions of sexual acts and relationships on prime time tv. There are many other examples.
"...which is going to prepare people for sexual maturity most - (Not work safe) This, or this?"
You reinforce the point I made above by presupposing your own tastes and experiences as the model by which all others should be judged.
There can be ar
"...although you failed to point out the basis of this article is that a democratic senator is pushing for this..."
Oh, sheesh, thank god... at least it will never pass then.
Seriously. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Apple, but to have a /. article everytime Apple farts is pretty bad. Worse though is having a /. article everytime ThinkSecret thinks Apple is going to fart. (Followed of course by an article a day later confirming that yes Apple did infact fart.)
I doubt you will be able to run Doom 3 on a mini, unless your FPS standards are pretty low. I mean, you can run Doom 3 on my 1Ghz PB on the lowest possible settings, but its pretty choppy.
Ditto for my brothers 1.5 GHz PB (with 128 VRAM, and 1 GB RAM), its slightly less choppy but still has to be run on the absolute minimum settings (no shadows, lowest rez, etc).
I really doubt that the mini is going to be as powerful as the most powerful 15" PB currently being offered, even with Apple's laptop line stagnant.
I was actually thinking of a sticker under the shrink wrap, but it hardly matters...
Retailers are not supposed to sell M or AO games to kids. The switch to AO is largely symbolic. In practical terms the only thing it will effect is which retailers will carry the game. Wal*mart for instance will not. Neither will a number of other retailers, including Game Stop (as pointed out above).
"I'd just like to state that I find it highly suspicious that the first post in this thread is an ad for a Thinkgeek product. And that it's modded up to +5."
/. and TG might want to sell TG shirts to /.ers?
What are you suspicious of, that the parent company of
I don't think that there is any plan to remove the content, just up the rating.
Removing the content would probably be expensive, as they would have to reissue the DVD image and republish it. All they have to do now that it has a higher rating is change the packaging to say AO.
They could even just slap a sticker on the already printed boxes.
Innocence is not legally proven, I think he means. US courts find defendants "not guilty" or in other words: not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Its kinda a fine line, I suppose.
It allows for a civil case after a criminal one, such as was the case with the OJ Simpson case. OJ was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and so could not be incarcerated, but was probably guilty enough that the families could take all his money. If criminal courts pronounced defendants guilty or innocent, you couldn't have a civil case afterward as the person is now innocent.
"The question, as a previous poster pointed out, is whether the premium that Apple charge (more like $500 than the $100-200 mentioned by that poster) is worth it to run OS/X. Simple answer as far as I'm concerned - no way!"
Apple's entire current user base would disagree with you.
This move only means that a potential Apple "switcher" will not have to give up their Windows software to go Mac. Right now, switching to OSX is a much more expensive endeavor then it would be if Win apps could be run on the Mac, because you have to buy Mac versions of all your software. 3% of the current market are still Mac users even given the additional expense of the hardware, the additional expense of buying new versions of software you already own, and the headache of not being able to find Mac versions of certain programs. This switch to x86 architecture will remove much of the current expenses and all of current incompatibility headaches.
Apple has stated that they imagine you will be able to run Windows on the new Macs, and that they will do nothing to prevent this. They have also stated that they will do everything in their power to prevent non-Macs from running OSX. My bet is that someone will work up a nice transparent Windows environment, so that dual booting won't be even needed.
Essentially Apple is positioning themselves as a "luxury computer" in the same way that Mercedes sells luxury cars. Apple has been trying to do this for some time, but because of the past and current platforms couldn't run software designed for Windows they have met with limited success. Until the x86 switch is made, the metaphor that is more appropriate is:
PCs:cars::Apple:trains.... There are few places that a train can go right now that a car cannot, but many places that a train cannot go that a car can.
Be making Macs compatible with everything, but reserving OSX to Macs only, Apple is making their brand more valuable, helping to "justify" the additional expense.
" No other animal writes poetry, or commits suicide, or contemplates philosophy. "
And certainly not in that order. Few humans can even manage that.
Thats a good answer as to *why* we don't know the answer to the question, but not exactly an answer to the question itself. Do we have any reason to believe that gravity (or any of the other forces) are less then instantaneous in their effect?
I realize that the scenario couldn't occur (or at least is extremely unlikely). I was actually thinking giant mythic serpent/dragon/fish swallows the sun, rather then massive nuclear reaction.
Aren't the effects of gravity instantanious (like if the sun winked out of existance, the earth would spin off into space instantaniously, not several minutes later)? Or is that a question we can't answer yet?
Its not a matter of evaporating water, its about covering the planet with dust and water vapor to create a green house effect. Essentially you want to do exactly what you don't want to do on earth. I can't think of any other device capable of throwing enough garbage into the "atmosphere" that we could realistically put on Mars. Even transporting the thousands of Nukes we would need to Mars would be really hard.
We are not talking about 60 years here, we are talking about 300 until the algae can be planted, and well over a millennium for "breathable" air (which assumes there is a lot of solid CO2 in the ground now, other wise you get not enough air to support more then bugs).
Also, more radiation is reaching the planet every day (due to its lack of atmosphere) then would be released by detonating nuclear weapons (obviously you would want to use cleaner bombs, not cobalt based ones).
"That would create a lot of radioactive dust (fallout) and I don't think that would help the spread of life (human or otherwise) on the planet."
The fallout would naturally degrade and become harmless long, long before anyone would be trotting around Mars without a pressure suit.
Nuking Mars would be the most efficient way to begin creating an environment capable of supporting life. The first step would be to warm the planet by creating a green house effect. Nuclear devices would be perfect for kicking enough dust and water vapor into the atmosphere to do this. This will allow for liquid water, and thicken the atmosphere by releasing the carbon dioxide frozen in the poles. The second step would be to seed the now-warm-enough martian landscape with hardy oxygen producing algae. These would process the CO2 to breathable oxygen. The algae (or other hardy plant) would need to be selected based on its ability to survive in harsh climates, its ability to process CO2 to oxygen, and its ability to withstand radiation (from the sun, which dwarfs the radiation released by the nukes).
There are still several problems:
First, as pointed out above, o-zone. Its not certain that an ozone layer could form without the benefit of an earth-like magnetic field. We might not need an ozone layer though; Mars receives much less radiation from the sun then Earth, and even with terra-forming, Mars is going to be damn cold. It would be centuries before we could get it warm enough that protective clothing wouldn't be needed, and such garments could be designed to protect against solar radiation.
Second, the atmosphere would still be too thin. You might be able to breath it eventually (or own atmosphere is only 20% oxygen remember), but its going to be similar to being on top of Everest (in both air quality and at some latitudes, temperature). We would need to find ways of thickening the atmosphere.
Well my understanding is that you can sue anyone, for any reason, for any amount, unless specifically prohibited by law (this is what my bother-in-law told me). TOS and other contracts often wind up unenforceable (another thing he told me) in civil cases.
I really wonder how well such an agreement would protect anyone anymore. Don't you just have to convince a jury that the agreement is 51% unfair? IANAL BTW.
"And I'd be willing to bet that many people who buy Apple hardware now resent the premium pricing, especially in the enterprise. If a cheaper alternative were available Apple would see a serious dent in their hardware sales."
You're right, but it should also be pointed out that a lot of consumers buy Apple (especially Apple laptops) based on the physical product. They don't care what's under the hood (just tell them its powerful), and some don't even care what OS it runs. I was one of those people back in the last days of OS9, I wanted a dual usb iBook, and I didn't care what it ran. OSX has just extended the elegance of the external design into the software (which is a big deal, I don't mean to downplay it).
Take, for example, Jaguar (automobiles). They are basically pieces of shit made by Ford at this point, but they look pretty and are expensive, so people buy them. They don't care what is under the hood, they assume the price assures quality. Apple is much better off then Jag, but they still sell as a luxury good based on product design.