All the research I've seen is that everybody says negativity doesn't work, but the record is, yes it does. I mean, the way you define it is revealing. You say Kerry lost voters because of the "hate" message of the third party people around him, like Moveon. However, Bush mysteriously GAINED voters from this third party supporters, whose message was overwhelmingly negative and personal. Remember the Swift Boat operation? Remember that the leader of the group was an old pal of Karl Rove's? Remember that Bush never said, "I disavow that attack." So which is it? Do negative third parties help or hurt?
Frankly, the MoveOn ads may have been negative, but they were true, as revelation after revelation is showing. Maybe if they had just flat-out lied, like the Swiftboaters...
Lemme see now. Number of actual viruses, 0. Spyware, 0.
That's pretty secure, you know? Not perfect, I'm sure assiduous researchers can find vulnerabilities. After all, their livelihoods depend on it.
Hmm. Best introduce the trope, "Mac no longer bulletproof," as if anybody but the most moronic said that it was. Set up straw man, smack it down. But where are the actual infestations?
Quick, kid, buy my virus sweeper: you don't need it now, but you will, even if I have to find a vulnerability and release it to some blackhats before I warn Apple.
"So why did U.S. forces not occupy Kuwait at the end of Desert Storm? We were already there, and we had a good excuse: "To ensure that we can rapidly respond to another invasion attempt by Saddam Hussein." If we only cared about Iraq's oil, why did the U.S. forces depart from Iraq instead of conquering it? Why wait over ten years?"
Because Bush, Sr., was a realist, unlike his not-right-in-the-head son. Same reason we didn't go into Baghdad. Because we'd have lost the Arab support, and we'd have to deal with all the shit we've stirred up now.
I leave with you General Zinni's and Gen. Clark's testimony, and many other people before the war. We had him in a box, and he wasn't getting out.
Saddam had been persuaded that Bush really meant it, and you can't show any way that he blocked the inspections in those last weeks. We would never have believed it, of course, because the war had been planned since 1998 or so, and that's what was going to happen, no matter what lies had to be told to move the troops. Bush never thought that, whoa, what if Saddam shows everything to us? That's why we went right to war, without giving the inspectors a chance. And Scott Ritter and the slandered Hans Blix were right, and the intelligence agencies, who knew which side of the bread to butter, were wrong. They thought he MIGHT have some residue. Ever figure out why? Because Iran was right next to him! He didn't want to give up the idea that maybe he had nasty weapons. '
The al-Qaeda operatives? That? Pure bull. Horse crap. al-Zarqawi was up between the Kurds and Iran for a reason. None of the "evidence" produced ever made any sense, and it's all been thoroughly discredited. Saddam was an evil, secular dictator. He wanted Islamist terrorists around about as much as fleas.
As for the rest of your ramblings, the quicker we can get you idiots out of power, the better. It's not true, any of it. And the most ridiculous thing I've seen on Slashdot today is obvously your posting.
Hey, why not? It worked, by the way, with Gore, whose negatives are now as bad as Cheney's. This has to do with the ability of evil gossip to destroy people's reputation, and if it now happens to a Republican, why I'm just heart-struck. What's sauce for the goose ("Gore will do or say anything to be elected." "Gore even thinks he invented the Internet, haw, haw!") is sauce for the gander ("Bush says the DoD invented the iPod." "Bush says he does like black people."). How do you like it?
Jeez, what's a guy gotta do? Politicians don't usually "come up" with ideas all by himself. He's not an engineer, he's a politician. He took ideas from people who knew first-hand. He could have said, ah, who cares? Let the whole thing stay private! But he didn't.
Another person who recognized the importance of the Internet, to be fair, was Newt Gingrich.
I think you should grow up and get out of this juvenile paranoia. This is an implanted attitude, put there by the Overlords so that you will be able to deny your lyin' eyes at all times. If something unflattering to the Generalissimo appears in the media, it must be because "80% of the media are liberal," or some such bullcrap, outdated artifact of a survey done ages ago, which ignores one big fact anyway: the great majority of the owners of the media are rock-rib Republicans.
Whatever. I did see the resignation of the Democrat from the ethics committee reported. It is embarrassing, though what he's accused of is exactly the scam that Gingrich and Delay -- and a few dozen other Republicans -- have been working for years. We hear from opinion journalists that "Democrats are involved in the Abramoff scandal," but not a single Democrat is on the list of those likely to be indicted. Not that we're THAT much cleaner, but Abramoff tried to make lobbying a completely Republican province in the 1,000 Year Republican Reich.
The economic data is not all that great, in fact. I suggest you read this, written by a former assistant secretary of the Treasury under Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts: "Nuking the Economy." http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/021306Roberts.s html
And actually, I'm pretty sure that the 60 Minutes story was pretty accurate, though the documents are likely faked. It doesn't cause you the slightest problem that the man who runs the most belligerent administration in American history was a no-show when it was time for him to do his duty?
Before Bush's popularity numbers began their tumble, the media were enormously deferential to him. Remember, the leaks from Libby et al. ended up on the front page of the NY Times, that liberal bastion, helping him go to war based on fake intelligence.
things I've heard Bush say. Government-sponsored research, mostly by the military, has been a prime engine of development in the United States. And it doesn't always show up in a straight-line fashion. The Manhattan Project is the best known investment, of course, but many, many other inventions were made possible by the government doing basic research. I have no doubt that the iPod contains elements that the government made possible by answering some basic questions about nature.
So I think we should do ourselves a favor and not attack Bush for one of the few "sensical" things he's ever said.
Strangely enough, an honest political attack is possible. If you're a politician who proposes ending Medicare, say, it's honest to attack you. Others may not agree that it's a bad thing to do, but there's nothing dishonest about attacking a politican for what he said or what he stands for. Attacking someone for something he didn't say is "a dishonest" attack.
There's now well over 400 posts on this silly topic, started by the deliberate provocateur.
Why would Apple want to "compete" with Linux? They're our sister OS! Market share is there for the taking from Windows. Savvy computer geeks will configure their Linux boxes the way they want. Good for 'em. Mom and Pop and the local retail store don't want to do that, even though it's cheaper. You have to know too much!
Is Darwin not open source?
Re:Jobs is like General MacArthur, "I" vs "We" ...
on
I, Woz
·
· Score: 1
MacArthur was right for so long, he fell into the trap of thinking he would be right forever. He conquered more of the world's surface than Alexander, by the island-hopping technique. Would have saved a lot of Marine's lives if Halsey had done that. Inchon was a brilliant success, but it could have ended up on the beach, too. And then, he was sure the Chinese wouldn't intervene.
Jobs has made huge mistakes. As has Gates, if you want to look at it. But I don't think you do.
"Initially making the iPod a firewire device."
That was a great idea -- on the Mac. In fact, if the dopes of the Windows world would adopt firewire, you'd be able to see how much faster and trouble-free it is. Sometimes the market makes mistakes.
And all of this crap about, "The iPod saved Apple's ass" gets very tiresome. The iPod exists on the boundary of content and computing power. That's where the future of computing is. Get over it.
Yes, but your pointers don't apply to the rumor sites, which don't come to press conferences, and so on. Their entire modus operandi is to seek illicit, or unapproved sources of information. In political reporting, you have a big exception: is it in the public interest to know, and does the government have a legitimate interest in keeping it secret (troop positions and the like)?
But this is private information, that the corporation does not want to have known until a certain date. They don't tell the NY Times, or ZDTech, or C/Net. Some rumor sites dig up the dirt by finding insiders who are not authorized to divulge the information. No public interest is served; it's just fun. You can't cut off the rumor sites, they don't get authorized info.
I think Apple has two, or three, alternatives on releasing OS X to the Windows world. 1. Allowing the pirates to hack to their hearts' content. This way, the Mac has an underground rep, but no support responsibility. Your peripheral isn't supported? No drivers for x motherboard? Don't blame Apple. It's not farfetched, since there's an article in the L.A. Times Business section today about how much, worldwide, MS's overall sales are HELPED by piracy. People play with OS X on a Dell, and they're more likely to switch to a Mac. 2. Releasing the software to a select group of Windows machines. Dell. Ha, ha, that would be an irony. This would risk Gate's ire, but it wouldn't necessitate undue spending on driver-writing and the like. 3. General release for all. Charge Window's-type prices. $200 for "Home," more for "Pro."
Oh, and there's a fourth option. Stay with 1, wait for market timing, escalate to 2 if the time comes, and 3. is endgame, going for a big slice of the market.
Those who claim that Apple should license its DRM and APIs ot all its pitiful, Dickensian competitors are always making up arguments out of their behinds. You either want things open -- eliminating DRM -- or you don't. The labels and the studios will NEVER go along with non=protected product. NEVER, until they go bankrupt and nobody wants to be their friends. Well, it might happen, if they keep with this silly business model. (We need a good open source record label for this to work, you know?)
These whiners want Apple to license their DRM, that's all, so their lame players can work with iTunes. These are no brave lads, striking a blow for freedom. They just want a piece of the pie, while keeping the music DRM'ed. Well, there are lots of competitors now. Are they opening up their DRM, so that all men can listen to wonderful music without restraint? Why, no. They want to piggyback on Apple's hard work, but they don't mind treating music fans like vassals. Screw 'em.
Today, there are breathless stories about Movielink selling downloads!!! So, for twice the price, you too can download a less-than-DVD version of popular movies, whichever ones the studios want to hype right now. Oh, and it works only with Windows 2000 and XP. How much of the computer press are going to complain about Movielink? Answer? Zero. Well, why? Because as long as they act like that, they're not going to get any customers. BLOCKBUSTERS IS BETTER! Don't they get it?
Apple had two choices: cooperate with the RIAA companies, or not have an iTunes. There is no way at all to sell copyrighted music without DRM. I hope that will change, but there you are. Remember when the iTunes store first came out? You could stream music from any person through the Internet. There were websites where you could hook up with dozens of other users. There were also simple apps so you could "extract" any file you wanted, unprotected, from the online stream. Apple had that choice right there: take that back door out of the computer, which was a fantastic feature, or lose the support of all the labels. All of them. It's hard to blame Apple for that. Try to get the laws changed.
if you wear a suit and tie, clients will bend over and drop trou as they give you their wallets?
Well, yes, I think the corollary is true too. If Steve Ballmer wore sandals and long hair, and maybe a nose ring, the patsies in corporate wouldn't buy a thing from him.
I'm not going to say silly things like, "Don't put the inferior OS on my pristine Mac." One of the main reasons holding a lot of people back from a Mac has been that one holdout, the business that must have this or that application. Now, you can have your cake and eat it too! The original guiding principle of the Mac was the old '60s slogan, power to the people. If it means more ability to do what you need or want to do, I'm all for it. One thing is, if you dual boot on a Mac, there's a limited number of drivers the hacking community will have to get you. A new model comes out with a new ATI card, and I guess it'll be a while before the proper driver shows up. But compare that to the Windows, heterogenous platform. If Apple were to sell its OS to the Dell crowd, think of the almost limitless number of drivers you'd have to develop. It'll be much easier to run a Mac dual boot than the reverse.
I'd prefer to have the ability to run a WINE variant, so you wouldn't have to install the OS. I don't know if that will ever be possible. Or if MS ever gets off their asses, it would be fine to have a Virtual PC 8.0 for Intel Macs -- getting real speed without having to leave OS X, that would be ideal. But until then, this is just fine.
And if some hideous people PREFER XP, it doesn't bother me if they install XP on their Macs alone. After all, 80% of Apple's profits are from hardware.
Even though I'm not sure the Apple execs are right now. What about users, and what they want?
There are many different users who may be looking at getting a Mac, but still have some need of windows. Some may get by fine with Virtual PC 8.0 (I presume), and/or VMWare, so that you can run a crucial app now and again, and cut and paste. Since it's Intel, I guess that would work pretty quick, no? Sort of like running Windows in Classic, ha, ha. For others, being able to boot in real Windows may be necessary. Well, we've got something for them, too. The real question, to me (and forgive me if I'm a tech dolt), is how about Windows games? What about Direct X support? If Macs could run Windows games natively, there's an awful lot of people who would be snappin' up those Macs right away.
I'd love to see us repeal the DMCA. The French seem to be about to do this. Good for 'em. But this means it's legal to hack all copy protection, and to convert mp3 to aac to wma to whatever. So? Why is this "against iTunes"? I'm sure France will be boycotted by our music industry if they go ahead with this, and that will be an interesting fight.
This story seems to confound undoing copy protection with converting one format to another. If I want to play my Apple (Ampex) AACs, even if I undo the copy protection, I still need my iPod. Will any of the continuous stream of "iPod killers" actually play my AACs?
I don't care if the Lord Himself does it, what they want to do is bring the Blockbuster to your computer, and then you'll be in a mad scramble to watch it before witching hour, at which time it vanishes into thin air. Anybody going to pay $3.00 for that, at inferior quality? Sure seems like Amazon is going to do Movielink, or some such: crappy, melt-in-your-mouth Windows DRM. (Oh, and by the way, nothing for Macs anyway. None of those services work on a Mac. Instead, the best idea is Netflix. Real live DVD arrives at your home for $3.00. You watch it. If you really want to keep a copy, rip, decode, burn. In what way is that not a 100% better experience than any of the crap rent-a-download services? You even get MPEG 2!
Say you invest in dual layers. You get the whole thing, including the extras, and you put it in your library. Send back the rental. You've paid. make part of the blank DVD price go to the studio and it really should be legal.
Downloads of movies are for Internet 2, when you're downloading a DVD's worth every hour or so. And then, sane people want to keep them. If not, TiVo 'em and let the scroll off along with all the '80s teen sex comedies and the 47th airing of Footloose.
Slashdot Mirror
All the research I've seen is that everybody says negativity doesn't work, but the record is, yes it does. I mean, the way you define it is revealing. You say Kerry lost voters because of the "hate" message of the third party people around him, like Moveon. However, Bush mysteriously GAINED voters from this third party supporters, whose message was overwhelmingly negative and personal. Remember the Swift Boat operation? Remember that the leader of the group was an old pal of Karl Rove's? Remember that Bush never said, "I disavow that attack." So which is it? Do negative third parties help or hurt? Frankly, the MoveOn ads may have been negative, but they were true, as revelation after revelation is showing. Maybe if they had just flat-out lied, like the Swiftboaters...
Lemme see now. Number of actual viruses, 0. Spyware, 0.
That's pretty secure, you know? Not perfect, I'm sure assiduous researchers can find vulnerabilities. After all, their livelihoods depend on it.
Hmm. Best introduce the trope, "Mac no longer bulletproof," as if anybody but the most moronic said that it was. Set up straw man, smack it down. But where are the actual infestations?
Quick, kid, buy my virus sweeper: you don't need it now, but you will, even if I have to find a vulnerability and release it to some blackhats before I warn Apple.
Then they'll recycle the old one for you. In fact, they'll gladly take the PC you converted from.
"So why did U.S. forces not occupy Kuwait at the end of Desert Storm? We were already there, and we had a good excuse: "To ensure that we can rapidly respond to another invasion attempt by Saddam Hussein." If we only cared about Iraq's oil, why did the U.S. forces depart from Iraq instead of conquering it? Why wait over ten years?" Because Bush, Sr., was a realist, unlike his not-right-in-the-head son. Same reason we didn't go into Baghdad. Because we'd have lost the Arab support, and we'd have to deal with all the shit we've stirred up now.
"Buying oil and controlling oil are two different things." Right. In the latter, you control the access and pricing.
I leave with you General Zinni's and Gen. Clark's testimony, and many other people before the war. We had him in a box, and he wasn't getting out. Saddam had been persuaded that Bush really meant it, and you can't show any way that he blocked the inspections in those last weeks. We would never have believed it, of course, because the war had been planned since 1998 or so, and that's what was going to happen, no matter what lies had to be told to move the troops. Bush never thought that, whoa, what if Saddam shows everything to us? That's why we went right to war, without giving the inspectors a chance. And Scott Ritter and the slandered Hans Blix were right, and the intelligence agencies, who knew which side of the bread to butter, were wrong. They thought he MIGHT have some residue. Ever figure out why? Because Iran was right next to him! He didn't want to give up the idea that maybe he had nasty weapons. ' The al-Qaeda operatives? That? Pure bull. Horse crap. al-Zarqawi was up between the Kurds and Iran for a reason. None of the "evidence" produced ever made any sense, and it's all been thoroughly discredited. Saddam was an evil, secular dictator. He wanted Islamist terrorists around about as much as fleas. As for the rest of your ramblings, the quicker we can get you idiots out of power, the better. It's not true, any of it. And the most ridiculous thing I've seen on Slashdot today is obvously your posting.
And the "liberal" press giggled about their non-existent quotes all the way home. But I don't care what they say about Bush. He doesn't deserve pity.
Hey, why not? It worked, by the way, with Gore, whose negatives are now as bad as Cheney's. This has to do with the ability of evil gossip to destroy people's reputation, and if it now happens to a Republican, why I'm just heart-struck. What's sauce for the goose ("Gore will do or say anything to be elected." "Gore even thinks he invented the Internet, haw, haw!") is sauce for the gander ("Bush says the DoD invented the iPod." "Bush says he does like black people."). How do you like it?
Jeez, what's a guy gotta do? Politicians don't usually "come up" with ideas all by himself. He's not an engineer, he's a politician. He took ideas from people who knew first-hand. He could have said, ah, who cares? Let the whole thing stay private! But he didn't. Another person who recognized the importance of the Internet, to be fair, was Newt Gingrich.
I think you should grow up and get out of this juvenile paranoia. This is an implanted attitude, put there by the Overlords so that you will be able to deny your lyin' eyes at all times. If something unflattering to the Generalissimo appears in the media, it must be because "80% of the media are liberal," or some such bullcrap, outdated artifact of a survey done ages ago, which ignores one big fact anyway: the great majority of the owners of the media are rock-rib Republicans. Whatever. I did see the resignation of the Democrat from the ethics committee reported. It is embarrassing, though what he's accused of is exactly the scam that Gingrich and Delay -- and a few dozen other Republicans -- have been working for years. We hear from opinion journalists that "Democrats are involved in the Abramoff scandal," but not a single Democrat is on the list of those likely to be indicted. Not that we're THAT much cleaner, but Abramoff tried to make lobbying a completely Republican province in the 1,000 Year Republican Reich. The economic data is not all that great, in fact. I suggest you read this, written by a former assistant secretary of the Treasury under Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts: "Nuking the Economy." http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/021306Roberts.s html
And actually, I'm pretty sure that the 60 Minutes story was pretty accurate, though the documents are likely faked. It doesn't cause you the slightest problem that the man who runs the most belligerent administration in American history was a no-show when it was time for him to do his duty?
Before Bush's popularity numbers began their tumble, the media were enormously deferential to him. Remember, the leaks from Libby et al. ended up on the front page of the NY Times, that liberal bastion, helping him go to war based on fake intelligence.
things I've heard Bush say. Government-sponsored research, mostly by the military, has been a prime engine of development in the United States. And it doesn't always show up in a straight-line fashion. The Manhattan Project is the best known investment, of course, but many, many other inventions were made possible by the government doing basic research. I have no doubt that the iPod contains elements that the government made possible by answering some basic questions about nature. So I think we should do ourselves a favor and not attack Bush for one of the few "sensical" things he's ever said.
Strangely enough, an honest political attack is possible. If you're a politician who proposes ending Medicare, say, it's honest to attack you. Others may not agree that it's a bad thing to do, but there's nothing dishonest about attacking a politican for what he said or what he stands for. Attacking someone for something he didn't say is "a dishonest" attack.
There's now well over 400 posts on this silly topic, started by the deliberate provocateur. Why would Apple want to "compete" with Linux? They're our sister OS! Market share is there for the taking from Windows. Savvy computer geeks will configure their Linux boxes the way they want. Good for 'em. Mom and Pop and the local retail store don't want to do that, even though it's cheaper. You have to know too much! Is Darwin not open source?
MacArthur was right for so long, he fell into the trap of thinking he would be right forever. He conquered more of the world's surface than Alexander, by the island-hopping technique. Would have saved a lot of Marine's lives if Halsey had done that. Inchon was a brilliant success, but it could have ended up on the beach, too. And then, he was sure the Chinese wouldn't intervene. Jobs has made huge mistakes. As has Gates, if you want to look at it. But I don't think you do.
"Initially making the iPod a firewire device." That was a great idea -- on the Mac. In fact, if the dopes of the Windows world would adopt firewire, you'd be able to see how much faster and trouble-free it is. Sometimes the market makes mistakes. And all of this crap about, "The iPod saved Apple's ass" gets very tiresome. The iPod exists on the boundary of content and computing power. That's where the future of computing is. Get over it.
Yes, but your pointers don't apply to the rumor sites, which don't come to press conferences, and so on. Their entire modus operandi is to seek illicit, or unapproved sources of information. In political reporting, you have a big exception: is it in the public interest to know, and does the government have a legitimate interest in keeping it secret (troop positions and the like)?
But this is private information, that the corporation does not want to have known until a certain date. They don't tell the NY Times, or ZDTech, or C/Net. Some rumor sites dig up the dirt by finding insiders who are not authorized to divulge the information. No public interest is served; it's just fun. You can't cut off the rumor sites, they don't get authorized info.
That's why Jobs shut them down.
I think Apple has two, or three, alternatives on releasing OS X to the Windows world. 1. Allowing the pirates to hack to their hearts' content. This way, the Mac has an underground rep, but no support responsibility. Your peripheral isn't supported? No drivers for x motherboard? Don't blame Apple. It's not farfetched, since there's an article in the L.A. Times Business section today about how much, worldwide, MS's overall sales are HELPED by piracy. People play with OS X on a Dell, and they're more likely to switch to a Mac. 2. Releasing the software to a select group of Windows machines. Dell. Ha, ha, that would be an irony. This would risk Gate's ire, but it wouldn't necessitate undue spending on driver-writing and the like. 3. General release for all. Charge Window's-type prices. $200 for "Home," more for "Pro."
Oh, and there's a fourth option. Stay with 1, wait for market timing, escalate to 2 if the time comes, and 3. is endgame, going for a big slice of the market.
Those who claim that Apple should license its DRM and APIs ot all its pitiful, Dickensian competitors are always making up arguments out of their behinds. You either want things open -- eliminating DRM -- or you don't. The labels and the studios will NEVER go along with non=protected product. NEVER, until they go bankrupt and nobody wants to be their friends. Well, it might happen, if they keep with this silly business model. (We need a good open source record label for this to work, you know?) These whiners want Apple to license their DRM, that's all, so their lame players can work with iTunes. These are no brave lads, striking a blow for freedom. They just want a piece of the pie, while keeping the music DRM'ed. Well, there are lots of competitors now. Are they opening up their DRM, so that all men can listen to wonderful music without restraint? Why, no. They want to piggyback on Apple's hard work, but they don't mind treating music fans like vassals. Screw 'em. Today, there are breathless stories about Movielink selling downloads!!! So, for twice the price, you too can download a less-than-DVD version of popular movies, whichever ones the studios want to hype right now. Oh, and it works only with Windows 2000 and XP. How much of the computer press are going to complain about Movielink? Answer? Zero. Well, why? Because as long as they act like that, they're not going to get any customers. BLOCKBUSTERS IS BETTER! Don't they get it?
Apple had two choices: cooperate with the RIAA companies, or not have an iTunes. There is no way at all to sell copyrighted music without DRM. I hope that will change, but there you are. Remember when the iTunes store first came out? You could stream music from any person through the Internet. There were websites where you could hook up with dozens of other users. There were also simple apps so you could "extract" any file you wanted, unprotected, from the online stream. Apple had that choice right there: take that back door out of the computer, which was a fantastic feature, or lose the support of all the labels. All of them. It's hard to blame Apple for that. Try to get the laws changed.
if you wear a suit and tie, clients will bend over and drop trou as they give you their wallets? Well, yes, I think the corollary is true too. If Steve Ballmer wore sandals and long hair, and maybe a nose ring, the patsies in corporate wouldn't buy a thing from him.
I'm not going to say silly things like, "Don't put the inferior OS on my pristine Mac." One of the main reasons holding a lot of people back from a Mac has been that one holdout, the business that must have this or that application. Now, you can have your cake and eat it too! The original guiding principle of the Mac was the old '60s slogan, power to the people. If it means more ability to do what you need or want to do, I'm all for it. One thing is, if you dual boot on a Mac, there's a limited number of drivers the hacking community will have to get you. A new model comes out with a new ATI card, and I guess it'll be a while before the proper driver shows up. But compare that to the Windows, heterogenous platform. If Apple were to sell its OS to the Dell crowd, think of the almost limitless number of drivers you'd have to develop. It'll be much easier to run a Mac dual boot than the reverse. I'd prefer to have the ability to run a WINE variant, so you wouldn't have to install the OS. I don't know if that will ever be possible. Or if MS ever gets off their asses, it would be fine to have a Virtual PC 8.0 for Intel Macs -- getting real speed without having to leave OS X, that would be ideal. But until then, this is just fine. And if some hideous people PREFER XP, it doesn't bother me if they install XP on their Macs alone. After all, 80% of Apple's profits are from hardware.
To the guy who has the sig "Deja Foobar," it's very important that this is spelled, "fubar." Trust me.
Even though I'm not sure the Apple execs are right now. What about users, and what they want? There are many different users who may be looking at getting a Mac, but still have some need of windows. Some may get by fine with Virtual PC 8.0 (I presume), and/or VMWare, so that you can run a crucial app now and again, and cut and paste. Since it's Intel, I guess that would work pretty quick, no? Sort of like running Windows in Classic, ha, ha. For others, being able to boot in real Windows may be necessary. Well, we've got something for them, too. The real question, to me (and forgive me if I'm a tech dolt), is how about Windows games? What about Direct X support? If Macs could run Windows games natively, there's an awful lot of people who would be snappin' up those Macs right away.
I'd love to see us repeal the DMCA. The French seem to be about to do this. Good for 'em. But this means it's legal to hack all copy protection, and to convert mp3 to aac to wma to whatever. So? Why is this "against iTunes"? I'm sure France will be boycotted by our music industry if they go ahead with this, and that will be an interesting fight. This story seems to confound undoing copy protection with converting one format to another. If I want to play my Apple (Ampex) AACs, even if I undo the copy protection, I still need my iPod. Will any of the continuous stream of "iPod killers" actually play my AACs?
I don't care if the Lord Himself does it, what they want to do is bring the Blockbuster to your computer, and then you'll be in a mad scramble to watch it before witching hour, at which time it vanishes into thin air. Anybody going to pay $3.00 for that, at inferior quality? Sure seems like Amazon is going to do Movielink, or some such: crappy, melt-in-your-mouth Windows DRM. (Oh, and by the way, nothing for Macs anyway. None of those services work on a Mac. Instead, the best idea is Netflix. Real live DVD arrives at your home for $3.00. You watch it. If you really want to keep a copy, rip, decode, burn. In what way is that not a 100% better experience than any of the crap rent-a-download services? You even get MPEG 2! Say you invest in dual layers. You get the whole thing, including the extras, and you put it in your library. Send back the rental. You've paid. make part of the blank DVD price go to the studio and it really should be legal. Downloads of movies are for Internet 2, when you're downloading a DVD's worth every hour or so. And then, sane people want to keep them. If not, TiVo 'em and let the scroll off along with all the '80s teen sex comedies and the 47th airing of Footloose.