Ghost allows you to make a backup image of your windows partition that can be saved onto a DVD and later restored if you mess up your windows or get a virus etc. that trashes you windows install.
Partition Magic 8.0
Great little partitioning program that's non destructive IE doesn't delete the content of your drive if you resize the drives to create, shrink, grow or merge the partitions. Their are other partitioning programs out their but PQ is the one that came out with the first non destructive one.
Paragon Partition commander is another one that claims to be able to guarentee it wont destroy any data in the event of anything unforseen like a brownout during the paritioning. Seems to do it by having data recovery which is also in partition magic so i don't see the advantage
Sagetv
It's like tivo for the PC and doesn't charge monthly fee's for the guide data. It also works with almost every Hardware tuner card out encluding HD tuners and. It will work with as many tuners as you can fit onto your system. Sagetv is written in java so you'll need suns java to run it. If you use this you will need a mepg2 decoder their are many out their just about any software dvd player program will have a mpeg2 decoder in it.
VLC media player
This is a media player that can do streaming video and plays just about any video format that's out so it's well worth it's price Free.
I like alpha XP it gives you glass like transparencies in XP for the taskbar and windows apps. THeir are others out their that do the same thing but Alpha is the only one i have seen that makes the taskbar transpearent and brings it back into solid when you move your mouse over it like Vista does.
Theirs also the Vista transform pack for XP but you may want to hold off on trying that as it's a work in progress and does some major changes to XP to make it more Vista like.
Winrar or Winace or both
Winrar and Winace are compression programs to compress and decomepress files in windows like Winzip. Both winrar and winace will unzip winzip archives but im not sure if winzip will do that for rar files or ace files. A large number of compressed files on the net for windows are in one of thoughs three formats or in compressed exe's (which decompress themselves) so a compression program is advisable, I would get one of these no matter what else you get.
Games
DO i really need to explain this one? The kinds depend on what type you like FPS, RPG, RTS, MMO, MMORPG you get the idea. Look online for game demos to see what you like.
On behalf of all Plutino's everywere I take offense man.
We Plutino's are very proud peoples eh planets man and we don like you trying to downgrade us man. My heffe Cubewano feels the same way, We not so happy you trying to stick KBO labels on us either man that's racisum and we get angry.
We Plutino's and Cubewano's will rise up in angry protests and start riots man. If you try and oppress us we cut you, You no oppress the Plutino Cubewano comunity man!
LOL sorry after reading the article and some links and finding thoughs clssifications that whole ethnic thing came to mind. What if the KBO's could argue for themselves. The ethnicity kinda came from the names they got labeled with.
I personally don't think their going to have as easy a time with it if they try to downgrade pluto in the public mindset it's a planet and even if the scientific community starts saying it's not most will still call it that so it would more than likely come out as a non change change that gets changed again to allow for pluto as an exception to the planet rule (whatever planet rule they decide on) to satisfy the majority. Or as one offered they may make a steller line and say everything beyond pluto is a extra solar body and pluto's the last planet making 9.
But if they try to force it on an unwilling public as i said it wont be taken seriously and become a non change despite efforts to the contrary. So they would do better to find a more creative means to solve the issue that still allows pluto to remain a planet and keep other bodies beyond that from being argued should be planets because pluto is one.
Their the bright eggheads they should be able to come up with a solution like that for this that doesn't involve reclasification everytime they find something else new out like KBO's or EKB's/EKO's and TNO's all of which mean the same thing but with different names because they first named the Kuiper belt after the best known man that predicted it Gerard Kuiper in the 1950's so KBO (Kuiper belt Object).
Only to discover that another man somtime earlier had predicted the same thing Kenneth Edgeworth in 1940's so they combined the two names and came up with EKB (Edgeworth Kuiper Belt).
And just to make matters worse they later discovered that some other researchers had predicted the same thing before Edgeworth and Kuiper in the 1930's so the argument went what about them? Do we take out Kuiper and Edgeworth or further complicate the name to satisfy everybody? I guess To settle the dispute and prevent further complications the went politically correct on it and came up with TNO or 'Trans-Neptunian Objects'.
Making matters worse the name of choice among though who insisted on the EKB classification prefered the term EKOs, for Edgeworth-Kuiper Objects.
KBO, EKB, EKO, TNO How many terms does it have to go through and how many times will the planet terms and other terms change with the scientific comunity insisting everybody switch to that everytime they find something new out like with pluto?
It would make people so dizzy and confused they wouldn't know what this or that is called now or what they will be called tommorow. Adding to the name confusion is Plutinos and Cubewanos.
a Plutino has a weighty affinity for Neptune and is in a 2:3 mean motion resonance with Neptune which means it circles the sun exactly twice for every 3 times Neptune does.
Objects near Plutinos that are not attracted into resonances with Neptune are called cubewanos and make up what's called the traditional Kuiper Belt Objects.
Then their are the NEO's and NEA's and PHA's and it's getting to be so many terms and references that it can make your head spin. And were not even done yet but i'll spare everyone haveing to go through anymore just sufice to say their's a lot of diffrent names and terms
I told you not to respond unless you had something to back you up this time but it seams you can only repeat the same dead rhetoric you have been using.
And still you ignore the whole rest of my posts and pick out one line to respond back with your tired dead claim.
I don't need to provide you with a Quote form the constitution I have provided you with several (repeatably I might add once again) examples as well as pointed to a current I repeat current court case (which this article is about as I have told you) that shows you are wrong. You don't like it go argue it with the Judge or apples lawyers or even the EFF's lawyers and stop listening to first year law students who haven't even taken the bar exam yet!
God are you that brain dead that you can't get that through your thick skull none of them are argueming that this isn't a first amendment issue the article linked to on the main post points this out if you had taken the time to read it yourself.
Here's the link to the article in question from the front page I suggest you take the time to read it and stop wasting my time with your stupid silly fantasies.
I have repeatedly provided proof that it does but you haven't provided anything other than a Quote of the first amendment and your radical interpretation flying in the face of the courts and lawyers not only in the current apple case but other prior cases saying that you're the one who's wrong not me!
And I haven't provided my interpretations of what the article says thoughs were direct Quotes verbatim from the article which if you had read it you'd have known. And I don't know how much more reputable you can get than the court case and lawyers as well as the judge hearing as I have said this case (a case as I have stated repeatably wouldn't even be in the courts if it didn't).
So the Onis is on you not me to provide proof and this time make it something more substantial than that which you have provided to date. Because that dog not only won't hunt but can't hunt because it doesn't have a leg to stand on.
And if you can't come up with a more intelligent argument than what you have I won't even bother to respond to you again with your idiotic ranting fantasies.
Saw a show about that on the history channel this winter.
Their were other projects than this useing animals to destroy enemy targets that showed promise but ended up not being put into service.
A bird in a bomb was another. The idea was a pigeon placed inside a directional bomb with a wire attached to it's head would (after having been trained of course) peck at a screen showing the target which would steer the bomb to it's target and blow the target up with the pigeon of course.
The bat bomb was slated to be used against Japan but was dropped (pardon the pun) after the first successful test of the Abomb. So it's a might have been weapon as was the pigeon bomb which was dropped (again pardon the pun) in favor of radio controled bombs.
Given the cost of producing modern weapon systems designed to do these things i think we may have been better off with the living kind. But then their the animal rights groups and the fuss they'ed raise yada yada so i guess were sitting on expensive dead ones that don't always work like they should and cost large ammounts in maintance instead.
It's a detection system that launches solid ballistic projectiles at incomming weapons like missles and RPG's.
It's not a forcefield by any means but they are saying that it will provide forcefield like protection by destroying most weapon attacks before they hit the vehicle so in that way they say it's like a forcefield.
Ok I thought we were done with this but I guess not.
Yes I have been debating not ranting if I was ranting I would be posting claims without proof like you.
It's not my imagination I have repeatedly shown examples as I said of how and why it applies as well as a court case to show it does. As well as an argument that if it didn't that neither apple nor a court judge would be wasting the courts time and taxpayer money hearing this case.
But you haven't shown anything but your interpritations of how you think the constitution reads with nothing at all in any way shape or form to back up that claim.
FTA
On April 20, 2006 the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will have that petition heard by the California Court of Appeal. The purpose of the hearing is so that a judge can decide whether the Santa Clara County court made a mistake when it refused to protect my rights under the First Amendment.
Also FTA
My position on the Asteroid postings is that I didn't steal the information and I didn't ask for it. Someone volunteered it to me and it looked credible, so I posted it. It wasn't marked confidential, trade secret or any such thing but it looked legit to me, so I ran it. When Apple later asked me to remove it, I complied.
Apple feels that independent online journalists are not protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that a journalists confidential communications and sources should be exposed to them or any large corporation that doesn't like what they publish - at will. I think that this is completely wrong on several levels.
Here's why you should be scared:
This case is not about me, it's not about Apple and it's not about the technology industry. It's about the First Amendment. If we don't have a free press and protection under the First Amendment large corporations can sue any journalist publishing something that they don't agree with. The last time I checked, this was the United States of America - not communist China - and we are protected by a wonderful document called The Constitution.
As you can clearly see even apple isn't arguing that the constitution or the first ammendment for that matter doesn't apply to buisness. Their argument is weather or not the blogger is protected by the same first ammendment as mainstream press is. They claim he's not and so isn't protected by it.
Seriously I have pointed this out to you and it even states this in the article we have been discussing yet you keep making this fanciful claim with nothing to back you up but your claim of your interpritation of the constitution.
And I needn't ask a first year law student about it when a standing circuit court judge with more knowledge as well as apples own lawyers right now are engaged in a court case deciding an issue not over does the constitution protect against buisness but does the first ammendment of that constitution protect a blogger. An issue that I have pointed out repeatedly wouldn't even be in front of the court if the constitution didn't apply.
You assume wrong Im a born and raised ammerican of several generations of ammericans. If by pointing out the facts quite clearly is nonsense then yeah im spouting nonsense and you shouldn't excuse it however, The trail of posts quite clearly show that it isn't me spouting nonsense but you.
You know I like how you pick through my whole post and select out one line from an argument to respond to and then ignore the rest because quite obviously you have no argument for it.
As for my use of the language: Im not writing an article so I am not going to waste my time spellchecking. I had no idea you were a grammer Nazi as well.
You really shouldn't bother responding back anymore unless you can come up with something better than the flimsy baseless argument you been useing, That dog not only wont hunt but can't hunt because it doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Oh brother you know i can't belive i have to point this out to you when it is so obviously stareing you in the face.
The constitution does apply to buisness otherwise this case wouldn't even be in front of a judge you idiot!!!!
Freedom of the press is a first amendment of the constitution which is what the blogger is traying to claim is supposed to protect him from being forced to reveal his sources to Apple. The argument (which not even apple nor the Judge is disagreeing with) is the blogger press and if so is protected by the first ammendment and the court can't compell him to reveal his source to apple at which point apple is out of luck (oh so sad). If not then the court can compell him to reveal his source to apple and Apple can bring down the rath of Jobs on him.
That's the issue before the court that we have been disgusing. Is a blogger protected by the first ammendment of freedom of the press in the apple case.
If as you claim it doesn't apply to buisness then this case wouldn't even be heard it would simply be
Defendant claims first ammendment and plantif fires back with your honnor fisrt ammendment doesn't apply here apple is a buisness not government so the constitution doesn't cover this case, As such we move the court force the defendant to comply with court and reveal his source. Judge so moved court find that the first ammendment freedom of the press doesn't apply apple is a buisness and not government so the constitution doesn't protect defense, My judgement is defense will comply and reveal his source to the plantif.
End of case.
Nothing appears on slashdot and this article was never disgussed or debated and we never had this conversation because first ammendment wasn't an issue.
But that's not whats happening, what is happening is a court case to decide weather or not the blogger is press and if so is protected by the first ammendment.
Seriously do you think apples lawyers or the judge would be wasting the courts time and taxpayer money deciding an issue that doesn't even apply to the case if the constitution didn't apply to buisness as well?
I mean come on your smarter than that aren't you?
Or did you start this argument just to start an argument??
Or Or did you not even RTFA before jumping on here making this bass akward claim?
In any event i have shown more than once why and how the constitution (specificly the first ammendment) does apply more over i have pointed out (what should have been obvious to you) the current case showing that yes it does indeed infact apply to buisness.
But you haven't through this whole debate even come up with one thing to show that no it doesn't other than some claim based on your interpritations of the constitution so who is right and who is wrong?
Me with examples of how and why as well as a (current) court case to prove it or you with nothing but claims that it doesn't because the constitution means what it says and nothing more?
I really think were done here nice debating this with you.
No it isn't a mistake if it was the first ammendment couldn't be used by the press in buisness cases involving exposing coruption or backroom deals etc.. As by your argument buisnesses aren't governement bodies.
You're making the mistake trying to only apply the constitution to governement esspecially in the face of past court cases involving these ammendments and the press in cases involving buisnesses. That right their argues against your assertion that the constitution and the first ammendment only applies to government. Which if it did then all prior court cases involving buisness and the press where the first ammendment was involved are wrong!
Are you going to sit their and state that every court judge who has ruled in favor of the press on first ammendment against buisnesses is wrong? If so I would want to see your credentials to show you know better then all thoughs judges.
And no im not infering the first ammendment applies to apple. Apple is a buisness and hence not a person or press so isn't protected under the constitution and that includes the first ammendment. But people are and so is the press and are theirfore protected under said ammendment.
The question though is weather or not a blogger is considered press and theirfore protected under the freedom of the press and allowed to protect his source in this case which is what this is about. If the first ammendment didn't apply to press in buisness cases but only to government or state which you clearly pointed out apple is not then this wouldn't be an issue since the first ammendment wouldn't even come up or stop apple or any other business from going after the press (any press) in any case where they want sources revealed.
And as you're restatement of my statement that is what has to be decided is a blogger press and therifore protected from apples attempts to force him to reveal his source or not.
If not as i stated before this will have major implication on the future of the press and cause a chilling effect on getting sources to expose shady buisness and governement dealings and coruption and other things where an online news service is involved for decades to come.
If it was as you say then it would be defined in the first ammendment as such that these laws only apply in the case of government or congress but it doesn't it says nothing of the sort.
Nowhere does it say these rights only apply in the case of government. What it does say is that congress shall make no laws abridging thoughs rights speech religion and press. But nowhere does it say that they apply only to the government hence your argument is false and baseless.
If you belive otherwise show me where anywhere in the constitution it says speech religion or press only apply in the case of the government or in dealings with the government.
In fact if such were the case buisnesses would be able to go after the press for hurting their buisness everytime some special report comes on the news about some company doing this or that or newspaper report about same things. Thats why theirs the part in their about freedom of the press. The press uses the first ammendment all the time to protect their sources in buisness cases as well as thoughs revealing government corruption it's the only thing that protects their sources and ability to report the news and the thing that protects them from lawsuits from buisnesses wanting to fight back or get revenge on them.
So you're argument falls flat unless you can come up with something that no buisness or governement official who's ever been caught in the crosshairs of the rpess sniffing out that story about your mistress or back room secret deals or taking ilegal bribes etc.. If you could do that then my friend you would be the best friend of every government official and CEO all over this fair land.
Wait so are you saying that the first ammendment only applies to the government?
The first amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Uhm hmm ok i see that congress can't make any laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech. But nowhere does it say that the first ammendment only applies to the government.
So im afraid your wrong the individual does have first ammendment rights. The question though is does it apply in this case?
Their not bringing a case against him for releaseing trade secrets as they would have to prove he knew when he blogged that what he blogged was a trade secret. Tough to prove unless his source whom he's protecting under what he claims is his first ammendment right to protect his sources under freedom of the press came forth and implicated him so going to the trade secret case was not brought.
The argument by apple is that he's not press since he only reports on an online blog and doesn't report for a traditional news service or paper so his sources aren't protected and he must surrender them over.
Sounds like an attempt to redefine what is considered freedom of the press to me. So is a blogger or any online news source considered press?
If so then most deffinatly the first ammendment applies and apple can't force him to surrender his sources. If not then it will define for decades to come that online news isn't free speech and no annonomus sources will give out info to an online reporter or news site for fear of being handed over (even in a none trade secret case) by the reporter because he has no recourse or protections.
So the only place you would have to go for such confidentual info like breaking news about secret illegal buisness dealings government coverups (deep throut comes to mind) and other cases where the individual wanting to protect his identity for various reasons would be in the traditional press not online blogs or news services.
And you are right apple has a right to use the court system but are you right in that this individual has no first ammendment rights in this case? That i guess is what has to be decided based on is or isn't a online news service or blog considered press.
Well it says right their that Congress can't make laws abridging the feedom of speech not that freedom of speech only applies to the government or congress.
Now i could see your argument if say buisness could make laws abridging free speech but buisnesses can't make laws so they can't abridge free speech either. But whats happening in this case is an attempt to redefine what is considered free speech in the case of jurnalizim IE digital jurnalizim.
Now if you could show me where in the constitution it says that free speech only applies when the government or congress is involved then i could see your argument.
However your right that free speech doesn't protect the speaker from persecution for violating a law while exorcizing his free speech. But as i understand it thats not the case here if it were then apple would have to prove the blogger had known the information given was a trade secret to begin with. Which is difficult if not nearly impossible. But what apple is trying to do here is force the blogger to release his source useing the courts to do so.
The argument is that if the blogger were a traditional reporter or jurnalist writting for a paper or news service the first ammendment would protect his free speech which in that case could only be surrendered by the court judge in certain special cases (which apples claim wouldnt fall under). But since they are arguing that the blogger isn't a reporter nor jurnalist since he's not writting or reporting for a physical press or news service that he's not protected.
Seems like splitting hairs to me. He's not accused of releaseing trade secerets but rather refusing to finger the guy by surrendering over info that may identify him who did release trade secrets.
Now if apple were to go after the blogger for releasing trade secrets and could prove the blogger knew when he wrote his piece then that would be another matter but as i said that isn't the case here.
My oppinion as i said they are splitting hairs on the free speech issue. A person blogging news or reports should have every bit the same writes as traditional reporters and jurnalists and if apple couldn't get the courts to force one of them to hand over their source in a similar case involving a physical press or news service then they shouldn't be able to do it with a blogger jurnalist.
It's a very slippery slope that this case is on as were in a time when many things are being redefined like jurnalizim and a case like this affecting digital jurnalizim could have reprucutions for decades to come concerning free speech online and reporting the news and other things that would have been reported in a traditional service but doesn't in a digital one as the reporter could be forced to give out his source without protection of the first ammendment. This would have a chilling effect by either forcing reporting to stay in the mainstream analog world or by keeping news from being reported altogether. In many or all cases invloving secret sources refusing to give reporters information that they don't want to be fingered or exposed over even if they have nothing to do with trade secrets simply because a blog jurnalist isn't protect by the First Ammendment.
Nice to see someone else to remembers the apple I,II,II+ and//e but were kinda dating ourselves lol.
Well Jobs was good really at recognizing something good when his engineers like Woz saw it.
Jobs at first didn't see anything in the mouse or the Gui until Woz and the other engineers went gaga over them wanting to know how they worked at that point Jobs pounced on it and went with it.
True their would however still be the computer which woz was making before jobs even knew he was doing it.
Woz might and probably would have without jobs marketed it later when it was ready and not looking like a pine box with a keyboard and screen to HP again and they probably would have went with it.
Barring anything else he could have sold them as homebrew pc's to the kids on campus who would have bought them even if they still looked like pine boxes with screens. The demand would have driven Woz to either start his own company or find a partner to do it either way their would still have been the pc. It just would have taken different routes to get their.
Also in that vien the apple without jobs would probably never have forced their software writers to another platform for not switching to writing buisness apps over games (one of the reasons Woz started making his PC to begin with). If the game developers hadn't been forced out of apple then apple today would probably have become the premier gaming platform in the pc world that every hardcore gamer would be playing on and apple gaming would be a multi billion dallar industry. Instead we have people gaming more on the pc and PC gaming is a multi billion dollar industry that apple has little part in.
Sure things would be different without jobs but no apple pc? Not sure who came up with that name but im sure under one name or another the apple would have come along it just would have followed some different paths to it's destination.
I think Gates actually saw the PC as the device that allowed people to use the OS wereas Jobs saw the OS as the thing that lets people use the PC.
It reflects on how both took their companies.
MSconcetrated on making OS's and software for PC's and used licencing of them to make money bocoming large and sucessfull.
Apple concetrated more on hardware and an OS to make it run so people could use the hardware. Then marketed the hardware to make a profit. However that model hasn't been quite the success that MS has been.
Both are doing well all things considered though.
Re:Step 1: Invent the Apple I
on
I, Woz
·
· Score: 1
"Behind a desk pointing an angry finger"
"Yelling" No one get's over Jobs!!!! No one!!!!!
Now get back to work before i hit you with my IMallot!!!
After having read through most though not all (some were below the threshold level) I was a bit distrurbed to see that noone mentioned one obvious reason, The comfort zone of the sun. Earths soon to leave it (2o mil years) and start heating up and boiling off it's oceans, Mars is moving into the comfort zone and will be for quite some time, Venus is already out of the comfort zone and only going to get hotter.
Er-reguardless of what treaforming meathods could be come up with that might make venuses atmosphere more like earths and lower the pressure the temps won't go down without some way to reflect most of the suns rays and radiation back into space. The best solution if you really want to terraform venus would be to first figure out how to move it out to an orbit of say mars of course mars would have to go as the two just couldn't work in the same orbits. Smashing mars into venus once it has gotten out into mars orbit at a proper angle would do quite nicely i think to recreate the earth moon type system with ejecta from mars impact made of mostly mars rubble and some of venus the rest would goto making up the difference of the mass venus lacks for being 1 earth g. The end result a new earth with some further terraforming by man and bonus it's in the new comfort zone for sometime.
The problems with this would be figuring out how to do it all. How do you move a mass 90% of earth? Once thats been figured out and made possible moving mars into a proper impact angle with the newly placed venus would be trivial by comparison. And finishing it off with microbs and the plants etc. to make it earthlike would also be trivial.
However by the time we figure out how to move an earth mass we will most likely have moved out beyond this system for other richer pastures where we don't have to do so much work to accomplish the same goals so by far in away just making mars sutible either via terraforming tempararilly or by putting up biodomes over large portions of the surface to house us would be infanatly easier by comparison.
Remember the suns aging and as it ages it's heating up and as it heats up further away is better than closer. But if you really do want to make our next home as close to earths gravity as possible then all we need is to figure out how to move large masses around the size of the earth and it would be doable. Of course if we are able to do that why move venus? Or even waste time with venus at all when we could just do the same minus the mars smashing into it and save the extra time that would be needed to terraform it.
Why not MS is able to do it and still remain profitable with Windows. If apple can't as well then they really have problems.
My oppinion though is reguardless of the fact that the smart decicion being to make OSX pc general apple wont do it because jobs loves controlling thae platform to much. He would more likely rip out his own heart than open the platform up to anything other than what apple puts out, It's just how he is and how he has always been and he hasn't changed or softened in the years he's been away from apple nor has comming back seen him become any less of the control freak he was before.
Personally i say good i don't want Evil Jobs OS on standard pc's mainly but not only because i can't stand the guy and don't want to have a thing to do with his OS not while Jobs in in charge of apple.
Not that i like Gates any better but my view is while gates is bad jobs is just plain evil and if he ever got a chance to be in ol'billies shoes he'd should just how much more evil and manipulative of the industry he can be, Much more so than gates ever was.
The world is much better off not giving him the chance to try.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to keep a Abreast of Xena's situation! :D
I'd probably get slapped though.
The planet moon?
:D
Now that would be a double standard.
How does one display "half a pixel"?
With great care and prescission.
A healthy imagination helps to!
It's a dog... No a penguin... No a fro.... Sorry i was right the first time it's a dog definatly a dog.
Peeping Tom's is what i'd call em Xena's nude in the space shower!
:)
The pervs.
Terrible pix's they snapped though can't see nothing.
Norton Ghost Before 10.0 10.0 is pure crap.
Ghost allows you to make a backup image of your windows partition that can be saved onto a DVD and later restored if you mess up your windows or get a virus etc. that trashes you windows install.
Partition Magic 8.0
Great little partitioning program that's non destructive IE doesn't delete the content of your drive if you resize the drives to create, shrink, grow or merge the partitions. Their are other partitioning programs out their but PQ is the one that came out with the first non destructive one.
Paragon Partition commander is another one that claims to be able to guarentee it wont destroy any data in the event of anything unforseen like a brownout during the paritioning. Seems to do it by having data recovery which is also in partition magic so i don't see the advantage
Sagetv
It's like tivo for the PC and doesn't charge monthly fee's for the guide data. It also works with almost every Hardware tuner card out encluding HD tuners and. It will work with as many tuners as you can fit onto your system. Sagetv is written in java so you'll need suns java to run it. If you use this you will need a mepg2 decoder their are many out their just about any software dvd player program will have a mpeg2 decoder in it.
VLC media player
This is a media player that can do streaming video and plays just about any video format that's out so it's well worth it's price Free.
I like alpha XP it gives you glass like transparencies in XP for the taskbar and windows apps. THeir are others out their that do the same thing but Alpha is the only one i have seen that makes the taskbar transpearent and brings it back into solid when you move your mouse over it like Vista does.
Theirs also the Vista transform pack for XP but you may want to hold off on trying that as it's a work in progress and does some major changes to XP to make it more Vista like.
Winrar or Winace or both
Winrar and Winace are compression programs to compress and decomepress files in windows like Winzip. Both winrar and winace will unzip winzip archives but im not sure if winzip will do that for rar files or ace files. A large number of compressed files on the net for windows are in one of thoughs three formats or in compressed exe's (which decompress themselves) so a compression program is advisable, I would get one of these no matter what else you get.
Games
DO i really need to explain this one? The kinds depend on what type you like FPS, RPG, RTS, MMO, MMORPG you get the idea. Look online for game demos to see what you like.
That's my list late.
On behalf of all Plutino's everywere I take offense man.
We Plutino's are very proud peoples eh planets man and we don like you trying to downgrade us man. My heffe Cubewano feels the same way, We not so happy you trying to stick KBO labels on us either man that's racisum and we get angry.
We Plutino's and Cubewano's will rise up in angry protests and start riots man. If you try and oppress us we cut you, You no oppress the Plutino Cubewano comunity man!
LOL sorry after reading the article and some links and finding thoughs clssifications that whole ethnic thing came to mind. What if the KBO's could argue for themselves. The ethnicity kinda came from the names they got labeled with.
I personally don't think their going to have as easy a time with it if they try to downgrade pluto in the public mindset it's a planet and even if the scientific community starts saying it's not most will still call it that so it would more than likely come out as a non change change that gets changed again to allow for pluto as an exception to the planet rule (whatever planet rule they decide on) to satisfy the majority. Or as one offered they may make a steller line and say everything beyond pluto is a extra solar body and pluto's the last planet making 9.
But if they try to force it on an unwilling public as i said it wont be taken seriously and become a non change despite efforts to the contrary. So they would do better to find a more creative means to solve the issue that still allows pluto to remain a planet and keep other bodies beyond that from being argued should be planets because pluto is one.
Their the bright eggheads they should be able to come up with a solution like that for this that doesn't involve reclasification everytime they find something else new out like KBO's or EKB's/EKO's and TNO's all of which mean the same thing but with different names because they first named the Kuiper belt after the best known man that predicted it Gerard Kuiper in the 1950's so KBO (Kuiper belt Object).
Only to discover that another man somtime earlier had predicted the same thing Kenneth Edgeworth in 1940's so they combined the two names and came up with EKB (Edgeworth Kuiper Belt).
And just to make matters worse they later discovered that some other researchers had predicted the same thing before Edgeworth and Kuiper in the 1930's so the argument went what about them? Do we take out Kuiper and Edgeworth or further complicate the name to satisfy everybody? I guess To settle the dispute and prevent further complications the went politically correct on it and came up with TNO or 'Trans-Neptunian Objects'.
Making matters worse the name of choice among though who insisted on the EKB classification prefered the term EKOs, for Edgeworth-Kuiper Objects.
KBO, EKB, EKO, TNO How many terms does it have to go through and how many times will the planet terms and other terms change with the scientific comunity insisting everybody switch to that everytime they find something new out like with pluto?
It would make people so dizzy and confused they wouldn't know what this or that is called now or what they will be called tommorow. Adding to the name confusion is Plutinos and Cubewanos.
a Plutino has a weighty affinity for Neptune and is in a 2:3 mean motion resonance with Neptune which means it circles the sun exactly twice for every 3 times Neptune does.
Objects near Plutinos that are not attracted into resonances with Neptune are called cubewanos and make up what's called the traditional Kuiper Belt Objects.
Then their are the NEO's and NEA's and PHA's and it's getting to be so many terms and references that it can make your head spin. And were not even done yet but i'll spare everyone haveing to go through anymore just sufice to say their's a lot of diffrent names and terms
Ya know their used to be a time when Dos actually did do something.
:D
I forget when though, But it did do something at some point in time.
Experts are unsure of just what it did though many assume it had something to do with punchcards.
But that's just speculation.
Ok im kidding for thoughs out their that missed the humor.
Wait so your telling me when i retire i can take my savings and move to china and be a multi millionare?!?
Man have i planed for the wrong country to retire in!
May as well move to china and live like a king or at least a very rich man LOL.
Nah the restrictions on personal life would be to much for me i'll stay here.
I told you not to respond unless you had something to back you up this time but it seams you can only repeat the same dead rhetoric you have been using.
And still you ignore the whole rest of my posts and pick out one line to respond back with your tired dead claim.
I don't need to provide you with a Quote form the constitution I have provided you with several (repeatably I might add once again) examples as well as pointed to a current I repeat current court case (which this article is about as I have told you) that shows you are wrong. You don't like it go argue it with the Judge or apples lawyers or even the EFF's lawyers and stop listening to first year law students who haven't even taken the bar exam yet!
God are you that brain dead that you can't get that through your thick skull none of them are argueming that this isn't a first amendment issue the article linked to on the main post points this out if you had taken the time to read it yourself.
Here's the link to the article in question from the front page I suggest you take the time to read it and stop wasting my time with your stupid silly fantasies.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=170
I have repeatedly provided proof that it does but you haven't provided anything other than a Quote of the first amendment and your radical interpretation flying in the face of the courts and lawyers not only in the current apple case but other prior cases saying that you're the one who's wrong not me!
And I haven't provided my interpretations of what the article says thoughs were direct Quotes verbatim from the article which if you had read it you'd have known. And I don't know how much more reputable you can get than the court case and lawyers as well as the judge hearing as I have said this case (a case as I have stated repeatably wouldn't even be in the courts if it didn't).
So the Onis is on you not me to provide proof and this time make it something more substantial than that which you have provided to date. Because that dog not only won't hunt but can't hunt because it doesn't have a leg to stand on.
And if you can't come up with a more intelligent argument than what you have I won't even bother to respond to you again with your idiotic ranting fantasies.
Saw a show about that on the history channel this winter.
Their were other projects than this useing animals to destroy enemy targets that showed promise but ended up not being put into service.
A bird in a bomb was another. The idea was a pigeon placed inside a directional bomb with a wire attached to it's head would (after having been trained of course) peck at a screen showing the target which would steer the bomb to it's target and blow the target up with the pigeon of course.
The bat bomb was slated to be used against Japan but was dropped (pardon the pun) after the first successful test of the Abomb. So it's a might have been weapon as was the pigeon bomb which was dropped (again pardon the pun) in favor of radio controled bombs.
Given the cost of producing modern weapon systems designed to do these things i think we may have been better off with the living kind. But then their the animal rights groups and the fuss they'ed raise yada yada so i guess were sitting on expensive dead ones that don't always work like they should and cost large ammounts in maintance instead.
I guess it's the fact that it's mounted on a tank or APC.
Other than that essentually nothing.
RTFA
It's not a real forcefield and laser cannon.
It's a detection system that launches solid ballistic projectiles at incomming weapons like missles and RPG's.
It's not a forcefield by any means but they are saying that it will provide forcefield like protection by destroying most weapon attacks before they hit the vehicle so in that way they say it's like a forcefield.
Ok I thought we were done with this but I guess not.
Yes I have been debating not ranting if I was ranting I would be posting claims without proof like you.
It's not my imagination I have repeatedly shown examples as I said of how and why it applies as well as a court case to show it does. As well as an argument that if it didn't that neither apple nor a court judge would be wasting the courts time and taxpayer money hearing this case.
But you haven't shown anything but your interpritations of how you think the constitution reads with nothing at all in any way shape or form to back up that claim.
FTA
On April 20, 2006 the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will have that petition heard by the California Court of Appeal. The purpose of the hearing is so that a judge can decide whether the Santa Clara County court made a mistake when it refused to protect my rights under the First Amendment.
Also FTA
My position on the Asteroid postings is that I didn't steal the information and I didn't ask for it. Someone volunteered it to me and it looked credible, so I posted it. It wasn't marked confidential, trade secret or any such thing but it looked legit to me, so I ran it. When Apple later asked me to remove it, I complied.
Apple feels that independent online journalists are not protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that a journalists confidential communications and sources should be exposed to them or any large corporation that doesn't like what they publish - at will. I think that this is completely wrong on several levels.
Here's why you should be scared:
This case is not about me, it's not about Apple and it's not about the technology industry. It's about the First Amendment. If we don't have a free press and protection under the First Amendment large corporations can sue any journalist publishing something that they don't agree with. The last time I checked, this was the United States of America - not communist China - and we are protected by a wonderful document called The Constitution.
As you can clearly see even apple isn't arguing that the constitution or the first ammendment for that matter doesn't apply to buisness. Their argument is weather or not the blogger is protected by the same first ammendment as mainstream press is. They claim he's not and so isn't protected by it.
Seriously I have pointed this out to you and it even states this in the article we have been discussing yet you keep making this fanciful claim with nothing to back you up but your claim of your interpritation of the constitution.
And I needn't ask a first year law student about it when a standing circuit court judge with more knowledge as well as apples own lawyers right now are engaged in a court case deciding an issue not over does the constitution protect against buisness but does the first ammendment of that constitution protect a blogger. An issue that I have pointed out repeatedly wouldn't even be in front of the court if the constitution didn't apply.
You assume wrong Im a born and raised ammerican of several generations of ammericans. If by pointing out the facts quite clearly is nonsense then yeah im spouting nonsense and you shouldn't excuse it however, The trail of posts quite clearly show that it isn't me spouting nonsense but you.
You know I like how you pick through my whole post and select out one line from an argument to respond to and then ignore the rest because quite obviously you have no argument for it.
As for my use of the language: Im not writing an article so I am not going to waste my time spellchecking. I had no idea you were a grammer Nazi as well.
You really shouldn't bother responding back anymore unless you can come up with something better than the flimsy baseless argument you been useing, That dog not only wont hunt but can't hunt because it doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Oh brother you know i can't belive i have to point this out to you when it is so obviously stareing you in the face.
The constitution does apply to buisness otherwise this case wouldn't even be in front of a judge you idiot!!!!
Freedom of the press is a first amendment of the constitution which is what the blogger is traying to claim is supposed to protect him from being forced to reveal his sources to Apple. The argument (which not even apple nor the Judge is disagreeing with) is the blogger press and if so is protected by the first ammendment and the court can't compell him to reveal his source to apple at which point apple is out of luck (oh so sad). If not then the court can compell him to reveal his source to apple and Apple can bring down the rath of Jobs on him.
That's the issue before the court that we have been disgusing. Is a blogger protected by the first ammendment of freedom of the press in the apple case.
If as you claim it doesn't apply to buisness then this case wouldn't even be heard it would simply be
Defendant claims first ammendment and plantif fires back with your honnor fisrt ammendment doesn't apply here apple is a buisness not government so the constitution doesn't cover this case, As such we move the court force the defendant to comply with court and reveal his source. Judge so moved court find that the first ammendment freedom of the press doesn't apply apple is a buisness and not government so the constitution doesn't protect defense, My judgement is defense will comply and reveal his source to the plantif.
End of case.
Nothing appears on slashdot and this article was never disgussed or debated and we never had this conversation because first ammendment wasn't an issue.
But that's not whats happening, what is happening is a court case to decide weather or not the blogger is press and if so is protected by the first ammendment.
Seriously do you think apples lawyers or the judge would be wasting the courts time and taxpayer money deciding an issue that doesn't even apply to the case if the constitution didn't apply to buisness as well?
I mean come on your smarter than that aren't you?
Or did you start this argument just to start an argument??
Or Or did you not even RTFA before jumping on here making this bass akward claim?
In any event i have shown more than once why and how the constitution (specificly the first ammendment) does apply more over i have pointed out (what should have been obvious to you) the current case showing that yes it does indeed infact apply to buisness.
But you haven't through this whole debate even come up with one thing to show that no it doesn't other than some claim based on your interpritations of the constitution so who is right and who is wrong?
Me with examples of how and why as well as a (current) court case to prove it or you with nothing but claims that it doesn't because the constitution means what it says and nothing more?
I really think were done here nice debating this with you.
No it isn't a mistake if it was the first ammendment couldn't be used by the press in buisness cases involving exposing coruption or backroom deals etc.. As by your argument buisnesses aren't governement bodies.
You're making the mistake trying to only apply the constitution to governement esspecially in the face of past court cases involving these ammendments and the press in cases involving buisnesses. That right their argues against your assertion that the constitution and the first ammendment only applies to government. Which if it did then all prior court cases involving buisness and the press where the first ammendment was involved are wrong!
Are you going to sit their and state that every court judge who has ruled in favor of the press on first ammendment against buisnesses is wrong? If so I would want to see your credentials to show you know better then all thoughs judges.
And no im not infering the first ammendment applies to apple. Apple is a buisness and hence not a person or press so isn't protected under the constitution and that includes the first ammendment. But people are and so is the press and are theirfore protected under said ammendment.
The question though is weather or not a blogger is considered press and theirfore protected under the freedom of the press and allowed to protect his source in this case which is what this is about. If the first ammendment didn't apply to press in buisness cases but only to government or state which you clearly pointed out apple is not then this wouldn't be an issue since the first ammendment wouldn't even come up or stop apple or any other business from going after the press (any press) in any case where they want sources revealed.
And as you're restatement of my statement that is what has to be decided is a blogger press and therifore protected from apples attempts to force him to reveal his source or not.
If not as i stated before this will have major implication on the future of the press and cause a chilling effect on getting sources to expose shady buisness and governement dealings and coruption and other things where an online news service is involved for decades to come.
Sorry wrong!!
If it was as you say then it would be defined in the first ammendment as such that these laws only apply in the case of government or congress but it doesn't it says nothing of the sort.
Nowhere does it say these rights only apply in the case of government. What it does say is that congress shall make no laws abridging thoughs rights speech religion and press. But nowhere does it say that they apply only to the government hence your argument is false and baseless.
If you belive otherwise show me where anywhere in the constitution it says speech religion or press only apply in the case of the government or in dealings with the government.
In fact if such were the case buisnesses would be able to go after the press for hurting their buisness everytime some special report comes on the news about some company doing this or that or newspaper report about same things. Thats why theirs the part in their about freedom of the press. The press uses the first ammendment all the time to protect their sources in buisness cases as well as thoughs revealing government corruption it's the only thing that protects their sources and ability to report the news and the thing that protects them from lawsuits from buisnesses wanting to fight back or get revenge on them.
So you're argument falls flat unless you can come up with something that no buisness or governement official who's ever been caught in the crosshairs of the rpess sniffing out that story about your mistress or back room secret deals or taking ilegal bribes etc.. If you could do that then my friend you would be the best friend of every government official and CEO all over this fair land.
Wait so are you saying that the first ammendment only applies to the government?
The first amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Uhm hmm ok i see that congress can't make any laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech. But nowhere does it say that the first ammendment only applies to the government.
So im afraid your wrong the individual does have first ammendment rights. The question though is does it apply in this case?
Their not bringing a case against him for releaseing trade secrets as they would have to prove he knew when he blogged that what he blogged was a trade secret. Tough to prove unless his source whom he's protecting under what he claims is his first ammendment right to protect his sources under freedom of the press came forth and implicated him so going to the trade secret case was not brought.
The argument by apple is that he's not press since he only reports on an online blog and doesn't report for a traditional news service or paper so his sources aren't protected and he must surrender them over.
Sounds like an attempt to redefine what is considered freedom of the press to me. So is a blogger or any online news source considered press?
If so then most deffinatly the first ammendment applies and apple can't force him to surrender his sources. If not then it will define for decades to come that online news isn't free speech and no annonomus sources will give out info to an online reporter or news site for fear of being handed over (even in a none trade secret case) by the reporter because he has no recourse or protections.
So the only place you would have to go for such confidentual info like breaking news about secret illegal buisness dealings government coverups (deep throut comes to mind) and other cases where the individual wanting to protect his identity for various reasons would be in the traditional press not online blogs or news services.
And you are right apple has a right to use the court system but are you right in that this individual has no first ammendment rights in this case? That i guess is what has to be decided based on is or isn't a online news service or blog considered press.
I think it is but Jobs it seams thinks it isn't.
Well it says right their that Congress can't make laws abridging the feedom of speech not that freedom of speech only applies to the government or congress.
Now i could see your argument if say buisness could make laws abridging free speech but buisnesses can't make laws so they can't abridge free speech either. But whats happening in this case is an attempt to redefine what is considered free speech in the case of jurnalizim IE digital jurnalizim.
Now if you could show me where in the constitution it says that free speech only applies when the government or congress is involved then i could see your argument.
However your right that free speech doesn't protect the speaker from persecution for violating a law while exorcizing his free speech. But as i understand it thats not the case here if it were then apple would have to prove the blogger had known the information given was a trade secret to begin with. Which is difficult if not nearly impossible. But what apple is trying to do here is force the blogger to release his source useing the courts to do so.
The argument is that if the blogger were a traditional reporter or jurnalist writting for a paper or news service the first ammendment would protect his free speech which in that case could only be surrendered by the court judge in certain special cases (which apples claim wouldnt fall under). But since they are arguing that the blogger isn't a reporter nor jurnalist since he's not writting or reporting for a physical press or news service that he's not protected.
Seems like splitting hairs to me. He's not accused of releaseing trade secerets but rather refusing to finger the guy by surrendering over info that may identify him who did release trade secrets.
Now if apple were to go after the blogger for releasing trade secrets and could prove the blogger knew when he wrote his piece then that would be another matter but as i said that isn't the case here.
My oppinion as i said they are splitting hairs on the free speech issue. A person blogging news or reports should have every bit the same writes as traditional reporters and jurnalists and if apple couldn't get the courts to force one of them to hand over their source in a similar case involving a physical press or news service then they shouldn't be able to do it with a blogger jurnalist.
It's a very slippery slope that this case is on as were in a time when many things are being redefined like jurnalizim and a case like this affecting digital jurnalizim could have reprucutions for decades to come concerning free speech online and reporting the news and other things that would have been reported in a traditional service but doesn't in a digital one as the reporter could be forced to give out his source without protection of the first ammendment. This would have a chilling effect by either forcing reporting to stay in the mainstream analog world or by keeping news from being reported altogether. In many or all cases invloving secret sources refusing to give reporters information that they don't want to be fingered or exposed over even if they have nothing to do with trade secrets simply because a blog jurnalist isn't protect by the First Ammendment.
Do you see how it applies now?
Nice to see someone else to remembers the apple I,II,II+ and //e but were kinda dating ourselves lol.
Well Jobs was good really at recognizing something good when his engineers like Woz saw it.
Jobs at first didn't see anything in the mouse or the Gui until Woz and the other engineers went gaga over them wanting to know how they worked at that point Jobs pounced on it and went with it.
True their would however still be the computer which woz was making before jobs even knew he was doing it.
Woz might and probably would have without jobs marketed it later when it was ready and not looking like a pine box with a keyboard and screen to HP again and they probably would have went with it.
Barring anything else he could have sold them as homebrew pc's to the kids on campus who would have bought them even if they still looked like pine boxes with screens. The demand would have driven Woz to either start his own company or find a partner to do it either way their would still have been the pc. It just would have taken different routes to get their.
Also in that vien the apple without jobs would probably never have forced their software writers to another platform for not switching to writing buisness apps over games (one of the reasons Woz started making his PC to begin with). If the game developers hadn't been forced out of apple then apple today would probably have become the premier gaming platform in the pc world that every hardcore gamer would be playing on and apple gaming would be a multi billion dallar industry. Instead we have people gaming more on the pc and PC gaming is a multi billion dollar industry that apple has little part in.
Sure things would be different without jobs but no apple pc? Not sure who came up with that name but im sure under one name or another the apple would have come along it just would have followed some different paths to it's destination.
I think Gates actually saw the PC as the device that allowed people to use the OS wereas Jobs saw the OS as the thing that lets people use the PC.
It reflects on how both took their companies.
MSconcetrated on making OS's and software for PC's and used licencing of them to make money bocoming large and sucessfull.
Apple concetrated more on hardware and an OS to make it run so people could use the hardware. Then marketed the hardware to make a profit. However that model hasn't been quite the success that MS has been.
Both are doing well all things considered though.
"Behind a desk pointing an angry finger"
"Yelling" No one get's over Jobs!!!! No one!!!!!
Now get back to work before i hit you with my IMallot!!!
After having read through most though not all (some were below the threshold level) I was a bit distrurbed to see that noone mentioned one obvious reason, The comfort zone of the sun. Earths soon to leave it (2o mil years) and start heating up and boiling off it's oceans, Mars is moving into the comfort zone and will be for quite some time, Venus is already out of the comfort zone and only going to get hotter.
Er-reguardless of what treaforming meathods could be come up with that might make venuses atmosphere more like earths and lower the pressure the temps won't go down without some way to reflect most of the suns rays and radiation back into space. The best solution if you really want to terraform venus would be to first figure out how to move it out to an orbit of say mars of course mars would have to go as the two just couldn't work in the same orbits. Smashing mars into venus once it has gotten out into mars orbit at a proper angle would do quite nicely i think to recreate the earth moon type system with ejecta from mars impact made of mostly mars rubble and some of venus the rest would goto making up the difference of the mass venus lacks for being 1 earth g. The end result a new earth with some further terraforming by man and bonus it's in the new comfort zone for sometime.
The problems with this would be figuring out how to do it all. How do you move a mass 90% of earth? Once thats been figured out and made possible moving mars into a proper impact angle with the newly placed venus would be trivial by comparison. And finishing it off with microbs and the plants etc. to make it earthlike would also be trivial.
However by the time we figure out how to move an earth mass we will most likely have moved out beyond this system for other richer pastures where we don't have to do so much work to accomplish the same goals so by far in away just making mars sutible either via terraforming tempararilly or by putting up biodomes over large portions of the surface to house us would be infanatly easier by comparison.
Remember the suns aging and as it ages it's heating up and as it heats up further away is better than closer. But if you really do want to make our next home as close to earths gravity as possible then all we need is to figure out how to move large masses around the size of the earth and it would be doable. Of course if we are able to do that why move venus? Or even waste time with venus at all when we could just do the same minus the mars smashing into it and save the extra time that would be needed to terraform it.
Why not MS is able to do it and still remain profitable with Windows. If apple can't as well then they really have problems.
My oppinion though is reguardless of the fact that the smart decicion being to make OSX pc general apple wont do it because jobs loves controlling thae platform to much. He would more likely rip out his own heart than open the platform up to anything other than what apple puts out, It's just how he is and how he has always been and he hasn't changed or softened in the years he's been away from apple nor has comming back seen him become any less of the control freak he was before.
Personally i say good i don't want Evil Jobs OS on standard pc's mainly but not only because i can't stand the guy and don't want to have a thing to do with his OS not while Jobs in in charge of apple.
Not that i like Gates any better but my view is while gates is bad jobs is just plain evil and if he ever got a chance to be in ol'billies shoes he'd should just how much more evil and manipulative of the industry he can be, Much more so than gates ever was.
The world is much better off not giving him the chance to try.
Just what we need Web World War 1 #/
The web war to end all web wars. Followed 22 years later by WWW2.
WWW3 will be fought with virtual nukes and WWW4 will be fought virtual rocks and spears.
It all makes sense now Virtual armagedon!
Thats how it will all end LOL.