There are full-screen matte finish stickers out there. I've seen a couple advertised or reviewed recently. This seems like a very solvable issue with a cheap mod.
Too bad you can't take out the pane of glass in front of the screen. I'd find a glass company and get an anti-reflective coating baked on.
I generally feel the same way you do. Companies are basically pass-through entities for personal spending and wealth, so why tax them. And from a philosophical point of view, corporations can't vote so why should they be taxed? We're a nation of people.
However I try to keep my mind open to challenge and I saw a recent argument the other way that was intriguing. Basically it made the point that since high corporate taxes penalize profit-taking, they force money to stay in the business, which drives improvements.
By specific example, imagine a corporation is going to report $100 million in profit. If corporate taxes are very low, they'll distribute that to the shareholders. Supply-side economics says the shareholders will then invest their wealth, driving business growth.
But if corporate taxes are high, the company will put that money back into the business (lower prices, take on additional staff, buy capital improvements, etc) rather than report it as a profit. So the money is still used for business growth, but it avoids the round-trip through personal taxation and investment management fees. And it is being applied to a business that has already proven itself a winner (since it made the profit in the first place).
501(c)3 is the most well-known because that is how charities organize themselves. But there are other kinds of nonprofits; for instance many of chambers of commerce are organized under 501(c)6, which allows more political activities.
Not related to the current discussion because Mozilla is a 501(c)3. Just making the point that "nonprofit" does not always mean 501(c)3.
There are plenty of reasons to like the new MacBook Pro, and I can understand why people want to get one (physical toughness, more capable graphics, etc). I think DRM will just affect their choice of where to get content--download the movie from iTunes or BitTorrent? People savvy enough to understand and object to DRM schemes are usually also savvy enough to know how to get pirated content.
The studios are really the ones pushing DRM onto everyone else, and so IMO it's fair that they should bear the brunt of the financial cost of that decision.
iTunes does sell DRM-free music, and I bet it won't be long until their DRM free catalog catches up to others. Right now the labels are basically subsidizing iTunes competitors to prevent an Apple monopoly on digital music distribution. In any event, there is nothing that plugs the "analog hole" for music, and music DRM is software-based and easily circumvented.
But this story is about video, and I don't know anyone who is selling DRM free video. DRM seems like a universal ante for digital video distribution, even on disc. Hollywood was smart and watched the music industry make all the mistakes first.
"A female wolf is the same size as a male wolf and hunts just as much, for example. A female bald eagle catches as many fish. Etc."
These are behaviors. You mention preference, but preference is not measured, it's inferred. Especially when you're studying animals. Going by measured behaviors there are not huge sex-based behavioral differences within many complex animals (again, leaving aside actual reproduction).
Your argument that the gender split in CS is biologically based might make sense if there hadn't recently been a much more even gender split (did you read the article?). It's pretty hard to believe that human biology has changed that much in one generation.
Microsoft's strategy for the last 20 years worked really well for them over the last 20 years. Now it's today, and unlike 20 years ago, there's already a Microsoft in the market--not to mention Linux.
There's absolutely no reason to believe that a 20 year old strategy would work just as well today as it did for Microsoft then. This is a sort of hindsight fallacy, where past success is mistaken for future guarantees. It's instructive that the one remaining competitor to Microsoft in the stand-alone OS market gives its product away for free (Linux).
So nearly all species in the animal kingdom have inherent behavioral differences between males and females - except humans? You really believe that?
Nearly all species in the animal kingdom are bugs. But if you look at complex cordate animals closer to humans, for instance other mammals, I think you'll find that aside from the biomechanics of reproduction the behavioral differences between the sexes are slight. A female wolf is the same size as a male wolf and just as capable of hunting, for example. A female bald eagle is just as capable of catching a fish. Etc.
Suddenly, I'm no longer so sure that absolute freedom of the press is such a good idea any more.
This comment almost makes me sick to my stomach. It's unbelievable the degree to which some Americans have allowed their ideological filter to dominate their thoughts. I can't believe anyone would think that we should limit our Constitutional freedoms simply because you don't like what you hear. I hope to God you don't consider yourself "conservative" or "republican" with an attitude like that.
Is democracy a viable form of government if voter opinions are so readily influenced and shaped by the media?
Are you so sure that the chicken came before the egg? Perhaps some self-reflection and humility is in order. When the entire world disagrees with you, perhaps it's worth considering that the entire world might not be the mistaken party. Or do you believe that you alone among mankind are free from influence and bias?
You say that the press supported Obama because he was going to win. I think the point of this story is that Obama won because the press favored him.
This betrays a subtle arrogance--the belief that you are smart enough to identify and discount media bias, but most other Americans are so stupid that they are influenced by a few extra news stories. But there's no objective evidence that media bias affects elections. However, I think it's often easier to believe you were a victim of a powerful conspiracy than to admit that you were simply in the ideological minority this time around.
Personally, I feel that the election was close enough that it could have gone the other way had the media been fair.
I'm guessing you think that because you wanted it to go the other way. Kerry supporters said almost the exact same thing in 2004.
Regular check ups are beneficial to the system and decrease costs long term, by saying that only the catastrophic expenses are covered, you're basically telling people to wait for the situation to be catastrophic... Just think of the cost difference between treating a small cavity and a root canal...
"Regular maintenance on your car is beneficial to the system and decreases costs long term. By saying only accidents are covered, you're basically telling people to wait for the situation to be catastrophic."
Of course regular checkups are essential, the question is whether your payments should go through the insurance company or should you just pay the doctor. Imagine if every oil change on your car involved your car insurance paperwork. Think they would still cost $35?
A private health care system does not make economic sense, because the incentives of the insurance companies go directly against the goal of the system
That's why THE CURRENT private health care system in the U.S. does not make sense. But parts of it could be greatly improved by removing the insurance companies from health maintenance and common, routine procedures.
The biggest problem with the health care market today is lack of price discovery. Consumers don't see the prices they are paying, so there is no direct competition and no pressure on prices. And the numbers on the bills don't actually reflect the price of most things, since most things are paid for by insurance, and insurance companies have "negotiated discounts." But to me, when the "discount" is applied to 90+% of the units, that's the real actual price. So we need to have a way to directly connect consumers to the actual prices of things.
That would provide direct price pressure on the most common products of the health care industry. For instance, a strep test. Or common drugs. Or an MRI. I have heard people say this won't work for medical items, but just look at laser eye surgery for example--this is a product marketed directly to the public and in most cases paid for directly by the public. Price discovery works (the price advertised is the price most commonly paid), and competitive pressure has driven technological advancement and price declines.
Insurance should be reserved for the most catastrophic and expensive problems...chemotherapy, car accidents, etc. I don't pass my home or car maintenance payments through my home or car insurance. Why should I pass all my health maintenance payments through my health insurance?? The most fundamental mistake made in discussing health care in this country is to center it on "who has insurance." Catastrophic-only coverage is not expensive and not hard to get...almost everyone can afford it. What is expensive and complicated and hard to get is the "comprehensive coverage" policies in which every cost is passed through the insurance company. We need to break that.
Finally, no private market solution will cover everyone. That's not what private markets do...they provide an optimal solution, but optimal always means discarding the outliers. But as a democratic nation of equals, there are no outliers. So we need to have a government-provided backstop for those who the private market does not serve adequately. But I think we should have a target percentage of service. If the backstop is serving more than 20% of the population, say, then it's time to review and readjust.
I'm sorry to keep disagreeing with you, but you have a very incomplete picture of how the financial markets around mortgages and mortgage-backed securities work. For one thing, most subprime loans do not meet Fannie or Freddie underwriting standards and were not purchased or securitized by these GSE's. They were issued and securitized by private institutions. Fannie and Freddie did purchase some of the highest-rated resulting securities, but it was less than half the total market.
And as I said before, many subprime loans were not issued by institutions under the purview of the CRA, which only covers certain deposit-accepting banks. Even you think CRA hurt the banks it regulates, those banks only made up part of the mortgage market. The same is true of Glass-Steagall--nothing in those laws prevented (or would have prevented) investment banks from mortgages and securitizing them, which they did with gusto.
You're absolutely right that there is no one cause for the very complex mess we're in. Yet you seem unaware of major parts of the markets involved.
Glass-Steagall's repeal also allowed a TON more banks/lenders to start issuing "mortgage-backed securities", as prior to 1999 only certain GSE's (Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) were allowed to do.
I'm sorry, but that is factually incorrect. The repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed deposit-accepting institutions like Citi to issue mortgage-backed securities. However companies that did not accept deposits were always free to issue these securities--institutions typically referred to as "investment banks" like the big 5 of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley.
These are the institutions who got into/caused some of the gravest problems with RMBS and their associated derivatives. They would buy mortgages from originators (brokers and banks), and then package them into securities and derivatives. This was not prohibited by Glass Steagall because the banks were not issuing securities, they were just selling loans. And the invesment banks were not taking deposits, they were just issuing securities.
Many banks are in trouble today not because they issued their own mortgage-backed securities, but because they bought high-yield mortgage-backed securities and held them on their balance sheet. These are the "toxic assets" that the $700 billion bill is supposed to buy up. But many of these toxic assets were issued by the investment banks, outside of regulatory oversight.
Post-CRA-insanity (and the following nonsense when everyone started to want to get more and more loans on the market), we got treated to all the "subprime" nonsense
I just want to point out that "subprime" is a private market invention and term, that has nothing to do with the CRA. Subprime loans are made at the discretion of individual lenders since neither interest rates nor underwriting standards are federally controlled. People will point to the CRA but the CRA regulates only deposit-taking institutions. Subprime loans can be made at will (and many were) by private institutions that do not take deposits.
Glass-Steagall was repealed so Citi could buy Travelers insurance to form Citigroup. How are they doing today? Still going strong.
If Glass-Steagall was still in effect, Bank of America could not have bought Merrill Lynch. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley could not have converted to bank holding companies. These transactions have had important stabilizing effects.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall is a popular talking because it is a tangible example of "deregulation." However I have not seen a single hard analysis that ties it into any of the root causes of the problem. A far more causative piece of deregulation was the repeal of the net capital rule. Leverage increased dramatically following that repeal.
The real problem was not "de"regulation, it was lack of regulation in the first place. There was (and still is) no general regulation of mortgage origination. Banks are regulated, but many of the worst subprimes were originated by brokers or other non-deposit-taking companies. Likewise, there was and is no regulation of derivatives like credit default swaps. Subprime defaults may have lit the match but derivatives are the logs that keep the fire going.
Politics is about power. It's far easier to get rich as a broker or real estate agent than it is as a public servant. People who love money and want to get rich do not move to Washington. They move to New York or LA or Chicago. People come to Washington because they want to be powerful, and nothing is more powerful than the federal government of the United States. The amounts of money involved in DC are large but by no means tremendous. The financial giants of New York control at least ten times as much wealth as the entire federal government does. But financial firms don't have legislative, police, or military powers.
Something like 99% of all species that have existed on the planet Earth are now extinct. So you take that statistical trick and publish a headline that screams "99% of All Species Will Go Extinct." Technically it's true. I mean, I think we can be pretty sure that someday 100% of species will go extinct, in the heat death of the universe, the big crunch, the end of the Matrix, etc.
Likewise, since all scientific knowledge is provisional, it's not shocking that the vast majority of scientific statements ever made turned out to be wrong. That's the whole point of science, isn't? That doesn't mean they weren't useful approximations at the time though. (See: Newton)
Life caused the Earth's atmosphere to have oxygen. There are still life forms here that oxygen is a deadly poison to.
Life caused the Earth's atmosphere to have FREE oxygen (O2). Terrestrial anaerobic life forms depend on oxygen just as much as we do--they just use it in chemical compounds other than O2. The question is whether life could form in an environment with little or no oxygen at all--like Titan for instance, or even asteroids or interstellar space.
Assuming intelligent alien life take about as long as intelligent Earth life to evolve (give or take a billion years), these other civilizations would have billions and billions of years ahead of us.
Don't stop your thinking at the edge of the solar system. If we really assume that intelligent life takes about as long as we did to develop, we have to remember the time it took for the elements to develop and clump together. According to our current understanding, immediately following the big bang there were no elements heavier than hydrogen in the universe. It took time for this hydrogen to gravitationally condense into stars. Then it took time for these stars to burn through their life cycle to produce heavier elements--then nova or supernova to disperse them. Then it took time for the results of the novae to gravitationally collect around younger stars, and even more time for it to condense into planets. Only then do you get to the point where life as we know it could begin to form.
I'm not an astrophysicist so I couldn't tell you how long all these long times are. But I don't think a civilization could have plausibly started developing right after the big bang.
Dented and flexed cases in the AL Powerbooks and Macbook Pros are a pretty well known problem. Drop it just right onto concrete or tile, even from a pretty short height, and you might find yourself with a big dent or an unusable optical drive. This is an unfortunate side effect of using such thin, stamped AL for the case.
This is a big reason they redesigned the case. The 3-D milling allows very precise placement of material, which should produce a stiffer case for the same weight. But also take a look at how they designed the case. The bottom half used to be a single "tub" of aluminum, with a separate piece for the "deck." Now the sides are attached to the deck, with a separate piece for the very bottom surface. This creates stronger corners, and an easily-replacable bottom surface if a dent does occur.
Also, take a look at where they put the optical bay. This is one of the weakest parts of the structure because it's a big hole in the sidewall. Again, the milling should allow them to thicken the border of the disc port a bit, to stiffen it up. And it's placed directly over the battery, which is one of the strongest and most solid parts of the computer.
I think the new design should be a lot more resistant to stupid dings and expensive fixes.
Slashdot Mirror
Little companies don't go suing gigantic, highly litigious corporations unless they have back-up. There's no better example than SCO.
This is not even that uncommon. Companies regularly fund "think tanks" or other proxies in politics for instance.
There are full-screen matte finish stickers out there. I've seen a couple advertised or reviewed recently. This seems like a very solvable issue with a cheap mod.
Too bad you can't take out the pane of glass in front of the screen. I'd find a glass company and get an anti-reflective coating baked on.
I generally feel the same way you do. Companies are basically pass-through entities for personal spending and wealth, so why tax them. And from a philosophical point of view, corporations can't vote so why should they be taxed? We're a nation of people.
However I try to keep my mind open to challenge and I saw a recent argument the other way that was intriguing. Basically it made the point that since high corporate taxes penalize profit-taking, they force money to stay in the business, which drives improvements.
By specific example, imagine a corporation is going to report $100 million in profit. If corporate taxes are very low, they'll distribute that to the shareholders. Supply-side economics says the shareholders will then invest their wealth, driving business growth.
But if corporate taxes are high, the company will put that money back into the business (lower prices, take on additional staff, buy capital improvements, etc) rather than report it as a profit. So the money is still used for business growth, but it avoids the round-trip through personal taxation and investment management fees. And it is being applied to a business that has already proven itself a winner (since it made the profit in the first place).
501(c)3 is the most well-known because that is how charities organize themselves. But there are other kinds of nonprofits; for instance many of chambers of commerce are organized under 501(c)6, which allows more political activities.
Not related to the current discussion because Mozilla is a 501(c)3. Just making the point that "nonprofit" does not always mean 501(c)3.
There are plenty of reasons to like the new MacBook Pro, and I can understand why people want to get one (physical toughness, more capable graphics, etc). I think DRM will just affect their choice of where to get content--download the movie from iTunes or BitTorrent? People savvy enough to understand and object to DRM schemes are usually also savvy enough to know how to get pirated content.
The studios are really the ones pushing DRM onto everyone else, and so IMO it's fair that they should bear the brunt of the financial cost of that decision.
iTunes does sell DRM-free music, and I bet it won't be long until their DRM free catalog catches up to others. Right now the labels are basically subsidizing iTunes competitors to prevent an Apple monopoly on digital music distribution. In any event, there is nothing that plugs the "analog hole" for music, and music DRM is software-based and easily circumvented.
But this story is about video, and I don't know anyone who is selling DRM free video. DRM seems like a universal ante for digital video distribution, even on disc. Hollywood was smart and watched the music industry make all the mistakes first.
You are completely wrong about this, and I am an expert in the field, so argue if you like, just be warned you are totally wrong.
Ah yes, obviously. Most expert biologists I know spend their days posting 20+ times to Slashdot on computer stories.
It's been fun!
Speaking of getting offended.
If if helps, I'll rephrase:
"A female wolf is the same size as a male wolf and hunts just as much, for example. A female bald eagle catches as many fish. Etc."
These are behaviors. You mention preference, but preference is not measured, it's inferred. Especially when you're studying animals. Going by measured behaviors there are not huge sex-based behavioral differences within many complex animals (again, leaving aside actual reproduction).
Your argument that the gender split in CS is biologically based might make sense if there hadn't recently been a much more even gender split (did you read the article?). It's pretty hard to believe that human biology has changed that much in one generation.
Microsoft's strategy for the last 20 years worked really well for them over the last 20 years. Now it's today, and unlike 20 years ago, there's already a Microsoft in the market--not to mention Linux.
There's absolutely no reason to believe that a 20 year old strategy would work just as well today as it did for Microsoft then. This is a sort of hindsight fallacy, where past success is mistaken for future guarantees. It's instructive that the one remaining competitor to Microsoft in the stand-alone OS market gives its product away for free (Linux).
Check it out
So nearly all species in the animal kingdom have inherent behavioral differences between males and females - except humans? You really believe that?
Nearly all species in the animal kingdom are bugs. But if you look at complex cordate animals closer to humans, for instance other mammals, I think you'll find that aside from the biomechanics of reproduction the behavioral differences between the sexes are slight. A female wolf is the same size as a male wolf and just as capable of hunting, for example. A female bald eagle is just as capable of catching a fish. Etc.
Suddenly, I'm no longer so sure that absolute freedom of the press is such a good idea any more.
This comment almost makes me sick to my stomach. It's unbelievable the degree to which some Americans have allowed their ideological filter to dominate their thoughts. I can't believe anyone would think that we should limit our Constitutional freedoms simply because you don't like what you hear. I hope to God you don't consider yourself "conservative" or "republican" with an attitude like that.
Is democracy a viable form of government if voter opinions are so readily influenced and shaped by the media?
Are you so sure that the chicken came before the egg? Perhaps some self-reflection and humility is in order. When the entire world disagrees with you, perhaps it's worth considering that the entire world might not be the mistaken party. Or do you believe that you alone among mankind are free from influence and bias?
You say that the press supported Obama because he was going to win. I think the point of this story is that Obama won because the press favored him.
This betrays a subtle arrogance--the belief that you are smart enough to identify and discount media bias, but most other Americans are so stupid that they are influenced by a few extra news stories. But there's no objective evidence that media bias affects elections. However, I think it's often easier to believe you were a victim of a powerful conspiracy than to admit that you were simply in the ideological minority this time around.
Personally, I feel that the election was close enough that it could have gone the other way had the media been fair.
I'm guessing you think that because you wanted it to go the other way. Kerry supporters said almost the exact same thing in 2004.
Regular check ups are beneficial to the system and decrease costs long term, by saying that only the catastrophic expenses are covered, you're basically telling people to wait for the situation to be catastrophic... Just think of the cost difference between treating a small cavity and a root canal...
"Regular maintenance on your car is beneficial to the system and decreases costs long term. By saying only accidents are covered, you're basically telling people to wait for the situation to be catastrophic."
Of course regular checkups are essential, the question is whether your payments should go through the insurance company or should you just pay the doctor. Imagine if every oil change on your car involved your car insurance paperwork. Think they would still cost $35?
A private health care system does not make economic sense, because the incentives of the insurance companies go directly against the goal of the system
That's why THE CURRENT private health care system in the U.S. does not make sense. But parts of it could be greatly improved by removing the insurance companies from health maintenance and common, routine procedures.
The biggest problem with the health care market today is lack of price discovery. Consumers don't see the prices they are paying, so there is no direct competition and no pressure on prices. And the numbers on the bills don't actually reflect the price of most things, since most things are paid for by insurance, and insurance companies have "negotiated discounts." But to me, when the "discount" is applied to 90+% of the units, that's the real actual price. So we need to have a way to directly connect consumers to the actual prices of things.
That would provide direct price pressure on the most common products of the health care industry. For instance, a strep test. Or common drugs. Or an MRI. I have heard people say this won't work for medical items, but just look at laser eye surgery for example--this is a product marketed directly to the public and in most cases paid for directly by the public. Price discovery works (the price advertised is the price most commonly paid), and competitive pressure has driven technological advancement and price declines.
Insurance should be reserved for the most catastrophic and expensive problems...chemotherapy, car accidents, etc. I don't pass my home or car maintenance payments through my home or car insurance. Why should I pass all my health maintenance payments through my health insurance?? The most fundamental mistake made in discussing health care in this country is to center it on "who has insurance." Catastrophic-only coverage is not expensive and not hard to get...almost everyone can afford it. What is expensive and complicated and hard to get is the "comprehensive coverage" policies in which every cost is passed through the insurance company. We need to break that.
Finally, no private market solution will cover everyone. That's not what private markets do...they provide an optimal solution, but optimal always means discarding the outliers. But as a democratic nation of equals, there are no outliers. So we need to have a government-provided backstop for those who the private market does not serve adequately. But I think we should have a target percentage of service. If the backstop is serving more than 20% of the population, say, then it's time to review and readjust.
I'm sorry to keep disagreeing with you, but you have a very incomplete picture of how the financial markets around mortgages and mortgage-backed securities work. For one thing, most subprime loans do not meet Fannie or Freddie underwriting standards and were not purchased or securitized by these GSE's. They were issued and securitized by private institutions. Fannie and Freddie did purchase some of the highest-rated resulting securities, but it was less than half the total market.
And as I said before, many subprime loans were not issued by institutions under the purview of the CRA, which only covers certain deposit-accepting banks. Even you think CRA hurt the banks it regulates, those banks only made up part of the mortgage market. The same is true of Glass-Steagall--nothing in those laws prevented (or would have prevented) investment banks from mortgages and securitizing them, which they did with gusto.
You're absolutely right that there is no one cause for the very complex mess we're in. Yet you seem unaware of major parts of the markets involved.
Glass-Steagall's repeal also allowed a TON more banks/lenders to start issuing "mortgage-backed securities", as prior to 1999 only certain GSE's (Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) were allowed to do.
I'm sorry, but that is factually incorrect. The repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed deposit-accepting institutions like Citi to issue mortgage-backed securities. However companies that did not accept deposits were always free to issue these securities--institutions typically referred to as "investment banks" like the big 5 of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley.
These are the institutions who got into/caused some of the gravest problems with RMBS and their associated derivatives. They would buy mortgages from originators (brokers and banks), and then package them into securities and derivatives. This was not prohibited by Glass Steagall because the banks were not issuing securities, they were just selling loans. And the invesment banks were not taking deposits, they were just issuing securities.
Many banks are in trouble today not because they issued their own mortgage-backed securities, but because they bought high-yield mortgage-backed securities and held them on their balance sheet. These are the "toxic assets" that the $700 billion bill is supposed to buy up. But many of these toxic assets were issued by the investment banks, outside of regulatory oversight.
Post-CRA-insanity (and the following nonsense when everyone started to want to get more and more loans on the market), we got treated to all the "subprime" nonsense
I just want to point out that "subprime" is a private market invention and term, that has nothing to do with the CRA. Subprime loans are made at the discretion of individual lenders since neither interest rates nor underwriting standards are federally controlled. People will point to the CRA but the CRA regulates only deposit-taking institutions. Subprime loans can be made at will (and many were) by private institutions that do not take deposits.
Glass-Steagall was repealed so Citi could buy Travelers insurance to form Citigroup. How are they doing today? Still going strong.
If Glass-Steagall was still in effect, Bank of America could not have bought Merrill Lynch. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley could not have converted to bank holding companies. These transactions have had important stabilizing effects.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall is a popular talking because it is a tangible example of "deregulation." However I have not seen a single hard analysis that ties it into any of the root causes of the problem. A far more causative piece of deregulation was the repeal of the net capital rule. Leverage increased dramatically following that repeal.
The real problem was not "de"regulation, it was lack of regulation in the first place. There was (and still is) no general regulation of mortgage origination. Banks are regulated, but many of the worst subprimes were originated by brokers or other non-deposit-taking companies. Likewise, there was and is no regulation of derivatives like credit default swaps. Subprime defaults may have lit the match but derivatives are the logs that keep the fire going.
Politics is about power. It's far easier to get rich as a broker or real estate agent than it is as a public servant. People who love money and want to get rich do not move to Washington. They move to New York or LA or Chicago. People come to Washington because they want to be powerful, and nothing is more powerful than the federal government of the United States. The amounts of money involved in DC are large but by no means tremendous. The financial giants of New York control at least ten times as much wealth as the entire federal government does. But financial firms don't have legislative, police, or military powers.
Something like 99% of all species that have existed on the planet Earth are now extinct. So you take that statistical trick and publish a headline that screams "99% of All Species Will Go Extinct." Technically it's true. I mean, I think we can be pretty sure that someday 100% of species will go extinct, in the heat death of the universe, the big crunch, the end of the Matrix, etc.
Likewise, since all scientific knowledge is provisional, it's not shocking that the vast majority of scientific statements ever made turned out to be wrong. That's the whole point of science, isn't? That doesn't mean they weren't useful approximations at the time though. (See: Newton)
Life caused the Earth's atmosphere to have oxygen. There are still life forms here that oxygen is a deadly poison to.
Life caused the Earth's atmosphere to have FREE oxygen (O2). Terrestrial anaerobic life forms depend on oxygen just as much as we do--they just use it in chemical compounds other than O2. The question is whether life could form in an environment with little or no oxygen at all--like Titan for instance, or even asteroids or interstellar space.
Assuming intelligent alien life take about as long as intelligent Earth life to evolve (give or take a billion years), these other civilizations would have billions and billions of years ahead of us.
Don't stop your thinking at the edge of the solar system. If we really assume that intelligent life takes about as long as we did to develop, we have to remember the time it took for the elements to develop and clump together. According to our current understanding, immediately following the big bang there were no elements heavier than hydrogen in the universe. It took time for this hydrogen to gravitationally condense into stars. Then it took time for these stars to burn through their life cycle to produce heavier elements--then nova or supernova to disperse them. Then it took time for the results of the novae to gravitationally collect around younger stars, and even more time for it to condense into planets. Only then do you get to the point where life as we know it could begin to form.
I'm not an astrophysicist so I couldn't tell you how long all these long times are. But I don't think a civilization could have plausibly started developing right after the big bang.
See my earlier post
Dented and flexed cases in the AL Powerbooks and Macbook Pros are a pretty well known problem. Drop it just right onto concrete or tile, even from a pretty short height, and you might find yourself with a big dent or an unusable optical drive. This is an unfortunate side effect of using such thin, stamped AL for the case.
This is a big reason they redesigned the case. The 3-D milling allows very precise placement of material, which should produce a stiffer case for the same weight. But also take a look at how they designed the case. The bottom half used to be a single "tub" of aluminum, with a separate piece for the "deck." Now the sides are attached to the deck, with a separate piece for the very bottom surface. This creates stronger corners, and an easily-replacable bottom surface if a dent does occur.
Also, take a look at where they put the optical bay. This is one of the weakest parts of the structure because it's a big hole in the sidewall. Again, the milling should allow them to thicken the border of the disc port a bit, to stiffen it up. And it's placed directly over the battery, which is one of the strongest and most solid parts of the computer.
I think the new design should be a lot more resistant to stupid dings and expensive fixes.