On one hand, there is the concept of WINNING- that people lose sight of how much they are spending on an item. Next people forget about shipping- which can cost as much as the item itself.
Here's an example... a couple of weeks ago, I bid on a 128 MB DIMM on eBay that was being sold in a dutch auction (lot of 15). The seller stated QUITE PLAINLY in the item description that anyone who wanted to buy the DIMM could just contact him and he would sell it for $19.85. Typical eBay... all of the winning bidders bid OVER $20, with the highest bid being $26. I kid you not.
I said "Screw it," went down to Best Buy and picked one up for $14 (after a $5 mail-in rebate).
all I had to play with was a brick and a rusty bucket. What is it with these kids today and their fancy 'puters! I had plenty o' fun, and I didn't need no fancy-shmantzy GEE-FORCE THREE!
If a brick and a rusty bucket was good enough for me, it's good enough for them, dag nab it.
According to Business Week, roughly a quarter of the oil that Iraq produces ends up in the US.
Is this not the case for every oil exporting country? Does the Business Week article mention whether Iraq's oil production is the same today as it was 12 years ago? If the oil production has dropped dramatically, does the Business Week article mention why?
Not really sure what you're getting at here...
Likewise, sponsoring terrorist organizations in Central and South America, overthrowing democratically elected governments in Chile and Iran, dropping nuclear bombs on Japan, using chemical warfare in Vietnam, starving the civilian population of Iraq, shelling the civilian population of Afghanistan: these things are wrong, no matter what lofty ideals are used to justify them. If you don't understand *that*, then you are more like a terrorist than you realize.
Well, most of those could be an entire discussion unto themselves. It goes without saying that mistakes will be made by any government, blood will be spilt because of carelessness, etc. I would caution against, though, reinterpreting history through modern eyes.
And I realize that with multiculturalism, that there is this huge push to view all truth as "relative", but I will unabashedly say that the US does, indeed, have the best form of government in the history of the world, and I am in agreement with its foreign policy goals, even if I can't always agree with the execution of those goals. I can't think of too many nations where the press will crucify government leaders when horrific mistakes are made, and there remains a system of accountability. No perfect, but it's the best.
Even our enemies get far, far better than they deserve when we defeat them. E.G., I heard on the news last night that we are giving Al-Qaida prisoners in Gitmo eye exams, something they would never have received back in Afghanistan!
However I found it equally baffling that the American people were willing to believe Bin Laden was guilty without any evidence whatsoever. The video tape came out well after the bombing of Afghanistan started, with the full support of the American general public. This on nothing but the government and the media's good word. Fascinating.
Whether or not bin Laden was the mastermind of 9-11, he still deserved us going into Afghanistan to kick his ass. He was already guilty of a number of atrocities that we knew of. It's only that we failed in this task prior to 2000 because the previous "Commander in Chief" was too busy getting blow jobs in the Oval Office to take care of the problem himself.
1) You wrongly assume that the people getting American oil money and the people with the anti-American sentiments are one and the same.
No, I don't assume that. I was merely responding to what the previous poster said.
2) It's "defame", not "defamate".
Thanks, I realzied that after I posted, but, alas, there's no "edit" button....
Your arguments would carry alot more weight if they were a little more informed.
1) America barely buys ANY oil from Iraq. Iraq has been under US-sponsored UN sanctions for over a decade. Yes, there is the oil-for-food program, but by no stretch of the imagination can it be said that Iraq is making "huge profits from the oil we buy from them".
According to Business Week, roughly a quarter of the oil that Iraq produces ends up in the US. It may be a relatively small amount to us, but it's a huge amount to them.
In no uncertain terms? Do you fully appreciate the role that the US government played in Afghanistan during the 80's? Are you aware of the kind of activity the US government sponsored in Nicaragua, also in the 80s? Do you know what the US military mean when they say "insurgency" or "guerilla warfare" or "psychological operations"?
I think that opinions may vary, but to claim that terrorism and/or support of terrorism makes one an enemy of civilization in no uncertain terms.. well.. only if you define terrorism as "what they do" and civilization as "what we do" can that ever be true.
What are you saying? That fighting oppression or fighting to stem the growth of oppressive systems is a form of terrorism?
If you can't see a difference, I won't even bother to argue the point.
So while many condemned the attacks on the WTC, many of the same people fail to support the US government's attacks on Afghanistan. And in a climate of war-mongering, that's seen as only a half-hearted condemnation of the WTC tragedy. And that's sad.
Well, I don't have a lot of hard numbers to back anything up, but anecdotally, watching the Arab reaction to bin Laden's "confession" video, it was amazing to see that most Arabs interviewed on the streets still had serious doubts that bin Laden was guilty.
I keep hearing Muslims saying on TV that ones who engage in jihad, suicide bombings, et al, are on the radical fringe, which I don't doubt. What is most disturbing is that there is not a blanket condemnation of these acts resounding throughout the Arab world. Rather, we hear statistics like this one, that 77% of Palestinians support suicide bombings (though, of course, 77% of Palestinans aren't actually suicide bombers).
I think "they" understand that quite well. Unfortunately, they tend to "get on our good side" at the expense of the welfare of their own people. Hence the "anti-American sentiment" you were talking about before.
"Getting on our good side" would include such things as punishing human rights abuses, adopting democratic and capitalistic reforms, allowing free speech and freedom of religion, et al. I would not suggest that we would abandon humanitarian relief efforts, though we may disagree with a country's government.
Third, disallowing anti-American sentiment (or anti-anything sentiment, for that matter) is unamerican in nature, since it involves governmental suppression of free speech.
Nobody's talking about putting a muzzle on ANYBODY. Your freedom of speech does NOT mean that I have to pay you to defamate my character!
I guess it doesn't bother you that the Iraqi goverment will take the vast profits from the oil we buy from them and support groups like Al-Qaida to blow up our buildings and terrorize our population. Or would you qualify the destruction of the WTC as "freedom of expression"?
Fourth, we would have more problems in the region if it was destabilized than not. Do you really think that wiping out the economies of these countries is likely to foster a more democratic or equitable society in any of them, or is it more likely to cause even more powermongering (in which it has been historically proven that the more extreme factions get control than the more moderate)?
I have no problem with bringing any country into the civilized world. However, groups that sponsor terrorism and governments that either sponsor or tolerate them are the enemies of the civilized world, in no uncertain terms.
What is the goal of these radical terrorist groups in the middle east? To kill the enemies of Islam and establish Islam as the dominant worldwide religion through violent means. What's worse is that many moderates in Islam don't condone these activities, but they don't condemn them, either.
I think helping to bring these countries into the civilized world and establish a moderate government IS a high priority. However, we also have to recognize that OPEC nations have more influence over us than we have over them. We need to turn this equation around so that we have good economic ties with them, but with something much less strategic than oil. That way, we can reward those those nations that embrace moderate ideals and can cut off terrorist states.
Maybe you should spend more time considering why these countries have such large constituencies of anti-American people, and you'll get a clearer idea as to realistic ways to change that sentiment.
Bullshit!
If they want our money, they need to find out how to get on our good side.
If not, then they can go back to sheep herding.
Standing with the civilized world is a choice that only THEY can make. Remember, in the 1980's we FERVENTLY worked to make Iraq an ally. See what it got us? Nothing.
If the world fuel "economy" switches to hydrogen, what happens to the countries which sole income is provided by oil and fossil fuels? Won't these places be absolutely devestated and ruined by the collapse of their energy-demand?
You mean countries like Iran, Iraq, and Sudi Arabia?
We can only hope so.
We get an estimated 60% of our oil from OPEC nations, and the thanks that we get for making them fabulously wealthy is that they either promote or allow anti-American sentiment to flourish.
Last Christmas, it was the Dreamcast that was the incumbent leader outselling the upstart PlayStation2, with far more Dreamcast games and peripherals on the shelves than PS2 stuff. Now the Dreamcast is floating belly-up in the top of the bowl and PS2 is king.
A lot is going to change between now and X-mas 2002.
As is often the case, an employer may have to choose one person out of several qualified candidates available. Any one of them (including yourself) could fill the spot, based on their resumes.
Now let's suppose the employer is black, does some searching on you, and found some racial slurs in a heated message thread 15 years ago when you were just a punk kid. You realized right after you posted those messages that someone had pushed all your buttons and you said something you wished you hadn't said, but the employer doesn't know that.
Do you honestly think that it would have no bearing on the hiring decision?
The employer now has three things to judge you on... the resume sitting in front of him; the personal interview; and now some messages that paint you as a racist. The conscious mind says, "That happened 15 years ago, I can't judge him on that"; the unconscious mind says, "Screw that bastard, there's three other good candidates here."
The scary part is that many people (including myself) have posted many, MANY messages to USENET, not realizing that 20 years later those same messages would be staring us back in the face.
Many tech employers do a web search of candidates they are considering hiring... in many cases, it tells you a lot more about the person than the person is willing to reveal in the formal interview process. At least on a web page of your own creation you have the ability to tear it down and recreate it as you see fit. Newsgroups are forever. If you posted strong opinions to a political forum or to a religious forum under your own name (probably before you realized there were spambots or USENET archives), then those messages will very heavily influence that HR person's opinion of you.
Similarly, there are many support groups on USENET. People with medical problems have posted to medical support groups in good faith. Granted, you already know that you are posting private information in a public forum, but probably nobody who does expects to see it archived for all eternity and for the curious to be able to pull it up decades later.
I did a little vanity surfing on Google's USENET archives, and it was both amusing and frightening. Amusing because it was a voice from the past reminding me exactly of who I was at the time. Frightening because there are many posts where I express a strong point-of-view.
Bear in mind, also, that the logistics of maintaining a recent 6 month archive of newsgroups back in 1995 was daunting for any ISP; I never dreamed that the entire USENET would be archived from 1981 because the storage costs were enormous. Now we've reached a point where storage costs are trivial.
OTOH, I can imagine what a tremendous resource this will be for future generations doing geneological research... but only partially so. Much of the internet community has wised up and now only post under psuedonyms.
Also steer clear of flourescent lights, if you are installing any. From what I've been told, the ballasts put off a lot of EMF noise, particularly when they go bad.
Now just add this PowerFile 200 CD Jukebox that someone mentioned above, and use the Mac's built-in scripting language, AppleScript, to control it all and suddenly you're Hillary Rosen's personal nightmare.
If this was an intent to defraud people by floating a bogus MP3 player that one-upped the iPod, why would he be selling a 6 GB drive with a USB connection? The speed of the FireWire connection on the iPod is one of its main selling features, and is the one feature it has that no other MP3 player on the market has. And the Treo has a USB 1.1 connection at that.
Granted, most PC's don't have a FireWire port, but I think I would have at least said it had a combo USB/FireWire port.
I believe you're right; IE should be considered a feature and selling point of Windows and not a stand-alone product. You could make a similar argument for iTunes on the Mac, though it serves in far less utilitarian purposes.
The one area where the argument breaks down, though, is IE for Mac. MS isn't coding it out of the goodness of their hearts. They're not doing it because they have a stake in Apple (after the famous 1997 investment, Gates sold off his shares almost as quickly as he bought them). Are they doing it to support a competing platform in the market, to lessen the monopoly perception? Possibly, but I don't see it. The Mac would survive without IE.
It's difficult to see how IE for Mac increases shareholder value for Microsoft.
It is awkward, expensive, makes you look like a dork, and isn't really more useful than something you already had.
Which is EXACTLY why millions of Slashdotters will line up to buy one!
-----
$3000 is the INITIAL mass produced version.
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
He said he hoped to have it at $3000 for consumers in a year's time. It takes time economies of scale to kick in, particularly if there isn't already an established market for the particular device.
It took more than a decade for VCR's to drop from over $1000 to less than $100.
"When I did Weakest Link, I stood next to LeVar," Wheaton said on his website, in a post earlier this evening. "We were talking during the commercials, and I said to him that I really missed them. He said to me that I should be in the movie, especially since it's going to be the last TNG movie. I told him that I would love to be in it, but I really thought that Berman and company really didn't like me. He seemed surprised, and he told me that he was going to call Rick the next morning, and suggest to him that I be in the movie, at least as a cameo. I thought that would be really cool, and told him so.
"Last week, on Friday, my agent called me to let me know that there was an offer from Paramount to reprise the role of Wesley Crusher in Star Trek X. We just needed to work out the details.
"So we spent some time negotiating it, and --get this-- Rick Berman told my agent that he was 'very pleased' that I was going to be in the movie!
"I am really excited about this for three reasons:
* I am going to get to work with my friends again.
* Wesley Crusher will have some real closure, finally.
* For the last 5 years, at least, everywhere I go, fans ask me if I'm going to be in a movie, and what happened to Wesley, and I can honestly say that I'm doing this for the fans, because it will be so damn cool to see all of us together again.
Slashdot Mirror
On one hand, there is the concept of WINNING- that people lose sight of how much they are spending on an item. Next people forget about shipping- which can cost as much as the item itself.
Here's an example... a couple of weeks ago, I bid on a 128 MB DIMM on eBay that was being sold in a dutch auction (lot of 15). The seller stated QUITE PLAINLY in the item description that anyone who wanted to buy the DIMM could just contact him and he would sell it for $19.85. Typical eBay... all of the winning bidders bid OVER $20, with the highest bid being $26. I kid you not.
I said "Screw it," went down to Best Buy and picked one up for $14 (after a $5 mail-in rebate).
all I had to play with was a brick and a rusty bucket. What is it with these kids today and their fancy 'puters! I had plenty o' fun, and I didn't need no fancy-shmantzy GEE-FORCE THREE!
If a brick and a rusty bucket was good enough for me, it's good enough for them, dag nab it.
According to Business Week, roughly a quarter of the oil that Iraq produces ends up in the US.
Is this not the case for every oil exporting country? Does the Business Week article mention whether Iraq's oil production is the same today as it was 12 years ago? If the oil production has dropped dramatically, does the Business Week article mention why?
Not really sure what you're getting at here...
Likewise, sponsoring terrorist organizations in Central and South America, overthrowing democratically elected governments in Chile and Iran, dropping nuclear bombs on Japan, using chemical warfare in Vietnam, starving the civilian population of Iraq, shelling the civilian population of Afghanistan: these things are wrong, no matter what lofty ideals are used to justify them. If you don't understand *that*, then you are more like a terrorist than you realize.
Well, most of those could be an entire discussion unto themselves. It goes without saying that mistakes will be made by any government, blood will be spilt because of carelessness, etc. I would caution against, though, reinterpreting history through modern eyes.
And I realize that with multiculturalism, that there is this huge push to view all truth as "relative", but I will unabashedly say that the US does, indeed, have the best form of government in the history of the world, and I am in agreement with its foreign policy goals, even if I can't always agree with the execution of those goals. I can't think of too many nations where the press will crucify government leaders when horrific mistakes are made, and there remains a system of accountability. No perfect, but it's the best.
Even our enemies get far, far better than they deserve when we defeat them. E.G., I heard on the news last night that we are giving Al-Qaida prisoners in Gitmo eye exams, something they would never have received back in Afghanistan!
However I found it equally baffling that the American people were willing to believe Bin Laden was guilty without any evidence whatsoever. The video tape came out well after the bombing of Afghanistan started, with the full support of the American general public. This on nothing but the government and the media's good word. Fascinating.
Whether or not bin Laden was the mastermind of 9-11, he still deserved us going into Afghanistan to kick his ass. He was already guilty of a number of atrocities that we knew of. It's only that we failed in this task prior to 2000 because the previous "Commander in Chief" was too busy getting blow jobs in the Oval Office to take care of the problem himself.
1) You wrongly assume that the people getting American oil money and the people with the anti-American sentiments are one and the same.
No, I don't assume that. I was merely responding to what the previous poster said.
2) It's "defame", not "defamate".
Thanks, I realzied that after I posted, but, alas, there's no "edit" button....
Your arguments would carry alot more weight if they were a little more informed.
1) America barely buys ANY oil from Iraq. Iraq has been under US-sponsored UN sanctions for over a decade. Yes, there is the oil-for-food program, but by no stretch of the imagination can it be said that Iraq is making "huge profits from the oil we buy from them".
According to Business Week, roughly a quarter of the oil that Iraq produces ends up in the US. It may be a relatively small amount to us, but it's a huge amount to them.
In no uncertain terms? Do you fully appreciate the role that the US government played in Afghanistan during the 80's? Are you aware of the kind of activity the US government sponsored in Nicaragua, also in the 80s? Do you know what the US military mean when they say "insurgency" or "guerilla warfare" or "psychological operations"?
I think that opinions may vary, but to claim that terrorism and/or support of terrorism makes one an enemy of civilization in no uncertain terms.. well.. only if you define terrorism as "what they do" and civilization as "what we do" can that ever be true.
What are you saying? That fighting oppression or fighting to stem the growth of oppressive systems is a form of terrorism?
If you can't see a difference, I won't even bother to argue the point.
So while many condemned the attacks on the WTC, many of the same people fail to support the US government's attacks on Afghanistan. And in a climate of war-mongering, that's seen as only a half-hearted condemnation of the WTC tragedy. And that's sad.
Well, I don't have a lot of hard numbers to back anything up, but anecdotally, watching the Arab reaction to bin Laden's "confession" video, it was amazing to see that most Arabs interviewed on the streets still had serious doubts that bin Laden was guilty.
I keep hearing Muslims saying on TV that ones who engage in jihad, suicide bombings, et al, are on the radical fringe, which I don't doubt. What is most disturbing is that there is not a blanket condemnation of these acts resounding throughout the Arab world. Rather, we hear statistics like this one, that 77% of Palestinians support suicide bombings (though, of course, 77% of Palestinans aren't actually suicide bombers).
I think "they" understand that quite well. Unfortunately, they tend to "get on our good side" at the expense of the welfare of their own people. Hence the "anti-American sentiment" you were talking about before.
"Getting on our good side" would include such things as punishing human rights abuses, adopting democratic and capitalistic reforms, allowing free speech and freedom of religion, et al. I would not suggest that we would abandon humanitarian relief efforts, though we may disagree with a country's government.
Anyway, this is getting way, waaay off-topic....
Third, disallowing anti-American sentiment (or anti-anything sentiment, for that matter) is unamerican in nature, since it involves governmental suppression of free speech.
Nobody's talking about putting a muzzle on ANYBODY. Your freedom of speech does NOT mean that I have to pay you to defamate my character!
I guess it doesn't bother you that the Iraqi goverment will take the vast profits from the oil we buy from them and support groups like Al-Qaida to blow up our buildings and terrorize our population. Or would you qualify the destruction of the WTC as "freedom of expression"?
Fourth, we would have more problems in the region if it was destabilized than not. Do you really think that wiping out the economies of these countries is likely to foster a more democratic or equitable society in any of them, or is it more likely to cause even more powermongering (in which it has been historically proven that the more extreme factions get control than the more moderate)?
I have no problem with bringing any country into the civilized world. However, groups that sponsor terrorism and governments that either sponsor or tolerate them are the enemies of the civilized world, in no uncertain terms.
What is the goal of these radical terrorist groups in the middle east? To kill the enemies of Islam and establish Islam as the dominant worldwide religion through violent means. What's worse is that many moderates in Islam don't condone these activities, but they don't condemn them, either.
I think helping to bring these countries into the civilized world and establish a moderate government IS a high priority. However, we also have to recognize that OPEC nations have more influence over us than we have over them. We need to turn this equation around so that we have good economic ties with them, but with something much less strategic than oil. That way, we can reward those those nations that embrace moderate ideals and can cut off terrorist states.
Maybe you should spend more time considering why these countries have such large constituencies of anti-American people, and you'll get a clearer idea as to realistic ways to change that sentiment.
Bullshit!
If they want our money, they need to find out how to get on our good side.
If not, then they can go back to sheep herding.
Standing with the civilized world is a choice that only THEY can make. Remember, in the 1980's we FERVENTLY worked to make Iraq an ally. See what it got us? Nothing.
If the world fuel "economy" switches to hydrogen, what happens to the countries which sole income is provided by oil and fossil fuels? Won't these places be absolutely devestated and ruined by the collapse of their energy-demand?
You mean countries like Iran, Iraq, and Sudi Arabia?
We can only hope so.
We get an estimated 60% of our oil from OPEC nations, and the thanks that we get for making them fabulously wealthy is that they either promote or allow anti-American sentiment to flourish.
any mirrors?
Note to poster... If you're going to post restricted Apple documents, you may want to host them on a web server other than Apple's.
From the official PNG home page:
The quality of PNG support in applications varies widely, but overall it is improving at a reasonable rate.
The "varies widely" part terrifies the web designer in me.
Actually, he was better off with the course of action he followed. He got a working PS2 by December 8th.
By December 25th, the shortage was so bad that a PS2 sold on eBay for $5,000.
Here are some more pictures to fuel the fire... Steve Wozniak playing with a device that looks very similar to the mystery unit...
-----
can be found here.
And you're right, it's awesome.
-----
Last Christmas, it was the Dreamcast that was the incumbent leader outselling the upstart PlayStation2, with far more Dreamcast games and peripherals on the shelves than PS2 stuff. Now the Dreamcast is floating belly-up in the top of the bowl and PS2 is king.
A lot is going to change between now and X-mas 2002.
-----
Here's a hypothetical situation for ya:
As is often the case, an employer may have to choose one person out of several qualified candidates available. Any one of them (including yourself) could fill the spot, based on their resumes.
Now let's suppose the employer is black, does some searching on you, and found some racial slurs in a heated message thread 15 years ago when you were just a punk kid. You realized right after you posted those messages that someone had pushed all your buttons and you said something you wished you hadn't said, but the employer doesn't know that.
Do you honestly think that it would have no bearing on the hiring decision?
The employer now has three things to judge you on... the resume sitting in front of him; the personal interview; and now some messages that paint you as a racist. The conscious mind says, "That happened 15 years ago, I can't judge him on that"; the unconscious mind says, "Screw that bastard, there's three other good candidates here."
-----
The scary part is that many people (including myself) have posted many, MANY messages to USENET, not realizing that 20 years later those same messages would be staring us back in the face.
Many tech employers do a web search of candidates they are considering hiring... in many cases, it tells you a lot more about the person than the person is willing to reveal in the formal interview process. At least on a web page of your own creation you have the ability to tear it down and recreate it as you see fit. Newsgroups are forever. If you posted strong opinions to a political forum or to a religious forum under your own name (probably before you realized there were spambots or USENET archives), then those messages will very heavily influence that HR person's opinion of you.
Similarly, there are many support groups on USENET. People with medical problems have posted to medical support groups in good faith. Granted, you already know that you are posting private information in a public forum, but probably nobody who does expects to see it archived for all eternity and for the curious to be able to pull it up decades later.
I did a little vanity surfing on Google's USENET archives, and it was both amusing and frightening. Amusing because it was a voice from the past reminding me exactly of who I was at the time. Frightening because there are many posts where I express a strong point-of-view.
Bear in mind, also, that the logistics of maintaining a recent 6 month archive of newsgroups back in 1995 was daunting for any ISP; I never dreamed that the entire USENET would be archived from 1981 because the storage costs were enormous. Now we've reached a point where storage costs are trivial.
OTOH, I can imagine what a tremendous resource this will be for future generations doing geneological research... but only partially so. Much of the internet community has wised up and now only post under psuedonyms.
-----
Also steer clear of flourescent lights, if you are installing any. From what I've been told, the ballasts put off a lot of EMF noise, particularly when they go bad.
-----
They shouldn't be given a 5-year sentance, granted. I would think that a $5,000 fine and confiscation of thier computer equiptment would do fine.
Nope, wouldn't do a thing. Their parents would pay the fine and they would find another computer to use.
The only deterrent kids would be worried about is incarceration, because mommie and daddy can't fix that for them.
5 years is a lot, but I wouldn't give them less than 1 year. I think 2 years is the optimal number.
-----
Now just add this PowerFile 200 CD Jukebox that someone mentioned above, and use the Mac's built-in scripting language, AppleScript, to control it all and suddenly you're Hillary Rosen's personal nightmare.
-----
Wow, a cool grand for the entry model!
:-D
Ah well... time to tell the boss how badly we need a CD jukebox.
-----
If this was an intent to defraud people by floating a bogus MP3 player that one-upped the iPod, why would he be selling a 6 GB drive with a USB connection? The speed of the FireWire connection on the iPod is one of its main selling features, and is the one feature it has that no other MP3 player on the market has. And the Treo has a USB 1.1 connection at that.
Granted, most PC's don't have a FireWire port, but I think I would have at least said it had a combo USB/FireWire port.
I believe you're right; IE should be considered a feature and selling point of Windows and not a stand-alone product. You could make a similar argument for iTunes on the Mac, though it serves in far less utilitarian purposes.
The one area where the argument breaks down, though, is IE for Mac. MS isn't coding it out of the goodness of their hearts. They're not doing it because they have a stake in Apple (after the famous 1997 investment, Gates sold off his shares almost as quickly as he bought them). Are they doing it to support a competing platform in the market, to lessen the monopoly perception? Possibly, but I don't see it. The Mac would survive without IE.
It's difficult to see how IE for Mac increases shareholder value for Microsoft.
-----
It is awkward, expensive, makes you look like a dork, and isn't really more useful than something you already had.
Which is EXACTLY why millions of Slashdotters will line up to buy one!
-----
He said he hoped to have it at $3000 for consumers in a year's time. It takes time economies of scale to kick in, particularly if there isn't already an established market for the particular device.
It took more than a decade for VCR's to drop from over $1000 to less than $100.
-----
Yeah? Who cares? You'll see it anyway.
That's the sad part. If only it weren't for this damn Geek Code that says I must watch every Star Trek movie and TV show that comes out... sigh
-----
"When I did Weakest Link, I stood next to LeVar," Wheaton said on his website, in a post earlier this evening. "We were talking during the commercials, and I said to him that I really missed them. He said to me that I should be in the movie, especially since it's going to be the last TNG movie. I told him that I would love to be in it, but I really thought that Berman and company really didn't like me. He seemed surprised, and he told me that he was going to call Rick the next morning, and suggest to him that I be in the movie, at least as a cameo. I thought that would be really cool, and told him so.
"Last week, on Friday, my agent called me to let me know that there was an offer from Paramount to reprise the role of Wesley Crusher in Star Trek X. We just needed to work out the details.
"So we spent some time negotiating it, and --get this-- Rick Berman told my agent that he was 'very pleased' that I was going to be in the movie!
"I am really excited about this for three reasons:
* I am going to get to work with my friends again.
* Wesley Crusher will have some real closure, finally.
* For the last 5 years, at least, everywhere I go, fans ask me if I'm going to be in a movie, and what happened to Wesley, and I can honestly say that I'm doing this for the fans, because it will be so damn cool to see all of us together again.
"WHEEE!"
-----
But don't take my word for it. Here, read this script review.
-----