No, it doesn't have anything to do with wikileaks. This has been the standard operating procedure for classified material for some time, I couldn't tell you how long, but certainly before all this wikileaks stuff broke.
We have yet to see the security policy response to the wikileaks leak (leaks?). I'm guessing it's the usual large organization response to a problem: which is to create large, showy changes to demonstrate they are doing something about it. The only issue is when those changes don't actually fix the problem and just make life more annoying for those who aren't the problem (like forcing os x or linux users to install virus software, sure technically there is a chance that the software could detect some virus on a USB or other file, but there's a point where returns are diminished and that is waaayyy past it).
P.S. This is OT, but what I would like to see is a day past itiscussion about just how this material got out: I guess this new material was from the same pfc. that leaked the pentagon stuff earlier and Assange may or may not have helped with that. If so, there may not be much of a security response since it's a lot more difficult to stop your own people from leaking info.
I'd just like to add that, while strongly worded, the parent post isn't actually a troll. The Bush adminstration closed a research lab for honeybees and canceled funding for projects that were focused on determining the cause of the mysterious honey bee deaths. It's tempting to say that the Bush administration canceled those projects because it already knew the truth about what was killing the honeybees, but I don't really see how they could have known that precisely was the cause, more than likely they just didn't care.
As further evidence, the number of lawsuits issued by the EPA dropped by 75% under the Bush administration. (!) It's no coincidence that during the last decade we had increasing food safety alerts about E. Coli, etc. in our food, increased mercury in bodies of water, etc., etc. etc. This was done intentionally in the belief that applying the following rules always works: "regulation = bad" "business interests = good". Stupid and short-sighted.... (And yet somehow the American people felt it was a good idea to let these guys back into control of congress? WTF? They're going to get what they deserve, the only problem is I'm going to get what they deserve it too since environmental problems affect everyone.)
This is a brilliant solution! However, given what happened in Washington State recently, do you see this as a solution that can really implemented? The problem as I saw in the Washington state thing was that people saw it as just an increase in taxes, not a transfer. That and a lot of rich people spent a large amount of money to defeat it. I live in Tennessee and it seems that during elections there is noise every so often about instituting a state income tax, but it never gets anywhere.
Did you even read what you wrote? When you say "return to standards of living circa 1970", for a large portion of the populace, this wouldn't be a hardship since their standards of living haven't improved since then! Growth as a function of GDP is still increasing in the U.S. But, this growth is disproportionately being done by incomes that are in the top 1%. The middle and lower incomes have basically stagnated. For example, high school graduation rates have been at roughly 70% since 1970. Ideologues like yourself are very fond of quoting that life expectancy has continued to increase, but the reality is, life expectancy is only substantially increasing in the U.S. for people in the top half of incomes. Look at Table 4 in this study. Since 1977, life expectancy has risen 6 years for the top half of incomes, but only 1.3 years for the bottom half of incomes.
In that vein, I think a good role model is someone who popularizes science. If I were to quote you some scientists who Hirsch-indices were really high, the problem is that most of their stuff is unintelligible to most adults, much less a kid. So I'd pick ones that have written books that popularize science. Along with Tyson, I'd think about guys like:
Steve Jay Gould (paleontologist, unfortunately dead)
Robert Hazen (mineralogist, works on origin of life, not really young though) David Goodstein (chemist, writes on oil resource depletion.)
Perhaps someone who reports on science, like the scientists at work blog at the NYT or one of the blogs on national geographic. That way the kid could keep up with current events (maybe you could find a blog of someone working someplace inhospitable, like McMurdo station in the Antarctic.
By my count, it was $1.3 billion in early November. That's about 10% of his net worth of $13.1 billion. Bill Gates has been regularly selling off his stock for about two years now. He at least has the excuse that he needs to fund his foundation, and he doesn't work there any more anyway.
Let me put this into context for you: This web-site shows you what the launch of the iphone vs. the palm pre looked like. The palm pre sold about 50,000 units in its first two days. People like you were saying then that the launch looked like a success even though there were supply problems. Fast forward 11 months, and people started calling it a complete flop. So, you say it's too soon to tell, I say, history is my guide. You can't topple giants with slack starts.
Here's another source saying that Apple is selling 270,000 iphones a day and google is activating 200,000 androids a day. The original iphone sold 6.1 million units. The iphone 4 has already sold 14.1 million. While yes, the holiday season is really what will determine the fate of windows 7 mobile, they're off to a bad start, so that's another thing they have to overcome besides the tens of millions of iphones and androids that have already been sold. And they're going to do this without bringing any new functionality besides better vendor lock-in? Dream on.
I think it's not fair to make the comparison just because AT&T didn't bother to supply their stores with anything.
Google says it's activating 200,000 androids a day and Apple sold 270,000 iphones on it's first day plus 600,000 pre-orders. At this rate, MS will NEVER CATCH UP. No, they won't. All the excuses you all are making for MS fail to make up for the basic math here and the reasons for why this happened are irrelevant. The bottom line is that the $100 million ad campaign MS just bought will not make the phone profitable, selling the product will. MS is not selling anywhere near enough of their product to make a dent in the market share, not even a divot.
Hey man, rather than bitching, why not google a bit and give us the answer instead? Here's my comment where I link to an article that says there were 270,000 iphones sold on the first day. Why not help us out and post the link to the number of android phones? This is what makes a user community rather than a service.
One thing that I forgot: As far as I can tell, these numbers neglect pre-orders. For the iphone, if you include pre-orders I think it will only increase the gap because they're surely above the one million mark.
I think if you want to make a penetration into a crowded market, you've got not just do as well as the competition, you've got to do a lot better than the competition. Remember: cell phones and mp3 players were supposedly a "crowded market" too when Apple released theirs.
I disagree, I don't believe 40,000 is a "okay" day. I don't know anything about the number of these phones that are out there, but I what I could find briefly is for distributors so far are AT&T, the same company that is providing service for the iphone, amazon, the world's largest on-line distributor, AND Best Buy a huge brick-and-mortar chain of stores. Between them, they sold 40,000 units whereas the iphone sold 270,000 for the same period, almost SEVEN times as many and just from Apple and AT&T stores/on-line.
You can argue that sales will pick up after Verizon starts carrying it next year and once natural turnover will force people to buy new phones, but I'd put it as 50-50 that this is the highest rate of sales that they'll ever see with this OS and that from here on out it's downhill. While I don't think this will be another Kin that will get pulled from the shelves in a few months, they haven't made nearly the impression they need to in order to get any sort of widespread awareness of the public that this is a useful thing to buy.
For the record, I don't own an iphone, nor do I text, nor to I patronize the apple store with any regular frequency.
One possibly significant difference: millions of people looked to Gandhi as their political leader. 20 chinese workers? They won't have the same effect.
I'm conflicted. On one hand, Skype is sort of known for getting hacked (having had my "Skype account" hacked and a bunch of money charged to my credit card even though I didn't have and never did have a Skype account. It was a pain to sort out but as identity theft goes, not as bad as it could have been.) On the other hand, I seem to recall that a big complaint of Windows was that it was too easy for someone to make use of a security flaw in an application because all the applications ran under administrator privileges. This smells the same way, too easy to "one-click" your way to identity theft.
The real trick has always been the interconnects & the software that gets those thousands of C/GPUs talking to each other.
Yes, this is spot on for massively parallel systems. The interesting thing is that China does actually make their own interconnects, but they aren't so great. The Tianhe-1 actually runs at 47% of the theoretical capacity. In contrast, the previous number 1 (Jaguar) runs at about 76%. In fact, China's previous big HPC was Nebulae, which had a higher theoretical peak than Jaguar, but didn't actually perform faster because of interconnects problem.
I'm not Canadian, but I'd just like to point out that this has been tried and tried again. Both times, the U.S. failed miserably. Now, you can argue that a lot has changed in the last 200 years, but I wouldn't write off the Canucks just yet. They can defend the eastern side of the country and the Canadian Rockies with ease.
With regard to the article and summary: there's no good soil in the Arctic rim. Good soils take on the order of a hundreds of years to form. Good luck trying to become an economic powerhouse with nothing to eat. For examples of places with mineral wealth but little food, see Wyoming and other western states, or Saudi Arabia. Their situation is profitable when commodity prices are good but often have large unemployment when the commodity price cycle goes bust (Saudi Arabia has 25% unemployment right now, even when energy prices are high).
The rather new Dell plant near Winston-Salem was just shut down (moved to Mexico), and there has been rumors of Apple buying it for manufacturing as well.
As great as this would be, I'll believe it when I see it. I just can't imagine that an organization as big as Apple would be so forward thinking as recognizing that the cost of doing business overseas is often not realized immediately. Especially since those costs may never be realized by the people running the company -- a lot of the the price is paid by people living in that area, e.g., look what happened to Flint, Michigan after GM closed its plant, almost overnight the crime-rate skyrocketed. GM didn't have to pay for the social costs of that, the taxpayer is. But the taxpayer is also paying the price in greater carbon emissions, lower quality of life (at least for the unemployed), and loss of tax revenue, etc.
On the other hand... some of the auto manufacturers have started putting plants in the SE U.S., and if any tech company was going to start a trend, I'd think it would be Apple. And just think of the P.R. campaign they could wage then: Apple: Made in the U.S.A. The copy practically writes itself.
You're spot on about NC and tech work, they've got the infrastructure already and the research triangle area is already sort of a hub for small-scale technology firms if I recall correctly (e.g. spin-offs from university research, etc.).
What, you mean this? Or maybe this? Apt has been on OS X for ages, I mean ages! As an Apple/linux/unix user, I've liked Apple because they go out of their way to provide compatability with other unixes (hello, X11.app!). I haven't looked into this new app store in any way shape or form, because I'm far too happy with the current state of affairs. Hell, the text editor I use last released a version in 2004! Pardon me if I'm skeptical of claims that Apple is locking down OS X and shutting others out...
I'd just like to point out that in 2003 an ENTIRE U.S. rare earth production facility was packed up and reassembled in China. Who allowed this to happen? G. W. Bush. The bottom line is that far, far too many people in the U.S. have been bamboozled by cheap chinese goods. The bottom line is that any government who whole-sale ignores human rights such as the Chinese one does is also a country that will engage in other unethical practices. In the case of China it's manipulating their currency and now this.
I think this is still off. My impression is that they considered that different elements and different substances like air, earth, fire, water, gold, lead, etc. were all composed of differing amounts of a single substance. This is what's known as the "ether", i.e. some sort of form of matter that everything existed in and moved through. The odd thing about it is that Lorentz and Abraham in the 1890s were trying to come up with a theory of the electron in part to discover why efforts to detect the Earth's movement through this ether failed (reference). It wasn't until Einstein & Co. came up with the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics was discovered that the nature of atomic elements really begun to be understood.
The point is that while the alchemists' conception of the element was not very good, a truly better concept didn't really arise until the 20th century. Nobody seriously challenges quantum mechanics now, but it's easy to forget just how recent this understanding was really arrived at.
The Laffer curve is a complete farce. As in, it doesn't work, period, zip, zilch, nadda. In the link is a graph to U.S. federal government revenue just before and just after the Bush tax cut. As you can see, there is a tremendous dent in revenue as a percent of GDP in 2001 continuing to 2003. These are the Bush Tax Cuts. On that chart, revenue never recovered to its pre-tax cut level. One often hears the argument that these tax cuts pay for themselves after longer amount of time, but what happened after 2007? The economy collapsed. One sees the same thing under the Reagan tax cuts, revenue does eventually recover from a tax cut, but never surpasses the pre-tax cut trend. So, Laffer was full of it. Maybe it would work if the income tax rate was 90%, but probably only then by coincidence because people would just find ways to avoid paying taxes more often rather than having a disincentive to make more money.
Reagan didn't just take the solar panels off the white house, that's symbolic. Reagan also slashed the budget of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory by 90%. This facility currently holds, and regularly held in the past decade or so, the records for the highest efficiency photovoltaics and other types of devices. So if you ask me why solar panels sucked in the past, it was because there was not very much research in solar power going on for the entire decade of the 80s.
I'm guessing Reagan rationalized these actions as reducing the federal budget. The only problem with that logic is that the guy ran up a bigger deficit in defense projects than Carter (or just about any other president besides Bush, Jr.). But that's typical, when conservative politicians speak about reducing the deficit, that is usually code for cutting programs that they just don't like and has nothing to do with the actual deficit.
Yes. Commodore_love is totally wrong in his original comment, he just hates that Apple won't support an OS from 8 years and 4 releases ago. I have a 2002 800 MHz Ti-book and a 2005 1.7 GHz Al-book that at G4s and run 10.4 and safari 5. It's slow on the Ti-book, but it runs just fine.
What, exactly, can this HDCP master key do for folks?
It will allow me to watch my legally purchased blu-ray discs using my legally purchased blu-ray drive on my old, non-HDCP compliant monitor. I am forced to break the law just because my monitor is too old: In the past, I couldn't use a program like powerDVD to watch my blu-ray discs at full resolution because it would notice my monitor wasn't compliant. That meant obtaining an AACS key for the blu-ray disc and using a program like dumphd, anydvd or dvdfab to make a copy of the data on the disc to my hard drive which didn't had HDCP. Now, I could conceivably still have to violate the DMCA, but by faking my monitor's HDCP compliance so powerDVD or another program can watch the video.*
* I'd just like to point out that I'll still break the DRM because there is not a blu-ray reader for linux that works reliably.
Slashdot Mirror
when I say "virus software", I meant "anti-virus software". Oops.
No, it doesn't have anything to do with wikileaks. This has been the standard operating procedure for classified material for some time, I couldn't tell you how long, but certainly before all this wikileaks stuff broke.
We have yet to see the security policy response to the wikileaks leak (leaks?). I'm guessing it's the usual large organization response to a problem: which is to create large, showy changes to demonstrate they are doing something about it. The only issue is when those changes don't actually fix the problem and just make life more annoying for those who aren't the problem (like forcing os x or linux users to install virus software, sure technically there is a chance that the software could detect some virus on a USB or other file, but there's a point where returns are diminished and that is waaayyy past it).
P.S. This is OT, but what I would like to see is a day past itiscussion about just how this material got out: I guess this new material was from the same pfc. that leaked the pentagon stuff earlier and Assange may or may not have helped with that. If so, there may not be much of a security response since it's a lot more difficult to stop your own people from leaking info.
I'd just like to add that, while strongly worded, the parent post isn't actually a troll. The Bush adminstration closed a research lab for honeybees and canceled funding for projects that were focused on determining the cause of the mysterious honey bee deaths. It's tempting to say that the Bush administration canceled those projects because it already knew the truth about what was killing the honeybees, but I don't really see how they could have known that precisely was the cause, more than likely they just didn't care.
As further evidence, the number of lawsuits issued by the EPA dropped by 75% under the Bush administration. (!) It's no coincidence that during the last decade we had increasing food safety alerts about E. Coli, etc. in our food, increased mercury in bodies of water, etc., etc. etc. This was done intentionally in the belief that applying the following rules always works: "regulation = bad" "business interests = good". Stupid and short-sighted.... (And yet somehow the American people felt it was a good idea to let these guys back into control of congress? WTF? They're going to get what they deserve, the only problem is I'm going to get what they deserve it too since environmental problems affect everyone.)
This is a brilliant solution! However, given what happened in Washington State recently, do you see this as a solution that can really implemented? The problem as I saw in the Washington state thing was that people saw it as just an increase in taxes, not a transfer. That and a lot of rich people spent a large amount of money to defeat it. I live in Tennessee and it seems that during elections there is noise every so often about instituting a state income tax, but it never gets anywhere.
Did you even read what you wrote? When you say "return to standards of living circa 1970", for a large portion of the populace, this wouldn't be a hardship since their standards of living haven't improved since then! Growth as a function of GDP is still increasing in the U.S. But, this growth is disproportionately being done by incomes that are in the top 1%. The middle and lower incomes have basically stagnated. For example, high school graduation rates have been at roughly 70% since 1970. Ideologues like yourself are very fond of quoting that life expectancy has continued to increase, but the reality is, life expectancy is only substantially increasing in the U.S. for people in the top half of incomes. Look at Table 4 in this study. Since 1977, life expectancy has risen 6 years for the top half of incomes, but only 1.3 years for the bottom half of incomes.
In that vein, I think a good role model is someone who popularizes science. If I were to quote you some scientists who Hirsch-indices were really high, the problem is that most of their stuff is unintelligible to most adults, much less a kid. So I'd pick ones that have written books that popularize science. Along with Tyson, I'd think about guys like:
Steve Jay Gould (paleontologist, unfortunately dead)
Robert Hazen (mineralogist, works on origin of life, not really young though)
David Goodstein (chemist, writes on oil resource depletion.)
Perhaps someone who reports on science, like the scientists at work blog at the NYT or one of the blogs on national geographic. That way the kid could keep up with current events (maybe you could find a blog of someone working someplace inhospitable, like McMurdo station in the Antarctic.
By my count, it was $1.3 billion in early November. That's about 10% of his net worth of $13.1 billion. Bill Gates has been regularly selling off his stock for about two years now. He at least has the excuse that he needs to fund his foundation, and he doesn't work there any more anyway.
Let me put this into context for you: This web-site shows you what the launch of the iphone vs. the palm pre looked like. The palm pre sold about 50,000 units in its first two days. People like you were saying then that the launch looked like a success even though there were supply problems. Fast forward 11 months, and people started calling it a complete flop. So, you say it's too soon to tell, I say, history is my guide. You can't topple giants with slack starts.
Here's another source saying that Apple is selling 270,000 iphones a day and google is activating 200,000 androids a day. The original iphone sold 6.1 million units. The iphone 4 has already sold 14.1 million. While yes, the holiday season is really what will determine the fate of windows 7 mobile, they're off to a bad start, so that's another thing they have to overcome besides the tens of millions of iphones and androids that have already been sold. And they're going to do this without bringing any new functionality besides better vendor lock-in? Dream on.
Google says it's activating 200,000 androids a day and Apple sold 270,000 iphones on it's first day plus 600,000 pre-orders. At this rate, MS will NEVER CATCH UP. No, they won't. All the excuses you all are making for MS fail to make up for the basic math here and the reasons for why this happened are irrelevant. The bottom line is that the $100 million ad campaign MS just bought will not make the phone profitable, selling the product will. MS is not selling anywhere near enough of their product to make a dent in the market share, not even a divot.
Hey man, rather than bitching, why not google a bit and give us the answer instead? Here's my comment where I link to an article that says there were 270,000 iphones sold on the first day. Why not help us out and post the link to the number of android phones? This is what makes a user community rather than a service.
One thing that I forgot: As far as I can tell, these numbers neglect pre-orders. For the iphone, if you include pre-orders I think it will only increase the gap because they're surely above the one million mark.
I think if you want to make a penetration into a crowded market, you've got not just do as well as the competition, you've got to do a lot better than the competition. Remember: cell phones and mp3 players were supposedly a "crowded market" too when Apple released theirs.
I disagree, I don't believe 40,000 is a "okay" day. I don't know anything about the number of these phones that are out there, but I what I could find briefly is for distributors so far are AT&T, the same company that is providing service for the iphone, amazon, the world's largest on-line distributor, AND Best Buy a huge brick-and-mortar chain of stores. Between them, they sold 40,000 units whereas the iphone sold 270,000 for the same period, almost SEVEN times as many and just from Apple and AT&T stores/on-line.
You can argue that sales will pick up after Verizon starts carrying it next year and once natural turnover will force people to buy new phones, but I'd put it as 50-50 that this is the highest rate of sales that they'll ever see with this OS and that from here on out it's downhill. While I don't think this will be another Kin that will get pulled from the shelves in a few months, they haven't made nearly the impression they need to in order to get any sort of widespread awareness of the public that this is a useful thing to buy.
For the record, I don't own an iphone, nor do I text, nor to I patronize the apple store with any regular frequency.
One possibly significant difference: millions of people looked to Gandhi as their political leader. 20 chinese workers? They won't have the same effect.
I'm conflicted. On one hand, Skype is sort of known for getting hacked (having had my "Skype account" hacked and a bunch of money charged to my credit card even though I didn't have and never did have a Skype account. It was a pain to sort out but as identity theft goes, not as bad as it could have been.) On the other hand, I seem to recall that a big complaint of Windows was that it was too easy for someone to make use of a security flaw in an application because all the applications ran under administrator privileges. This smells the same way, too easy to "one-click" your way to identity theft.
Yes, this is spot on for massively parallel systems. The interesting thing is that China does actually make their own interconnects, but they aren't so great. The Tianhe-1 actually runs at 47% of the theoretical capacity. In contrast, the previous number 1 (Jaguar) runs at about 76%. In fact, China's previous big HPC was Nebulae, which had a higher theoretical peak than Jaguar, but didn't actually perform faster because of interconnects problem.
I'm not Canadian, but I'd just like to point out that this has been tried and tried again. Both times, the U.S. failed miserably. Now, you can argue that a lot has changed in the last 200 years, but I wouldn't write off the Canucks just yet. They can defend the eastern side of the country and the Canadian Rockies with ease.
With regard to the article and summary: there's no good soil in the Arctic rim. Good soils take on the order of a hundreds of years to form. Good luck trying to become an economic powerhouse with nothing to eat. For examples of places with mineral wealth but little food, see Wyoming and other western states, or Saudi Arabia. Their situation is profitable when commodity prices are good but often have large unemployment when the commodity price cycle goes bust (Saudi Arabia has 25% unemployment right now, even when energy prices are high).
As great as this would be, I'll believe it when I see it. I just can't imagine that an organization as big as Apple would be so forward thinking as recognizing that the cost of doing business overseas is often not realized immediately. Especially since those costs may never be realized by the people running the company -- a lot of the the price is paid by people living in that area, e.g., look what happened to Flint, Michigan after GM closed its plant, almost overnight the crime-rate skyrocketed. GM didn't have to pay for the social costs of that, the taxpayer is. But the taxpayer is also paying the price in greater carbon emissions, lower quality of life (at least for the unemployed), and loss of tax revenue, etc.
On the other hand... some of the auto manufacturers have started putting plants in the SE U.S., and if any tech company was going to start a trend, I'd think it would be Apple. And just think of the P.R. campaign they could wage then: Apple: Made in the U.S.A. The copy practically writes itself.
You're spot on about NC and tech work, they've got the infrastructure already and the research triangle area is already sort of a hub for small-scale technology firms if I recall correctly (e.g. spin-offs from university research, etc.).
What, you mean this? Or maybe this? Apt has been on OS X for ages, I mean ages! As an Apple/linux/unix user, I've liked Apple because they go out of their way to provide compatability with other unixes (hello, X11.app!). I haven't looked into this new app store in any way shape or form, because I'm far too happy with the current state of affairs. Hell, the text editor I use last released a version in 2004! Pardon me if I'm skeptical of claims that Apple is locking down OS X and shutting others out...
I'd just like to point out that in 2003 an ENTIRE U.S. rare earth production facility was packed up and reassembled in China. Who allowed this to happen? G. W. Bush. The bottom line is that far, far too many people in the U.S. have been bamboozled by cheap chinese goods. The bottom line is that any government who whole-sale ignores human rights such as the Chinese one does is also a country that will engage in other unethical practices. In the case of China it's manipulating their currency and now this.
I think this is still off. My impression is that they considered that different elements and different substances like air, earth, fire, water, gold, lead, etc. were all composed of differing amounts of a single substance. This is what's known as the "ether", i.e. some sort of form of matter that everything existed in and moved through. The odd thing about it is that Lorentz and Abraham in the 1890s were trying to come up with a theory of the electron in part to discover why efforts to detect the Earth's movement through this ether failed (reference). It wasn't until Einstein & Co. came up with the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics was discovered that the nature of atomic elements really begun to be understood.
The point is that while the alchemists' conception of the element was not very good, a truly better concept didn't really arise until the 20th century. Nobody seriously challenges quantum mechanics now, but it's easy to forget just how recent this understanding was really arrived at.
The Laffer curve is a complete farce. As in, it doesn't work, period, zip, zilch, nadda. In the link is a graph to U.S. federal government revenue just before and just after the Bush tax cut. As you can see, there is a tremendous dent in revenue as a percent of GDP in 2001 continuing to 2003. These are the Bush Tax Cuts. On that chart, revenue never recovered to its pre-tax cut level. One often hears the argument that these tax cuts pay for themselves after longer amount of time, but what happened after 2007? The economy collapsed. One sees the same thing under the Reagan tax cuts, revenue does eventually recover from a tax cut, but never surpasses the pre-tax cut trend. So, Laffer was full of it. Maybe it would work if the income tax rate was 90%, but probably only then by coincidence because people would just find ways to avoid paying taxes more often rather than having a disincentive to make more money.
Reagan didn't just take the solar panels off the white house, that's symbolic. Reagan also slashed the budget of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory by 90%. This facility currently holds, and regularly held in the past decade or so, the records for the highest efficiency photovoltaics and other types of devices. So if you ask me why solar panels sucked in the past, it was because there was not very much research in solar power going on for the entire decade of the 80s.
I'm guessing Reagan rationalized these actions as reducing the federal budget. The only problem with that logic is that the guy ran up a bigger deficit in defense projects than Carter (or just about any other president besides Bush, Jr.). But that's typical, when conservative politicians speak about reducing the deficit, that is usually code for cutting programs that they just don't like and has nothing to do with the actual deficit.
Yes. Commodore_love is totally wrong in his original comment, he just hates that Apple won't support an OS from 8 years and 4 releases ago. I have a 2002 800 MHz Ti-book and a 2005 1.7 GHz Al-book that at G4s and run 10.4 and safari 5. It's slow on the Ti-book, but it runs just fine.
It will allow me to watch my legally purchased blu-ray discs using my legally purchased blu-ray drive on my old, non-HDCP compliant monitor. I am forced to break the law just because my monitor is too old: In the past, I couldn't use a program like powerDVD to watch my blu-ray discs at full resolution because it would notice my monitor wasn't compliant. That meant obtaining an AACS key for the blu-ray disc and using a program like dumphd, anydvd or dvdfab to make a copy of the data on the disc to my hard drive which didn't had HDCP. Now, I could conceivably still have to violate the DMCA, but by faking my monitor's HDCP compliance so powerDVD or another program can watch the video.*
* I'd just like to point out that I'll still break the DRM because there is not a blu-ray reader for linux that works reliably.