That's like the opposite of what happened.

Pakistan does not exist because of the machinations of the British. Rather, Pakistan came into existence due to the withdrawal and general shutdown of the British Empire, which like many occupations was suppressing tribal and ethnic dissent in order to keep their territories together. The moment the Empire (which was weak and failing at this point in time anyway) released its hold on the country there was a huge bloody massacre and a civil war ("The Partition") which resulted in the creation of Pakistan.

So it's not like the British stood around and encouraged Muslims and Hindus to fight each other. They did that all on their own.

The summary seems to indicate that the value of "Stellarwind" wasn't clear because it was one of many sources and few had access to it, not that all NSA spying was seen as ineffective.

The NSA does so much spying that it seems like it would be hard to ever calculate the marginal value of each additional unit of spying. Probably more so because of the fragmentary and unreliable nature of clandestine information and the need to develop multiple sources to achieve any kind of confidence about a particular conclusion or piece of information.

The latter bit is probably what leads to never-ending development of new data sources and methods, especially as each new spying method becomes less and less specific and requires more and more analysis to tease out information. Call metadata doesn't tell you what was discussed or necessarily who was called. You need parallel data from some other source to tell you who is associated with those numbers, where they were, etc.

I've had one problem with my 6 Plus which was annoying enough to care about, crashing Safari when rotating the phone from portrait to landscape once a certain amount of tabs were open. Googling the problem I found a couple of threads on Apple's support web site, so it appears not to have been just my experience.

The fix with the initial release was to close all tabs (an annoying task in Safari), as there is no "close all tabs" function. I don't know that it's been a problem in 8.3 so far, and it seemed to be better in 8.2.

I didn't experience the issue with Chrome or with other apps, just Safari. I suspected something wonky with the nitro js engine improvements and the 6 Plus display size as occasionally not long before crashing would occur, js-heavy apps rotated web pages would not respond to screen taps or would respond in the wrong place as if the running js code didn't have valid screen dimensions for portrait.

I theorized that closing tabs also nuked cached nitro-compiled js code so that subsequent page views didn't have issues.

Other than that, my 6 Plus has just worked. Historically, I've had to reboot my iPhones to fix a random issue with phone calls more than any other problem and that's been very rare and probably less often than power cycling it for other reasons, like airport security.

First, thanks for the "props" (blush); but now I feel ashamed.

Why? Because of what you mentioned about dual-booting two versions of OS X. And then it hit me: you're right! That's the ZERO-Cost (not counting download bandwidth) solution! So, here you go...

And also, since all accessible partitions automatically mount at startup (unless you do some simple command-line witchery), you should have no problem accessing/moving any desired stuff from the "old OS" to the new one. IIRC, these Partitions appear in the Finder like any other Volume.

Now, like any other dual-boot system, you really are only "in" ONE OS at a time. So, if you want to start migrating your "life" to the newer OS, but still seamlessly incorporate your Legacy apps into your workflow, then dual-boot is NOT for you. In that case, use the Virtualization method instead.

But if you only occasionally need to run some apps in the "old" OS, then dual-boot might be for you!

If it's so dangerous to go out, how will he manage supplies? Even the 8' sphere won't hold a year of food and water.

I don't know why I'm continuing this, but if you're going to just reflexively gainsay, you might at least say why the experiments I linked to don't prove what scientists say they do. Bell's work was a long time ago, and while it's still not 1000% nailed down it's very solid. The experiments are all on that side - the only thing on the "alternative" side is vague "I don't think the universe would work that way" crap that has to be very convoluted to match up with experimental reality.

No, they weren't in that state the entire time - the results of real experiments don't correspond with that, or with "hidden variables".

It's complicated, but the Wikipedia article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... seems like a good place to start.

Sorry for replying to my own post.

When I mentioned running PPC apps under OS X Server 10.6, an alarm went off in my head about the Server install not including Rosetta. Seems I was right. But there is an easy solution. Rosetta can be installed from the 10.6 Server DVD by executing a Command Line in Terminal.

Also, while searching for the above, I ran into an Apple Support Forum thread that talked about installing the 10.6.8 OS X client under Parallels. However, the method for that unauthorized virtualization is left as an exercise for the reader...

As the owner of many PPC Macs, including a G5 tower that runs 10.5, (as well as "modern" Macs that can run Yosemite), and who has Mac consulting clients that still run 10.6.8'for the same reasons you mention (familiarity and software investment), I fully understand!

However, for at least the Intel Macs, there is a relatively inexpensive solution: Run 10.6 SEVER under virtualization.

So, for $69, you can purchase VMWare Fusion 7 (standard edition) direct from VMWare and then by CALLING Apple, for $19.95, you can (still) purchase the only version of OS X which is authorized by Apple for virtualization: MacOS X 10.6 Server Install Retail disc, part #0Z691-6495. So, for under $100, you can keep your Snow Leopard environment for your stuff that won't run on current versions of OS X, and still have a Mac that can enjoy security updates, newer features, etc.

Is it ideal? No. Do I wish Apple would support OS versions forever? You bet! However, it DOES provide a relatively inexpensive way to "bridge the Lion-gap", especially for those who have significant investments in pre-Lion software). Heck, you could even still run any PPC stuff under Rosetta!

So, how does this help with vulnerabilities? Simple. Like my friends who have both OS X and Windows on their Macs, you simply don't use your "vulnerable" OS to access the Internet. However, in the case of OS X, I'm not sure whether malware targeting new versions of OS X would have much luck running under Snow Leopard, anyway.

And as for having to use SL Server, I couldn't find a reasonable " guide" online to doing the same thing with a "client" version of 10.6.8, so I decided that using Server was a good enough solution.

And as for OS X being "ruined" in recent versions, I think that, if you start actually using newer versions, you'll find it is actually not nearly as "iOS-ified" or "ruined" as people would have you believe, and that the new features, such as vastly improved Multi-monitor support, Convergence, being able to do calls and texts from your Mac, etc, are really pretty damned nice!

Wish I had mid points! Mods: Mod the Parent "Insightful".

I don't disagree that blocking was the right choice. What I question was whether Comcast's current monopoly practices in the face of pressure across all business sectors (some more than others) are enough to make this merger make sense as a strategic business decision.

2-3 years ago where I live, you had a "choice" of high speed Internet -- DSL from CenturyLink, permanently stuck in the sub-2 Mbit/sec range or Comcast at 10+. A local Internet provider has been wiring part of the city for fiber -- it's a pretty small area now, but they just announced an expansion and are even offer 10 gig. CenturyLink has been running fiber in residential neighborhoods over the past month.

So by the end of the year, it's possible that there will be far better choices than Comcast for high speed Internet. Obviously this isn't enough, only one place, limited availability, etc, but it shows that other providers "get it" and see that Comcast is ripe for the picking.

I think the pressures on Comcast's cable TV service are even greater from Netflix, Amazon, HBO's new streaming option, selective download services like iTunes, Roku "channels" and so on. You can get most content now without cable.

I'd be most worried if I was Comcast about the original content. Most of what underpins cable is having content, and it may not be unlikely that in the near future the content people want isn't even available on Comcast or any other cable service at all.

> I don't see them getting out of the NBC obligations

I didn't expect to see a lot of things earlier in my life.

But Corruption. And Congress.

Believe me, anything could happen if the right palms are greased and enough grease is used. Simply not pushing the merger any further may avoid scrutiny into how they already may not be honoring those obligations.

Wrong.

Gatekeeper's default setting allows only signed apps; but the user can opt for lesser security. But that's on the user, not Apple.

so, IOW, about 100 Mac Users worldwide.

Apple updating Gatekeeper in 3... 2... 1...

There! Problem all gone!