and those with a vested interested (the proclaimer of this discovery is the "Chairman of The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust"), Shakespeare's identity itself continues to be hotly debated because there is precious little _real_ evidence for the traditional candidate. (Harpers Magazine had a good full-length feature interviewing proponents of different theories ten years ago, and AFAIK none of them have changed their minds since then.) If, like me, you are one of those poor individuals believing the evidence of who he was is both inadequate and unsettled (see upthread snark re Marlowe and Bacon), a face attached to a tenuous familial attribute to the wrong person is not exciting.
I disagree (viscerally) with Joseph Sobran on political issues, but found the book he wrote suggesting Edward de Vere as Shakespeare to contain both a well-researched, logical consideration of the available _factual_ evidence (vanishingly small despite the volumes that have been written) and a fair argument for his candidate.
Basically, Stanley Wells is bypassing the argument as presettled, and given his position, who could blame him? For all that, given the dating and general provenance, the picture might actually _be_ of Shakespeare, but it ain't based on anything more factual than the several other portraits with sketchy attributions from the same time period.
Some may argue the only reason he gives to charity is as a tax dodge, but if that's really true why does he do things like this? If it were a mere tax dodge, then there's no reason he'd need to waste his time.
Bill Gates Sr. is known for his philanthropy, is co-chair of Jr. and Melinda's foundation, and co-wrote a treatise defending the estate tax entitled Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes. After the last twenty years of Microsoft's behavior I'm not at all convinced that Bill Gates Jr. shares his father's stated values, but the argument is possibly more plausible knowing it wouldn't be coming from nowhere.
It figures that the rare time that I actually have mod points intersects with the need to say something. I am a graphics professional who just purchased the late-model MacBook Pro when it first came out, so I fit the theoretical profile pretty well. Although I do retouch as part of daily workflow and occasional freelance, I'm not a high-end retoucher; my meat-and-potatoes comes from InDesign/Illustrator/Office (shudder).
No graphic artist in their right mind who uses a screen all day long would get a glossy one voluntarily, and that plus the previously discussed Firewire rationing gave me some headaches in decision-making. I remember struggling with glossy CRTs very well (custom films and covers, anyone?) and knew exactly what I was getting. In some ways, the result has been exactly what you'd think it would be: tilting the damn thing forward and back, turning off lights, looking for seats in cafes at 90 degrees to windows, wiping off the more-obvious keyboard artifacts of my (apparently very oily) fingers with the provided rag, etc.
On the other hand, I love it. Once the concessions are made and it's set up in the right environment, it's the sharpest, brightest laptop screen I've ever used. (This is my third Mac laptop). I pulled two 12+ hour days over the weekend making the fussiest kind of pixel and point tweaking, with _no_ significant eye strain. Everything is razor-sharp compared to my previous Powerbook, which is a real boon to older eyes.
I understand Mr. Galbraith's concerns as a photographer, but as a "regular" graphics person, even though I find the screen somewhat annoying I am usually am working in environments where the glare can be minimized and its other qualities (brightness, sharpness) outweigh the problem. The model's other features (rigidity, magnetic clasp, trackpad scroll options and gestures) make it my favorite laptop ever (knock on... glass).
If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.
