Comment Re:I don't get it... (Score 1) 187
The basic idea is this: Marvel is making a crapload of money in movies. DC Comics wants to do the same.
No. This is what I hate about these iMacs. And especially more since this high-res display. You get a good, expensive display, which you could easily keep for 10-15 years, but are forced to throw it away when you want to upgrade the computer, after say 2-8 years. A Mac mini duck-taped on the back of a monitor takes about the same space anyways.
Apple says you can use iMacs as displays. It requires Thunderbolt apparently.
I think Apple's aversion to GPLv3 is wrongheaded, as is Google's avoidance of GPL in Android other than the kernel. I'm not saying that it's evil, just a mistake.
Many companies have an aversion to GPLv3 for good reasons. Apple is fine with GPLv2 and BSD and Apache style licenses. GPLv3 with their restrictions puts Apple into a legal quagmire they don't want to be in.
Other than the parts and pieces of chemical weapons factories were found in Iraq. It obviously wasn't in place in active production, but why does that matter?
It matters because that was one of the claims that the administration made. It matters because the effectiveness of the older stockpiles would decrease over time and it was a question whether their existing stockpiles could be used as they would be at least 30 years old by the invasion. It would be more like toxic waste at that point rather than an effective weapon. That's why Iraq would need to manufacture new ones.
âoeWe do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons â" including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weaponsâ"including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox.â -- Rumsfeld to Congres
Iraq did not have biological weapons. Iraq was known to have sarin and mustard gas. So what?
Let's look at one. This one is about a weapons munition facility, a facility that holds ammunition at a place called Taji (ph). This is one of about 65 such facilities in Iraq. We know that this one has housed chemical munitions. In fact, this is where the Iraqis recently came up with the additional four chemical weapon shells.
Your contention it was for already and new weapons is ludicrous. By the time of the invasion that gas that they already had was decades old and highly ineffective. That's why they needed to manufacture new ones.
You are attempting to revise history by claiming it was only for new ones. There are many, many quotes and papers stating they were also looking for stockpiles. Stop lying idiot.
So when the Bush administration found the chemical weapons, they were so vindicated that they trotted them out in front of Congress? Hell no. You know why? The weapons they found were of so little importance that they barely mentioned it. Why don't you stop spinning this, you coward.
No sane person is going to think an "old" WMD is just fine and a "new" WMD is not.
You do realize that not all weaponry lasts forever right? Even nuclear weapons are retired because the components may not be as effective as when they were put into service. Since the Iran-Iraq War, the world knew Iraq had mustard and sarin gas. This is not news.
Old or new, if the basis for the war was that Iraq had WMDs in its possession, this fits the bill.
Not when the actual claim by Colin Powell and the administration was that Iraq was MANUFACTURING new chemical weapons.
Let's look at one. This one is about a weapons munition facility, a facility that holds ammunition at a place called Taji (ph). This is one of about 65 such facilities in Iraq. We know that this one has housed chemical munitions. In fact, this is where the Iraqis recently came up with the additional four chemical weapon shells. Here, you see 15 munitions bunkers in yellow and red outlines. The four that are in red squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers.
It's irrelevant either way at this point, we left. There's no reason to spin it unless we're going to try and hold someone accountable for them being in Iraq. Are people so hateful of Bush that this kind of spin is even seen as worthwhile?
No, it's conservatives that are spinning these discoveries that Bush was right when in reality they are not. That's dishonest. That is spin.
When they searched the home of an Iraqi nuclear scientist, they uncovered roughly 2,000 pages of documents. You see them here being brought out of the home and placed in U.N. hands. Some of the material is classified and related to Iraq's nuclear program. . . This one is about a weapons munition facility, a facility that holds ammunition at a place called Taji (ph). This is one of about 65 such facilities in Iraq. We know that this one has housed chemical munitions. In fact, this is where the Iraqis recently came up with the additional four chemical weapon shells . . . The four that are in red squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers. . . . First, you will recall that it took UNSCOM four long and frustrating years to pry - to pry - an admission out of Iraq that it had biological weapons. . . One of the most worrisome things that emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on Iraq's biological weapons is the existence of mobile production facilities used to make biological agents.
The Bush administration claimed that Iraq had biological, chemical, and maybe nuclear weapons. As for biological weapons, especially the mobile weapons factories, were never found. The nuclear weapons were also never found as Iraq never had the capability. As for chemical weapons, the world has known that Iraq already had mustard gas and sarin since the end of the Iran-Iraq war. The claim by the Bush administration was that they were manufacturing more and newer chemical ones. This was never substantiated. Most likely US soldiers uncovered the old mustard gas and sarin stockpiles.
LLVM and Clang were developed at the University of Illinois.
And Apple hired the team that developed LLVM to continue to develop it further. Just like CUPS. As for Clang, it was developed originally by Apple to work with LLVM because Apple had performance and philosophical issues with gcc.
OpenCL is a standard, not a program.
OpenCL standards for Open Computing Language. It is also a standard as many companies have adopted it. That's like saying C99 isn't language but a standard.
Zeroconf is a standard, not a program.
Again, because something becomes a standard does not mean it isn't used for what it was originally designed.
WebKit is a fork of KHTML from the KDE project. Try again.
Originally, WebKit was based entirely on KHTML. As development as continued, it is bears little resemblance to the original code. Apple has chosen to continue to release as open source even parts they were not required to do.
Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"
