I cannot believe that I'm the first to post about hot cute the cover is. At least anyone will have to agree that the subjects would make for interesting sushi.

Let me post this disclaimer that I am as Democrat as they come. I somehow don't see the difference between this and depicting George W. as a chimp. Must be the whole "race" thing, or something. C'mon people! Stop feeding the flames! If you're going to put this kind of energy into something so trivial as a human-less web image search aggregator, you're only going to make it worse. The Google juggernaut is only doing it's job, which is to crawl the web, and give you, based on mathematic algorithms, what -it- deems to be the most relevant results. Racism is a human condition, not a mathematical model. Google even tried to fix it, but the humans figured a way around it. Incidently, do a Google Image search for "George Bush". I guarantee that you will see at least one comparing him to a chimp. I never heard someone put up a stink about Google displaying these on the first result page.

Yeah, um, show us some photos! While you're at it, I wanna see Unnilquadium too! And if ya' got some time, how about some unobtainium?

Am I the only one who thought of this? "Synthetic Sebum Makes Slippery Sailboats", if you know what I mean. *wink* *wink*

Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!
Next your're going to ask to have milk AND lemon in your tea!

Free will, indeed!

You can choose from quantum fears
And hadrons that can kill

Sorry. I had to jump on the Rush bandwagon.

...On an unrelated note, don't mistype 'hadron' in Wikipedia's search. Don't do it! DON'T!

.

What everyone posting here needs to be aware of is that subverting DRM is considered -illegal- (anyone wonder why it's illegal to play DVDs using a FOSS player)?

Granted, it's easy to circumvent, and Apple has gone to great lengths project 'warm and fuzzy' to their restrictive policies. But it's still illegal.

Why should one have to do something considered illegal, just so they can play their iTunes music on the portable player of their choosing?

It should also be noted that Apple's DRM schemes are not limited to music and video. Any developer who's submitted an iPhone app to the iTunes store, and had it denied, can attest to this. I would cite references to this, but Apple has tacked on NDR's to their denial notices.

I've heard the argument time and time again that "you're only giving up a small portion of your rights." I've also heard "It's fun to use, and I don't have to think about it."
My question to these is how much are we willing to give up? What's the threshold? How long before bread and circuses are no longer sufficient?
(I could easily Godwin this thread right here, but I won't. You get the picture.)

Long story short, purchasing or using technology restricted with DRM only serves to validate DRM. If you validate, you also enable. If you enable, you suggest (even passively) that it could be applied further.

What you eventually see is a slow, calculated erosion of your rights, until there's nothing left. This is what DBD is all about.

As far a popularity is concerned, Apple -is- the long pole in the tent.

I knew it! Science is trying to Knack^h^h^h^h^hNacre us!

Mine's been running for 2 weeks solid with no problems, and at least 8 tabs constantly open. Maybe you're doing something wrong.

If an application crashes, I'm sorry, but it isn't the users fault. Application crashes are not the fault of the users.

In programs like this, bugs are inevitable, as there are *soo many* forms of input, and it is hard for a programmer to take them all into account. But in any case, if blame has to be put on anyone, it would be the developers.

If they were complaining that the browser was spitting back a "Malformed page" error, and continuing on, then you could say that it was the fault of the user (in this case, the writer of the html)