You're assuming they don't want to exaggerate the difference in results.

And making your so-called "money" worth a damned thing.

Somebody register craigs-hitlist.com

Thanks, I'll see what I can do about that.

I don't spend a lot of time reading blogs. I picked up the iPhone because my phone died, my previous contract was up, and I loved my iPod touch. I'm happy with it the way it is, just wished the timing had been better, and I might have gotten a better camera with the deal.

For me, who got my iPhone about two weeks ago, it's the autofocus camera that's got me wishing I'd known the new model was coming out. Not enough to pay the ridiculous upgrade charges, I guess in two years I can upgrade to the 5th model, or switch to T-Mobile and get me one of them android phones.

I wanna shoot the whole day down...

Realized after posting noscript was a little more extensive than I had originally thought. I personally don't use it because it's a real hassle building up my whitelist when I have to wipe my firefox profile.

Repair centers aren't for fixing viruses, and nobody from Apple ever claimed there was no such thing as hardware failure.

Whether it's because there aren't many macs out there or not, the fact of the matter is that 99% of mac users won't be infected by a virus, trojan, or spyware during normal use, and until that landscape changes (whether macs are actually more secure or not), the average user has to deal with a lot less of the "security" issues that plague windows users.

Good for you, that you don't have any issues. Hundreds of thousands of other users do, hundreds of thousands of users pay for antivirus, and hundreds of thousands of users have a PC that crawls on even the most basic tasks because it's so bogged down with viruses, trojans, and spyware. Whether Mac is technically more secure or not, mac users don't have this problem, and I think Apple is justified in touting that as a strength as long as it remains true.

NoScript has nothing to do with Java. You're thinking Javascript.

The rest of your post has pretty much been dealt with, except I'd like to say that while compositing CAN be pretty, there are some effects that really seem to pander to the "12 year old boy (read: 40 year old gamer in mom's basement) that likes fire and explosions" crowd. Properly configured, compositing is nice, but it can be really glitchy and really hideous when done wrong.

You could have just turned down grad school or deferred your enrollment to do those other things you wanted. Not everyone has dreams that are incompatible with going to grad school. If you did, why did you go?

That only applies to downloads on a cell network (and the same limitation exists in Apple's App Store). Just download the dictionary over wifi.

Why would they? Now Oracle has a hardware arm and Solaris that they can do large deployments with. They've just made themselves an even bigger player in the Datacenter.

I never said I believed in any of the conspiracy theories. I never said I was looking for any kind of "real truth", I was just saying that no matter how many sources you read, you can never know anything approximating a "real truth". It's silly to think that just by reading enough liars, you'll somehow wind up with the "truth" whatever that is. You might end up with the objective facts (in many cases you will not). You might end up with a massive number of possible alternatives, but to think that just by finding the intersection of the different media sources you can manage to come up with "the truth" is ridiculous.

I've just found better things to do with my life than spend hours and hours daily reading through 5-10 different sources for every news story I'm interested in, especially when at least for most of the US news, it's all just syndicated from the AP, with a find&replace filter for a few keywords in the fox news version of the article (suicide bomber / homicide bomber, etc.). You can never find "the truth" (as if there's only one) no matter how many sources you read. Why bother going to all the trouble? Read one or two sources for whom you know the bias if you're interested in the news. Much more than that isn't required if you just want the most basic idea of what's going on in the world.

Most bias is in the stories that go unprinted, not in the way that the printed stories are presented. It's BECAUSE "the media" is so concerned with profit margins that sensationalized non-stories make the front page.

Nothing is simple spite and hate. It was a sociopolitical attack that had a lot of factors, perpetrated by a group that we created in the middle east to do our bidding before we left them in the cold. The islamic bent there was more or less just recruitment material, the higher-ups on their side knew what they were doing, and it had little to do with religion. There doesn't have to be a hollywood plot twist for things to be complicated.

Who has this kind of time? The truth isn't worth it. Especially since there's no way of knowing if ANY of them are telling the truth. What if they ALL lie? What if the part which they all have in common, the so-called 'truth' isn't actually true? Just because they all carry a common element, doesn't mean that common element is the truth. It might just be the most common lie.

With something like 9/11, you can dig through all the conspiracy theories and read all of the official reports and you still cannot possibly know the real truth. You might find the common elements (a few planes (probably) crashed into a few buildings and there was a collapse). BUT THOSE AREN'T THE IMPORTANT TRUTHS. You may never know the real story, no matter how many sources you read. In the end, you'll believe whichever source agrees with your bias the most.