Nikolai is his equivalent russian name, but Nikola is his true serbian name, so a bit of respect ;)

I own a 1st gen iPod (no speakers, Bluetooth, microphone or GPS) with also the older chipset of the 1st gen iPhone, and it's running firmware 3.1.1 that is latest of Apple, updated with iTunes though official channel. Only if I want to install some software that needs some of the missing hardware that app won't install and tell exactly what feature is missing and why install it's being cancelled. Some odd tower defense game won't install in my iPod because of missing microphone, so fine, one game less and I also understand that I have only generation and model to miss such features.

So even oldest devices have newest firmware, and in the way of updating I got Mail, Maps and all base apps that weren't there when I bought my iPod, though it's still to be seen what will happen with 4.0.

at least Microsoft lets you run arbitrary software on Windows.

And Apple let's you run arbitrary software on MacOS...

This is not a laptop with a full blown operating system, it's a pad designed for few easy tasks, how is difficult for people to understand and stop to compare it with a laptop.

If there is a Jehovah's Witness Assembler it hasn't come knocking at my door.

The Apple wireless keyboard also has 79 keys.

/Mikael

You empathize with people who fear a nonexistent old man who lives in the sky?

Just what I needed, a gun that will stop working when the batteries run out (I suppose that will be the behavior). Anyway, I suppose that can be useful for prison guards and similar. Till the inmates learn to take the watch with the gun, of course.

> Actually, you only need a license to drive on public roads.

Granted.

The other poster meant to imply the "on public roads" part when he said driving is a privilege rather than a right. So, sure, if you want to put in a driving track in your back yard and drive around and around on it (for recreational purposes, presumably), you don't need a license for that.

But a driver's license -- the "right" to drive on the public roads -- is a privilege that is granted only to people who pass the driving test, which theoretically is supposed to require them to demonstrate that they can drive safely.

The problem is, the requirements to obtain and hold a driver's license are far too lax, and so we license a lot of people for driving that we shouldn't, because they're not safe drivers at all. Among other things...

  * The vision test is WAY too lax. They only ever ask you to read the second line up, but frankly even the bottom line is enormous boldface type. If your vision is even halfway good enough for driving, you should be able to read a line half the point size of the bottom one. Furthermore, the text is stationary, and you can stare at it for several seconds before answering, which is definitely not going to be possible on the road. The text should appear briefly and be moving the whole time.
  * The driving test does not require you to demonstrate the ability to deal with adverse weather conditions, but the license allows you to drive under adverse weather conditions. IMO, if you want to be licensed to drive in non-ideal weather conditions, you should have to pass tests in the rain, in fog, and on slush.
  * The driving test does not require you to demonstrate the ability to handle night-time visibility, but the license allows you to operate a vehicle on the public roads at night. IMO, you should have to pass a night-driving test, as well as a day-driving test, before receiving any kind of driver's license.
  * The maneuverability test, although it is good as far as it goes, really only measures your ability to maneuver the vehicle at parking-lot speeds. There should be additional tests measuring your ability to maneuver the vehicle at faster speeds. (Obviously, the ones for different speeds would be different. You can't turn on a twelve-foot radius while backing up at highway speeds, nor should you try to.)
  * Currently, you don't have to keep your record accident-free in order to continue to hold the license. This SHOULD be a requirement.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Basically, the requirements for holding a driver's license should be ratcheted up about three orders of magnitude. Unsafe drivers are the number one danger to Americans. Driving accidents kill more people in this country than cancer and terrorism combined. Driving on the public roads puts lives at risk. Prospective drivers should have to show that they can handle the responsibility.

Really???? Your one real reason is Hulu?!?!?

That's V E R Y F U C K I N G L A M E.

TV sucks. Putting it through a flash player doesn't make it any better.

And I know that as I watch out of market hockey games on flash-only justin.tv.

Chinese Engineer 1: What's that part made of?
Chinese Engineer 2: Titanium.
CE1: Isn't that expensive?
CE2: We'll just use lead. Or melamine.
CE1: Will it have the same mechanical properties?
CE2: No, but by the time the Americans notice, it'll be too late.
CE1: Heh heh. Er, hang on a minute...
 

If you would explain your reasoning for TPB breaking Swedish law, and your definition of a 'warez site' to justify your +karmas. Please?

O I know they aren't going to put it back.. which is why everyone will be downloading this via torrent and feeling good about it...

Yeah, that's why. Whine and cry and then pirate a game because you don't get your way. You sure showed them, they'll be positively clamoring to give you everything you want next time!

You know what claiming you're going to pirate a game because the Big Bad Creators didn't give you something you want says? It says "I love your game so much I can't live without it, despite you not giving me what I want. Therefore I am going to be a petulant child."

Good luck with that. Whatever moral justifications you try to shroud it in, you're just a self-entitled brat crying because he doesn't get his way.

You want to make a point about how important LAN play is to their game? Don't play their fucking game.

Agreed, but;

Especially in the English Wikipedia your statement is more than correct. That is, as the English language is de facto lingua franca of the global community, the "culture" you are referring to is divided. Divided by hundreds of lines, carved in stone for ages. I guess people will always agree about their disagreements, in such an environment. Assuming that English is your native language, let me tell shortly about my native language wiki, which is the Turkish version. There is a cultural division in Turkish Wikipedia that is reflecting the socio-political division (some kind of conservative left and some kind of progressive right, if you are looking for logic in politics, look at somewhere else...) of Turkey. This division exist in original articles directly written in Turkish. Most items that I am interested in are (bad) translations from en.wikipedia.org. The logical step for people like me, is to move to English wiki, and start writing there, because it is what we are reading. I guess a similar drive can be found in other languages.

Thus, the fundamental issue can be expressed in one question: Will wikipedia reflect the cultural divide that exists in its reader/contributor base? If yes, it would be very difficult to achieve, and if no, the decision would result in the loss of some (probably very big) portions of "other" people. I guess this decision is made, the answer is "no", thus no cultural fragmentation would be accepted and the chosen cultural center is American Culture (most likely American WASP as mentioned above). This, probably is a good commercial and understandable political decision.

My own position was that of a small contributor for Turkey/Turkish related items. I stopped writing some years ago, because it became more than boring to see some information you provided after some real research to be replaced by some (badly written) incorrect data. And for some months I realized that the material I read became less interesting for me, including "Today's featured article". I can see that in the future I will stop reading wikipedia. In order to see what American general population thinks (more correctly, what they are made to think) there are better sources, like CNN, Yahoo etc.

As I mentioned, the decision (which I assume will not be limited to "living persons' articles only, in the future) is a good decision that will increase the quality, and a bad one that brings in some strong borders. If I was an optimist, I would say "If they keep it balanced..." but I do not think it is possible to keep it balanced...