I'm hard to please so I want one to give it to myself (rather than the aforementioned girlfriends, wives, mistresses, etc.) to see whether I could actually impress myself enough to stick with myself for the long term.

I always have to snicker quietly to myself when I read posts such as Kevin K's above about the alleged superiority of Windows over OS X. This is just MS fanboyism devoid of any real world support.

I worked for over 15 years in Higher Ed in a mixed OS environment (usually about 50% Mac OS, 40% Win, 10% other). The campus PC IT guys/gals would readily admit that they had job security because Windows sucked so badly. Viruses, worms, keyloggers, kludgy network configuration dialogs, endless reinstalls, constant OS sluggishness, hardware problems as far as the eye could see, etc. etc. etc. kept these people busy night and day. On the last university campus I worked at the PC techs outnumbered the Mac techs 10 to 1! This is because PC techs have to tech PCs while the end user can tech OS X.

Even the most technophobic faculty member could, via phone, be talked through connecting their Powerbook wirelessly. Forget it with the PC users. In fact, talking through a faculty member over the phone to get them to configure ANYTHING on their Win machine usually ended up causing worse problems.

In my shop if we wanted to work on a PC we had the faculty member bring it in. It was safer than having them mess around with the settings.

P.S. While the Finder in OS X leaves something to be desired, it is still light years ahead of Windows Explorer and I expect it to remain so.

Claudiu, Are you also in the camp that think its okay to keep a wallet you find on the ground full of credit cards and money or do you return it to the owner. Just because something is available to you does not mean it is yours.

As an owner of a Coffeehouse that offers free Wifi, I can tell that those of you who think it is okay to steal bandwidth need to understand a few things:

1. THE TERM "FREE". When you go into Best Buy and you see a sign that says "free printer with the purchase of any computer" do you grab the printer and walk out with it? When the police pick you up for taking the printer do you say "hey, Best Buy said it was free!"?

It is simply idiotic to assert that a free product or service offered by any business should come with no strings attached. IT IS AN INCENTIVE TO PURCHASE SOMETHING ELSE!! The "free wifi" offer at a coffeehouse is for customers who have purchased our goods. We also offer free pastries once in awhile with the purchase of a latte. I have yet to see a customer have the gall to ask for a pastry alone at no charge simply because we said it was "free".

THE ENCRYPTION ISSUE: If all of our customers were Mac users we would have no problem using WPA encryption since OS X has no problem with any form of encryption but unfortunately, the public is littered with Windows users. Half the PCs that come into our coffeehouse are incapable of using WPA. I tell them that they probably need to update their card's firmware in order to access our hotspot whereupon they look at me like the proverbial deer caught in the headlights. Most PC users don't even know what version of the OS they are even running much less how to update their WiFi card. Not to say that Mac users are any more savvy but at least their computer's always connect flawlessly to our hotspot. Now, of the remaining PC users who can use WPA, we still find that the customer typically doesn't understand enough about their own computer to reconfigure the wireless capability of their machines if they are having problems with access (which can happen if we change our password).

Now, of course I could solve this issue by using simple password protection (i.e. non-encrypted) but the new Netopia routers being provided by Bell South do not allow for anything but encrypted password protection so I have to choose either WEP, WPA or nothing. I've elected to go with WPA given that it is the direction all new machines are going (and interestingly enough, I do find some of the new PCs fail to connect if I am running WEP).

Bottom line, WiFi access provided by a coffeehouse is obviously intended to bring customers into the establishment. It costs the owners money to run a hotspot, costs that they hope to defray through the sale of product. To think otherwise is to live in a reality inhabited largely by freeloaders and squishy thinkers.

Actually, Denny Hastert, the House Speaker is third in line.

You critics of this "shot for shot" recreation need to get over yourselves.

1. Comparing Apple's position on other company's ripping off its product design is not even in the same ballpark as recreating a marketing concept. Do you people not watch television? Every other commercial that is aired is derivative or ripped off of some other commercial (especially if the original proved to have been effective.) The PS music video is a commercial for the band. PS does not lose money if someone else copies the style or even the exact shot composition from the original. It is a RECREATION.

2. Speaking as someone who has experience in the copyright arena, I can guarantee you that this, in no way, violates any copyright. Now, if Apple used the ORIGINAL footage without permission then this would be a violation, otherwise, no harm. "Look and Feel" or "confusion" issues have no bearing on commercial advertising. I could go out tomorrow and directly copy any commercial airing and be perfectly within my right to do so. The only possible area of litigation would be if my product was in the same industry as the commercial I copied. However, look at any car commercial and not the distinct similarities. I get confused all the time but that's the marketing biz for you.

3. Did Gus Van Sant get sued for doing a shot by shot recreation of Hitchcock's "Psycho". NO! You know why? Because it is simply a remake which sought to borrow on the popularity of the original. It's a blatent rip off but then, that's Hollywood for you. Van Sant's movie is all original in that the film is his, not Hitchcocks, Period.

4. Apple was obviously borrowing on a tried and true marketing device: exploit a bit of pop culture (in this case a music video) and reapply it to their product. This has been done countless times in commercial advertising and will continue to be so and violates no law or even code of ethics.

5. Look at how many companies are copying the iPod ads. Interestingly enough, Apple is not suing any of those companies. Why? because Apple does not make money from airing iPod ads. Postal Service likewise, makes no money selling its music video. The video was made to sell albums. Both are ads, both are originals. Now, if Creative did a shot by shot recreation of the iPod ads to promote their own player you might see a suit but the reason you never see this kind of blatant rip-off of a competitor's commercial is because it would end up reinforcing the brand image of the competitor and thus, would be counter-productive.

Maglev would not work for the space elevator. The key to that technology is the carbon tube based ribbon that the elevator crawls up to get to orbit. This ribbon is and must be VERY lightweight.

MagLev requires an interaction between electromagnets both in the track and the car. Thus, the sheer weight of the mechanics on the track would prevent it from being used for the space elevator.

Zoom capability is probably the only second to number of pixels. I would never buy a camera from a maker who lied about the specs on the zoom lens. What next, claiming to be 7 megapixel when it is only 5?

This should surprise no one. Anyone who has used the DirecTV programming interface knows that these people are clueless on GUI design. It is terrible. No favorites buttons on the remote, no easy way to add favorite channels, 100s of channels you are not subscribed to still show up in the list of available channels, and that really stupid "screensaver" that shows up when you want to record a program.

When my subscription lapses I'm done with them for these and a host of other reasons.

Mark wrote: "No matter what you think of the guy, this topic needs to be in the American conciousness." I just never understand this convoluted type of "thinking". It's like saying "no matter what you think of Joseph Goebbels, the topic of the promotion of the Ayrian race and the extermination of the Jews needs to be in the German conciousness." Or how about: "no matter what you think of the Clinton Chronicles, the topic of Clinton's murder of over 53 people and his drug running in Mena, AK need to be in the American consciousness." Since when should obvious fallacious propaganda be promoted just because it's a good conversation starter? Fortunately, most people know that Moore is outright lying all the way through F911 so his movie is less insidious than the work of Goebbels. Germans all over Deutschland were taken in by his cinema while very few Americans actually buy what Moore is selling. There are only two types of people who think Moore's work is "important"; Bush-haters and those who are truly "box of hair" dumb (the latter being Moore's description of the average Fahrenheit 9/11 viewer and may be synonymous with the former group). The only upside of my paying to see F/911 over at the Century Theaters in San Jose was that some of the proceeds went to the Carlyle Group (owner of the chain). I love irony. -B