Google Kreme | 1 Apr 02:06 2006
Picon

Re: Re: OS X - which way now?

On 31 Mar 2006, at 12:18 , Mark Smith wrote:
> at 17:36 on 31.03.2006, Google Kreme wrote:
>> On 30 Mar 2006, at 23:08 , Mark Smith wrote:
> I don't think you are really disputing that this can be done in
> Mailsmith are you ? At least I hope not, because I really don't
> want to have to sit down and write the fucking scripts.

Oh, it's "doable" in mailsmith.  Sorta.  Well, no, not really.

> In both cases we could solve it purely with Apple Script or go the
> sly way and use AppleScript's "do Shell Script" command and run
> the AppleScript as a component of a distributed filter action.

Yes, but that's not the same as using MailSMith's built in filters,  
which CAN'T do that sort of thing.

> Maybe your point was that Procmail is more powerful than the
> intrinsic capabilities of distributed filtering as long as you
> don't count the capability to run AppleScripts and or Shell
> Scripts as components of distributed filter actions ? You might
> have a point there, but I think its disingenuous to eliminate
> AppleScript and Shell Script functions from Mailsmith's
> distributed filtering because they are in there already.

Well, that's a bit like saying procmail is just as good as python and  
perl and c++ because you can call python and perl scripts and c++  
compiled programs from it.

MailSmith has a good, although eccentric, mail filter system.  It  
pales in comparison to procmail.  Yes, you can use OTHER TOOLS as  
(Continue reading)

Google Kreme | 1 Apr 02:08 2006
Picon

Re: Statement of U.S. Senator

On 31 Mar 2006, at 11:00 , Patrick Coskren wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Kevin Callahan wrote:
>> <http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006331.html>
>
> Feingold gets it.

Too bad no one else does.

"Support our troops, impeach Bush."

--

-- 
Lobotomy means never having to say you're sorry -- or anything else.

_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | OSX-Nutters@...
http://www.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
Join us in #ramblingwaffles on irc.23x.net

Cyril | 1 Apr 03:22 2006
Picon

Re: FrankenMac


On 28 mars 06, at 21:10, Matt Johnston wrote:

>
> It boots......Airport works....
So it was run over and then microwaved?
What happened to this poor thing?
_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | OSX-Nutters@...
http://www.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
Join us in #ramblingwaffles on irc.23x.net

Scott Stevenson | 1 Apr 05:03 2006

Re: New DELL Intel Core Duos


On Mar 31, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Matt Johnston wrote:

How is this giving Apple a run for it's money?


So you can get a model for $500 less that:


a) is ugly

b) has no iSight

c) Mac OS X isn't supported

d) ships with Windows.

e) has the same integrated graphics that we slagged the Mac mini for.


No iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, Final Cut, Motion, Aperture.

   - Scott
_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | OSX-Nutters@...
http://www.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
Join us in #ramblingwaffles on irc.23x.net
mmalcolm crawford | 1 Apr 07:41 2006
Picon

Prayer doesn't help heal patients

"In fact, patients who know they are being prayed for suffer a  
noticeably higher rate of complications..."
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2112892,00.html>
<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM. 
20060330.wprayer0330/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home>

etc.

At least now NASA would have been allowed report these findings...

<http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php? 
feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20060331-12171400-bc-us-nasa.xml>
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/science/31nasa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin>

mmalc

_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | OSX-Nutters@...
http://www.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
Join us in #ramblingwaffles on irc.23x.net

Kevin Callahan | 1 Apr 07:58 2006
Picon

Re: Prayer doesn't help heal patients


On Mar 31, 2006, at 9:41 PM, mmalcolm crawford wrote:

> "In fact, patients who know they are being prayed for suffer a  
> noticeably higher rate of complications..."
> <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2112892,00.html>

ha!
Fifty-two per cent of patients in both groups suffered complications  
after surgery. But 59 per cent of those who knew they were prayed for  
went on to develop complications.
As for the new study, he said, "I don’t think... it’s going to stop  
people praying for the sick."

> <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM. 
> 20060330.wprayer0330/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home>
>
> etc.
>
> At least now NASA would have been allowed report these findings...

yeah

>
> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php? 
> feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20060331-12171400-bc-us-nasa.xml>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/science/31nasa.html? 
> _r=1&oref=slogin>
>
> mmalc
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSX-Nutters mailing list | OSX-Nutters@...
> http://www.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
> Join us in #ramblingwaffles on irc.23x.net

_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | OSX-Nutters@...
http://www.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
Join us in #ramblingwaffles on irc.23x.net

mmalcolm crawford | 1 Apr 08:00 2006
Picon

Re: Prayer doesn't help heal patients


On Mar 31, 2006, at 9:58 PM, Kevin Callahan wrote:

> As for the new study, he said, "I don’t think... it’s going to stop  
> people praying for the sick."
>
Hey, on the basis of those results I want everyone on this list to  
promise that if I ever become ill they will not ask any alleged  
Higher Authority to intercede...

mmalc

_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | OSX-Nutters@...
http://www.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
Join us in #ramblingwaffles on irc.23x.net

Kevin Callahan | 1 Apr 08:11 2006
Picon

Re: Prayer doesn't help heal patients


On Mar 31, 2006, at 10:00 PM, mmalcolm crawford wrote:

>
> On Mar 31, 2006, at 9:58 PM, Kevin Callahan wrote:
>
>> As for the new study, he said, "I don’t think... it’s going to  
>> stop people praying for the sick."
>>
> Hey, on the basis of those results I want everyone on this list to  
> promise that if I ever become ill they will not ask any alleged  
> Higher Authority to intercede...
>
> mmalc

LOL

_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | OSX-Nutters@...
http://www.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
Join us in #ramblingwaffles on irc.23x.net

Kevin Callahan | 1 Apr 08:13 2006
Picon

Fwd: British official charges


<http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/meac-s08.shtml>

British official charges US “stood down” on 9/11By Bill Vann
8 September 2003
A senior member of the ruling British Labour Party has charged that  
the Bush administration had advance knowledge of the September 11,  
2001 terrorist attacks and allowed them to take place in order to  
further longstanding plans for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Michael Meacher, who until he was removed in a cabinet reshuffle last  
June served as Blair’s environment minister, wrote an article  
published in the September 6 issue of the Guardian [http:// 
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1036571,00.html] entitled  
“The war on terrorism is bogus: the 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal  
pretext to use force to secure its global domination.”

Citing the failure of the US military and intelligence apparatus to  
either act on numerous warnings of impending attacks or to respond in  
timely manner when four passenger airliners were hijacked  
simultaneously on September 11 itself, Meacher writes: “Was this  
inaction simply the result of key people disregarding or being  
ignorant of the evidence? Or could US air security operations have  
been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on  
whose authority?”

The article prompted an angry response from the US Embassy in London,  
which issued a statement declaring that Meacher’s “assertions that  
the US government knowingly stood by while terrorists killed some  
3,000 innocents in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia would be  
monstrous, and monstrously offensive, if they came from someone  
serious or credible.”

For its part, major US media outlets blacked out any reference to  
Meacher’s explosive charges.

The claim that Meacher is not “serious or credible” has no  
foundation. He is not a back-bench maverick or a member of what the  
right-wing British press likes to refer to as the “loony left.” On  
the contrary, he was the Labour Party’s most experienced cabinet  
minister, having served in Parliament for 33 years, holding various  
cabinet posts going back to the Wilson and Callaghan administrations  
in the 1970s. He served in Blair’s cabinet as environment minister  
for six years until he was removed in June amid the mounting crisis  
of the Labour government over the Iraq war. He played a prominent  
role in the negotiation of the Kyoto accords on the environment and  
was long considered a contender for the position of Labour Party leader.

That someone with these political connections charges in print that  
elements within the US administration knew that a terrorist attack  
was coming on September 11 and allowed it to happen to further their  
war plans represents an extremely dangerous development for the Bush  
White House. He speaks not just for himself. The thesis he advances  
is indicative of what is assumed and is being said behind the scenes  
among much wider circles within the sole major government to have  
backed Washington in its invasion of Iraq.

It is doubtless that the article was motivated by the deepening  
crisis of the Blair government itself over the exposure of the lies  
it used to promote the Iraq war. With continuing revelations from  
within the government’s own intelligence agencies about the  
fabrication of evidence against Iraq, recent polls have shown a  
majority of Britons in favor of Blair’s resignation.

The questions Meacher raises have never been answered by anyone in  
the US government. On the eve of the second anniversary of the  
September 11 terrorist attacks, the American public knows almost  
nothing more about what happened that day—and how it was allowed to  
happen—than it knew two years ago. The Bush White House has made  
every effort to derail or stonewall any independent investigation  
into these tragic events. To this day, no one has explained how  
suspected terrorists, under the surveillance of the FBI and the CIA,  
were allowed to enter the US, commandeer commercial aircraft and fly  
them unhindered until striking their targets.

Meacher’s article pursues many of the same themes that have been  
raised over the past two years by the World Socialist Web Site  
concerning the way the September 11 events were seized upon by the  
Bush government to drive forward its longstanding plans for military  
aggression, as well as the ample evidence that the government was  
repeatedly warned about the impending attacks, yet failed to take  
even routine actions to counter them.

Meacher rejects the official explanation that the successive US wars  
in Afghanistan and Iraq represented Washington’s response to the  
attacks on the Pentagon and New York City’s Twin Towers, declaring,  
“The truth may be a great deal murkier.”

He begins by citing a document issued in 2000 by the right-wing  
Washington think tank, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC),  
an outfit that served as the Republican administration’s national  
security establishment-in-waiting until its ideas could be  
implemented following the installation of Bush as president in 2001.

Entitled, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” the central plans of this  
document were incorporated directly into Bush’s “National Security  
Strategy of the United States” issued in September 2001, which  
advanced the strategy of “preventive war.”

Describing the document as a “blueprint for the creation of a global  
Pax Americana,” Meacher writes: “The plan shows Bush’s cabinet  
intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not  
Saddam Hussein was in power. It says ‘while the unresolved conflict  
with Iraq provides justification, the need for a substantial American  
force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of  
Saddam Hussein.”

The document, he notes, includes the warning that it would be  
difficult to win public support for a military campaign to transform  
the US into “tomorrow’s dominant force” without “some catastrophic  
and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” With September 11, the  
administration had just such an event: “The 9/11 attacks allowed the  
US to press the ‘go’ button for a strategy in accordance with the  
PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible  
to implement.”

Having established the political motive for welcoming some form of  
terrorist provocation on US soil, Meacher goes on to raise  
substantive questions about the official US response to the ample  
warnings of impending acts of terrorism as well as to the attacks  
themselves. He carefully documents each of his charges with specific  
references to reports that appeared in the mainstream media.

“First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre- 
empt the events of 9/11,” writes the British Parliament member. “It  
is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the  
US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to  
Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200  
terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph,  
September 16, 2001). The list they provided included the names of  
four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.”

Against the Bush administration’s repeated claims that no one had  
ever contemplated the use of hijacked airplanes to carry out  
terrorist attacks, Meacher cites 1996 and 1999 intelligence reports  
that warned precisely of such a threat.

He also raises the question of whether US intelligence had  
undisclosed connections with those alleged to have organized the  
hijacking, dating back to the war against the Soviet-backed regime in  
Afghanistan. “Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in  
Saudi Arabia,” Meacher writes. “Michael Springman, the former head of  
the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the  
CIA has been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from  
the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism  
for the Afghan war in conjunction with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6,  
2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for  
other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers  
received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s  
(Newsweek, September 15, 2001).”

The British Labourite points to the well-known decision of the FBI in  
Washington to suppress an investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui (now  
dubbed the 20th hijacker by US prosecutors) despite a warning from a  
local agent that he could be part of a plot to crash a plane into the  
Twin Towers.

Meacher goes on to review the unexplained delay in US air security  
responding to the hijackings: “The first hijacking was suspected not  
later than 8:20 a.m., and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in  
Pennsylvania at 10:06 a.m.,” he writes. “Not a single fighter plane  
was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews Air Force Base, just  
10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the  
Pentagon at 9:38 a.m. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept  
procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000  
and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67  
occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, Aug. 13, 2002). It is a  
US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly  
off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.”

All of which leads Meacher to pose his question: who ordered the US  
national security apparatus to “stand down”?

He further points to extensive evidence of the relative US  
indifference to pursuing Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of  
the September 11 attacks, quoting one US official as saying that his  
capture could result in a “premature collapse of our international  
effort.”

Meacher argues that Washington’s “‘war on terrorism’ is being used  
largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical  
objectives.”

“In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the  
PNAC plan into action,” he writes. “The evidence is quite clear that  
plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand  
well before 9/11.” He points to a September 18, 2001 BBC report that  
US officials warned Pakistan in July 2001—two months before the  
terrorist attacks—that US “military action against Afghanistan would  
go ahead by the middle of October.”

Meacher comments: “Given this background, it is not surprising that  
some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating  
an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan, in a war that had  
clearly already been well planned in advance.” He suggests that there  
is a precedent for the Bush administration’s inaction on September 11  
in the similar failure of President Roosevelt to heed warnings of an  
impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, an event that fueled  
sufficient public outrage to achieve his administration’s goal of  
bringing the US into the Second World War.

The former environment minister argues that motivation for both the  
Afghanistan and Iraq wars was to seize control of strategic sources  
of oil and natural gas in both the Caspian and Persian Gulf regions.

Meacher concludes: “The conclusion of all this analysis must surely  
be that the ‘global war on terrorism’ has the hallmarks of a  
political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different  
agenda—the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force  
command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is  
this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper  
aspiration for British foreign policy?”

None of the information provided by Meacher is new; it has merely  
been concealed from the broad public. Increasingly bitter divisions  
within ruling circles, both in the US and Britain, have brought it to  
the surface.

The former cabinet minister speaks for sections of the British ruling  
elite who support distancing London’s policy from that of the Bush  
administration. Their hand has been considerably strengthened by the  
mounting catastrophe confronting the US military occupation of Iraq  
as well as the deep crisis facing Blair, the principal proponent of  
unconditional British support for US strategic aims.

The unraveling of the Blair government’s fabrication of evidence  
about alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has opened a  
Pandora’s box for the Bush administration. The exposure of one set of  
lies has opened the door to renewed questions about all of the  
conspiracies and provocations carried out by the gang of criminals  
that have seized control of the White House.

The Bush administration has exploited the tragedy of September 11 as  
the justification for launching two wars in the space of a year and a  
half and for carrying out far-reaching attacks on both the democratic  
rights and social conditions of the American people. At the same time  
it has acted ruthlessly to suppress any serious investigation into  
the 9/11 attacks. As the Meacher article indicates, the  
administration’s ability to continue this cover-up is being fatally  
undermined by its own growing political crisis.

_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | OSX-Nutters@...
http://www.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
Join us in #ramblingwaffles on irc.23x.net

Matt Johnston | 1 Apr 08:24 2006
Picon

Re: FrankenMac


On 1 Apr 2006, at 02:22, Cyril wrote:

>
> On 28 mars 06, at 21:10, Matt Johnston wrote:
>
>>
>> It boots......Airport works....
> So it was run over and then microwaved?
> What happened to this poor thing?

It was in a "soft" Crumpler type bag during a house move. A wardrobe  
slipped and landed on it. The guy rushes it up to us and says:

"It's my wife's powerbook. She doesn't know yet...."

_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | OSX-Nutters@...
http://www.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
Join us in #ramblingwaffles on irc.23x.net


Gmane