Slashdot Mirror


Rush Limbaugh Begs Steve Jobs For Bug Fixes

jlgolson writes "Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh complained on his radio program about some problems that he was having with his Mac: 'Mr. Jobs, please help me. I know we don't agree on anything ... But can you put me to somebody that can get this going, because I know it's gotta work for most people. What am I doing wrong?' Eventually he shared that he was running into actual problems with Time Machine and Back to My Mac. Can you fix them?"

689 comments

  1. moto by Idiomatick · · Score: 5, Funny

    'stuff that matters' ???

    1. Re:moto by NecroPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, it sort of is.

      It's news because it's a known issue with Time Machine that now a high profile user is raising. And it's now something that might get fixed.

      Whether you like Rush or hate him (I find him amusing), I'm actually quite interested that he not only uses Macs, but has a network of them.

      Of course, there will be the standard set of "evil people use Macs?" If someone actually says it in a new way, I may find that entertaining as well.

      --
      I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
    2. Re:moto by Sorthum · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It'd be kind of nice if instead of the usual "Republicans are evil" flamefest, we could treat this as what it is-- a guy who's genuinely annoyed with a bug he can't get resolution for from Apple.

      Be interesting to see how quickly Apple coughs up a fix...

    3. Re:moto by _KiTA_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whether you like Rush or hate him (I find him amusing), I'm actually quite interested that he not only uses Macs, but has a network of them. He's only amusing until you realize that

      a. He's serious
      2. There are people who actually believe him.
    4. Re:moto by NecroPuppy · · Score: 5, Funny

      It'd be kind of nice if instead of the usual "Republicans are evil" flamefest...

      I'd say, "You're new here, aren't you?" but your slashdot ID is 100k lower than mine.

      --
      I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
    5. Re:moto by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1, Informative

      It'd be kind of nice if instead of the usual "Republicans are evil" flamefest, A noble thought, but ripping on a bastard like Limbaugh is just to much fun.
    6. Re:moto by maczealot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The chances of this thread not going nuclear by business hours in America today are about equal to those of Apple doing something smart with this:

      Send Al Gore with a new AirBook and a missing-manual.

      Seriously, I'm fairly conservative and _I_ would listen to that radio show (though I don't listen to Rush's show normally). Would be great publicity for all involved and *gasp* might have some serious dialogue on important issues. But like I said, that's about as likely as this thread not turning into a "Rush = personification of hate" & "I hate your hate" useless diatribe.

      Color me cynical, but all those who truly hold onto ideals in their hearts are.

    7. Re:moto by anagama · · Score: 4, Funny
      Old Joke:

      A customer arrives at a car lot for a new car. The salesman steers him toward the top of the line model with all the newest bells and whistles. While they're out on the test drive, the salesman tells the potential buyer that the radio is so advanced, it understands voice commands. To demonstrate, the salesman says "classical", and wouldn't you know it, a classical station is automatically tuned in. He tells the driver to try, and he says "classic rock". Before you can blink, Led Zepplin is pulsing through the speakers. The driver is duly impressed and is about to comment on how cool that is, when some punk kid in a riced out civic cuts him off. The driver yells "ASSHOLE" .... and the radio tunes to Rush Limbaugh .
      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    8. Re:moto by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 5, Funny

      iii. He can't make his mind up which numbering system to use for ordered lists. The bastard!

    9. Re:moto by HazyRigby · · Score: 1

      I'd be interested to see what he's doing and why it might not be working. I just tried to recover deleted mail messages and was able to do it both through having the mail application opened when I started Time Machine and by flipping through old versions of my ~/Library/Mail folder. Couldn't help him with Back to My Mac . . . I'm not sure I've ever been away from my computer long enough to need it.

      Oh, and [insert snarky anti-Republican or anti-OSX comment here]. Bastards, the lot of them!

    10. Re:moto by Alsee · · Score: 5, Funny

      four. ????
      00000101. profit

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    11. Re:moto by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah. Where's the "let's all come together" Obama-mania?

      I hear more vitriol from Obama supporters and *anyone* else.

    12. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "fix" being a crushed-up 80mg OxyContin.

    13. Re:moto by nilbog · · Score: 2, Funny

      You both must be new here...

      --
      or else!
    14. Re:moto by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 3, Informative

      ....- A Discordian shall always use the official Discordian Document Numbering System.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    15. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      iii People like him cheerled us into a war where hundreds of thousands died. It would be amusing if politics had no actual consequences (ie it was arguing over what color wallpaper to make government buildings) but in this case I'm too upset to find the humor.

    16. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a. He's serious
      2. There are people who actually believe him.

      Learn to count, or the alphabet. Whichever.

    17. Re:moto by sprins · · Score: 1

      ... a guy who's genuinely annoyed with a bug he can't get resolution for from Apple. Be interesting to see how quickly Apple coughs up a fix...

      If I were Rush I wouldn't hold my breath. He's not the only one with problems, and so far Apple is doing a Half Assed Job fixing them. As stable as OS X 10.4.x was, so quirky is 10.5.x upto now. You might even call it shameful.

      I wonder if Steve and Rush reconcile, and that we (Apple users) all benefit from that :-/

    18. Re:moto by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Older Joke:

      Q: What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg?

      A: One is a flaming Nazi gas bag, the other is a dirigible.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    19. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'd be nice if the guy could actually form a coherent sentence, then maybe we could get some idea if what his problem actually is.

    20. Re:moto by the+99th+penguin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Get off my lawn you kids!

      Argueing about 100K UIDs... whippersnappers.. :P

    21. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare somebody disagree with the mighty KiTA!

    22. Re:moto by NewAndFresh · · Score: 0

      Republicans aren't evil, they're misled.
      I have always admired their loyalty. (I would want them in my corner, that's for sure)
      But loyalty before logic is the wrong way to deal with important issues. Especially in matters that involve human suffering and death.

      --
      Welcome to Costco, I love you.
    23. Re:moto by Scudsucker · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And mine is lower than yours, and no nothing has changed: Republicans like to trash others for having a victim mentality while engaging in their party-mandated hypocrisy: whining about affirmative action, unions keeping hard workers from earning more money, you can't say anything bad about Islam but anyone can trash Christianity all they want (need to be introduced to Bill Donohue), etc.

    24. Re:moto by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you're being funny or not, but Al Gore is on Apple's board.

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    25. Re:moto by MeNeXT · · Score: 1

      Fixes what? Did you RTFA? It's as clear as a political statement.

      Rush: Fix my backup...

      Mac: Ok. What is wrong.

      Rush: I can't recover email folders.

      Mc: Start, Mail. Select time machine. Select folder to recover. Press recover. Move folder from recovered to desired location.

      Rush: You just don't understand....I want to recover and I can't.

      Sounds like a politician to me...

      --
      DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
    26. Re:moto by killjoe · · Score: 0, Troll

      I love anybody who causes Rush any pain no matter how minor.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    27. Re:moto by mgblst · · Score: 2, Funny

      Look mate, it is very simple. There are 3 types of people in the world, those that can count, and those that can't.

    28. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something tells me he didn't try to get help beyond bitching on the airwaves. What he should have done is just ask his damn IT department where he works to fix it. I mean, Rush realizes that Steve doesn't actually fix problems, right? He has monkeys for that. However, 99.9% of computer problems are usually user error.

    29. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction:

      One is a Flaming Nazi gas bag and the other is a dirigible.

    30. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      serves you right, moron

      thats what you get for buying a mac!

      which is a piece of shit made by a evil corporation.

      sucker.

    31. Re:moto by Malevolent+Tester · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, the arrogance of the left. What is it about you people that means you can't accept the fact that people may have considered an issue as carefully as you have and simply come to a different conclusion?
      But no, there is one correct answer, and it's the one you have (shades of Marx's historical inevitability there) and anyone who disagrees needs re-education, or is misled, or brainwashed by lying right wing propaganda etc etc

      --
      If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
    32. Re:moto by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Funny you should mention Nazi gas bags...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    33. Re:moto by jombeewoof · · Score: 1

      Old Joke:

      A customer arrives at a car lot for a new car. The salesman steers him toward the top of the line model with all the newest bells and whistles. While they're out on the test drive, the salesman tells the potential buyer that the radio is so advanced, it understands voice commands. To demonstrate, the salesman says "classical", and wouldn't you know it, a classical station is automatically tuned in. He tells the driver to try, and he says "classic rock". Before you can blink, Led Zepplin is pulsing through the speakers. The driver is duly impressed and is about to comment on how cool that is, when some punk kid in a riced out civic cuts him off. The driver yells "ASSHOLE" .... and the radio tunes to Rush Limbaugh .
      Didn't Microsoft come out with something like this just this year? I remember some pretty funny commercials about this very thing.
      Talk to your car radio and it changes channels, maybe that's why Rush has moved to Mac
      --
      Linux Zealots: Smarter than Mac Zealots, but still zealots.
    34. Re:moto by bgfay · · Score: 0, Redundant

      If they could somehow get Gore to do this, how cool would that be. And it would be the ultimate take on a Mac - PC ad with Rush as the big fat idiot and Al as the uber cool guy who knows what to do. I can hear it now:

            "Hello, I'm a Mac bored member."
            "And I'm a big fat idiot."

      It's delicious.

      --
      Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
    35. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word you are searching for is "board," not "bored." Good grief, did you even complete the fucking second grade?

    36. Re:moto by JWW · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think thats what the poster meant. I really think Apple can get great PR out of this.

      Apple can show that their machines are for everyone, not just tree hugging liberal hippie freaks :-).

      I'm especially interested in the fix for time machine and Mail. That capability would be very nice to have.

    37. Re:moto by robinthecandystore · · Score: 2, Funny

      hehehe... old

    38. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Q: What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg? A: Limbaugh is still high.
    39. Re:moto by Enry · · Score: 5, Funny

      n00b

    40. Re:moto by dotancohen · · Score: 2, Funny

      You skipped over VI, dumbass.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    41. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      maybe that's why Rush has moved to Mac

      Au contraire, he has been a Mac user since before being a Mac user was cool. Probably before most on slashdot. He was bleating about how great his Mac was when I first started listening to him (which, by the way, was when his show was funny) during the 1st Gulf War.

      So, how's that taste?

    42. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mega dittos!

      Dittohead since '88 and counting.

    43. Re:moto by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      It's news because it's a known issue with Time Machine that now a high profile user is raising

      Why should a "high profile user", i.e. "some rich and famous drug addict" have to raise issues before something is fixed?

      This isn't an Apple problem, it's not an IT problem, its the single biggest thing that's wrong with the USA.

      Apple's bugs need to be fixed before the damned machine goes into production. Ditto Microsoft, ditto Dell, ditto every other god damned corporation.

      Damn, I'm in a bad mood and clicked on the one with the foot icon trying to get a laugh. Instead I'm in an even worse mood. Does anybody have any good funny journals? Even Dilbert wasn't funny today (it should have been considering its nerdiness, must be just me this morning)

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    44. Re:moto by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      Indeed, all opinions are equally valid and deserve consideration. The liberals are hypocrites for preaching cultural relativism but not practicing it.

    45. Re:moto by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

      but which one was which?

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    46. Re:moto by halivar · · Score: 2

      Yeah, he should be thankful his Mac even boots! Ingrate.

    47. Re:moto by mik · · Score: 1
      Heh:

      Ah, the arrogance of the right. What is it about you people that means you can't accept the fact that people may have considered an issue as carefully as you have and simply come to a different conclusion? But no, there is one correct answer, and it's the one you have (shades of Stalin's historical inevitability there) and anyone who disagrees needs re-education, or is misled, or brainwashed by lying liberal media etc etc
      See - it doesn't work that way, either.
    48. Re:moto by NewAndFresh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What is it about you people that means you can't accept the fact that people may have considered an issue as carefully as you have and simply come to a different conclusion?
      1) History.
      2) Open debates.
      3) Ideas founded on reality, instead of fear.
      4) Although many things are, you can't pretend everything is somehow neutral. Some things are right, and some things are wrong.
      Wouldn't you agree that sometimes there is a wrong way and sometimes there is a right way?
      5) Your leaders. (that's enough right there)
      6) Republican values tend to come from "faith based organizations," as opposed to open discussion and debate.
      7) Enough homophobia to shake a stick at.
      --
      Welcome to Costco, I love you.
    49. Re:moto by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Ah, the arrogance of the right. What is it about you people that means you can't accept the fact that people may have considered an issue as carefully as you have and simply come to a different conclusion?

      But no, there is one correct answer, and it's the one you have (shades of Mussolini's historical inevitability there) and anyone who disagrees needs re-education, or is misled, or brainwashed by lying left wing propaganda etc etc

      BTW, I used to split my vote between Republicans and Democrats. Now I split it between Greens and Libertarians. A pox on both your houses.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    50. Re:moto by archen · · Score: 1

      It's not that far off however. I mean I've often thought long and hard about many things I've come to the conclusion of, and I'm obviously not going to believe in things I think are incorrect. So logically from my perspective the other side would be wrong. However if you go a step farther you understand that people reach conclusions for different reasons, and that you can be just as delusional on any given topic as anyone. The "I'm right and you're wrong" mentality is now so common on both sides mainly due to media fueling polarization and a bit to the entire (American but not unique to us) attitude of "winner vs loser".

    51. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Church of Satan uses Macs....I rememeber that they used webojects a few years back. In Fact, Apple had to file a cease and decesit order because of that.

    52. Re:moto by daivzhavue · · Score: 4, Funny

      VI??? Emacs.

      --
      "A REAL computer has ONE speed and the only powersaving it permits is when you pull the power leads out of the back!"
    53. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      How do you do that? Throwing a racism-inspired term like "riced out" into an ad hominem scree about Rush Limbaugh must have required some astonishing mental gymnastics -- or maybe you just slipped?

    54. Re:moto by southpolesammy · · Score: 1

      I read the above statement as:

      There are 2 people who actually believe him.

      Was hoping my dyslexia had subsided for a moment...

      --
      Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    55. Re:moto by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      The liberals are hypocrites for preaching cultural relativism but not practicing it.


      Whoa! Hold on thar pardner. Your first sentence was correct but your second one needs to be reconsidered. While yes, there are those on the left who say one thing and do another, there are just as many, if not more, folks on the right who are just as hypocritical. Let's use the current financial mess the country is in.

      As a rule, those on the right will talk about free markets and capitalism working more efficiently than government programs. However, who are the ones shouting the loudest for the government to bail out banks, mortgage lenders, home builders and related folks? Yes, people like Hillary and Obama but also folks like Larry Kudlow and Jim Cramer. In fact, despite his supposed anti-government, pro-business stance, Larry is undoubtedly the loudest cheerleader for the government to solve problems created by the free market.

      The same goes with subsidies for farmers and tax breaks for oil companies. If the free market is so great, how come we haven't gotten rid of those tax breaks for oil companies who are making billions of dollars in profits each quarter? What about the subsidies for ethanol production? If the free market is supposed to solve our problems, let the ethanol industry do its own work.

      Then there is the issue of gay marriage. Whenever you talk to people who claim to be conservatives, invariably they will say they don't want the government telling them how to live their lives. Yet, when gay marriage is brought up, the first thing these same people will tell you is the government should outlaw it.

      The same situation exists about flag burning. Everyone is entitled to their free speech rights except when it comes to flag burning.

      Then there is the whole religion issue. If you even think about doing something that the right believes will be an infringement on their religious (i.e. Christian) principles, they'll raise holy hell (pun intended). However, if an atheist or wiccan wants to espouse their views or have their views included, well that ain't right. Those heathens should be tarred and feathered.

      See what I'm getting at? Most people are willing to talk the talk but few are actually willing to walk the walk. For all their talk of smaller, less intrusive government, lower government spending and related matters, the conservative wing of politics in this country has done the complete opposite. This administration alone has had the greatest expansion of government since FDR and this was when there was a Republican president and Repubican-controlled Congress.

      You might want to look in the mirror the next time you think only one side are hypocrites.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    56. Re:moto by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Serves me right for lurking for years before registering ;)

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    57. Re:moto by mik · · Score: 1, Insightful
      No - all opinions deserve consideration, but it specious to think that all opinions are equally valid: in particular, liberals find opinions that argue for a reduction of choice repugnant.

      Liberals do not preach relativism as such but rather diversity - they look dumb when they feel compelled to support extreme positions on principle rather than on substance ("Um, yah, I hate what the Nazis are saying, but I think they ought to be able to say it.") Conservatives look dumb when they make meta-arguments about so-called-accepting liberals not accepting their perspective ("Poor oppressed little me: the nasty liberals don't love my hate"). Mainly, liberals and conservatives talk past each other - obscuring what they actually care about with words they think will successfully prove their points.

      Look at it this way: liberals seek to optimize society through a Genetic Algorithm or Simulated Annealing, Conservatives through Hillclimbing./geek

      Liberals fear stagnation, Conservatives fear chaos.

    58. Re:moto by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      Heh. You and me both buddy.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    59. Re:moto by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 4, Funny

      What? My hearing aid isn't working today.

    60. Re:moto by dcollins · · Score: 2, Funny

      What is it about the right that you always go in for the ad hominem attacks?

      Ah, that's right, because you're self-absorbed, whored-out assholes.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    61. Re:moto by Malevolent+Tester · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1) History. Last I checked, every attempt at socialism had failed. Egalitarian policies have destroyed public education. Unionised businesses are collapsing left, right and centre. Welfare has turned inner cities into crime ridden Third World hellholes.

      2) Open debates. Not really. Go to a left wing meeting and say you think blacks are genetically less intelligent. Much the same reception as you'd get promoting a 90% tax rate at a Libertarian convention, though probably more shrill. Open debate only works when no possibility is dismissed out of hand. As you're starting from a predetermined political viewpoint, that's not going to be possible.

      3) Ideas founded on reality, instead of fear. "Bush is going to reintroduce conscription"."The Patriot Act will lead to concentration camps"."Global warming will kill us all"."Dominionists are going to introduce a 10 Commandments based theocracy". You were saying?

      4) Although many things are, you can't pretend everything is somehow neutral. Some things are right, and some things are wrong. Wouldn't you agree that sometimes there is a wrong way and sometimes there is a right way? Of course. There are idiots relying on blind faith comes on both sides - the only difference is, the Christian right, for example, will at least admit their views are based on blind faith. The left merely substitutes the State for God, and sociology, women's studies and other non falsifiable circle jerks for Scripture.

      5) Your leaders. (that's enough right there) I'm not American, so I've got no idea of who else stands in comparison with Ted Kennedy and Clinton, but I don't think you've got anything to crow about here.

      6) Republican values tend to come from "faith based organizations," as opposed to open discussion and debate. See #2 and 4#.

      7) Enough homophobia to shake a stick at. I really fail to see the relevance here. (Some) right wingers hate gays, (some) left wingers hate men, the middle class, whites, Christians and their own country. How does anyone of that automatically verify someone's beliefs?
      --
      If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
    62. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're also for overhyped, hate-spewing hypocrite windbags? That doesn't seem like much of an ad campaign.

    63. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oddly enough, I remember when I was a neocon and a listener of Limbaugh, how he promoted the use of Macbooks. He really thought, and apparently still does, they were good machines. Strange bedfellows and all.

    64. Re:moto by way2slo · · Score: 1

      I listen to his show. Sometime after that, someone from Apple called him about it. I don't know if they helped him fix it, though. He mentioned that someone from the board of directors was involved, then Mr. Snerdly asked if it was Al Gore. :)

    65. Re:moto by mopower70 · · Score: 1

      Ah, the arrogance of the right. What is it about you people that means you don't care whether or not people have considered an issue as carefully as you have: if they come to a different conclusion you will do everything in your power to legislate, demonize, criminalize, or bully them out of existence?

      That's the difference between the left and right. The left is too arrogant to acknowledge they might be wrong, but at least allows those they disagree with to indulge in their ignorance. The right doesn't even get around to questioning the matter - they're too busy trying to stamp out anything that opposes them.

    66. Re:moto by kriebz · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your retort was well written, but it boils down to "I know you are but what am I?". You called gp out on being one-sided, but didn't address his point properly. Not saying it's worth your time to do so, though.

    67. Re:moto by nanoakron · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Ah, the idiocy of the right. What is it about you people that means you can't accept the fact that better educated, more intelligent people may have considered an issue more carefully than you have and simply come to a different conclusion?

      But no, there is one correct answer, and it's the one I have (shades of Marx's historical inevitability there) and anyone who disagrees needs re-education, or is misled, or brainwashed by lying right wing propaganda etc etc

    68. Re:moto by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 0, Redundant

      A: One is a flaming nazi gasbag. The other is a zeppelin.

    69. Re:moto by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

      I listen to Rush just for laughs too! I religiously tune him in 3 hours a day just so I can shake my head and mutter "What kinds of idiots actually listen to this crap?!" O.o

    70. Re:moto by budgenator · · Score: 1

      bah in my day we had to jack up the rear tire and hook a belt over it to run the generator, and hand crank the engine to get enough electricity to even think about booting our computers!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    71. Re:moto by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      Applause.

    72. Re:moto by t0rkm3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are some valid issues raised there. Unfortunately, according to the nature of man everyone is a hypocrite, you just have to wait long enough for them to espouse views that seem mutually exclusive. Those views may not at odds at all, provided you have the correct context.

      Cramer, of Kudlow and Cramer, is a shill and villain. He himself admits that at times he has manipulated reporters to get a better stock price for himself. (That goes back to my First LAW: Trust no-one on television.)

      Tax breaks for oil companies? It's actually a suspension of wack-ass royalties or a method of paying a company back for royalties they have to pay to another government on oil. Otherwise, they don't drill or do neat things like bitumen reclamation because it would take at least fifteen years to break even. (Unless you don't like plastics, nuclear materials, and your car I would look elsewere.) It's an attempt to balance out gov't interference with more gov't interference. Sort of like tax rebates, not the optimal solution but better than a sharp stick in the eye. (Disclosure: I work for one of the top 10 oil companies in the world. I used to work for a largish movie studio, trust me, Hollywood's fucking you hard. The oil guys are generally cleaner about their business.)

      I'm atheist, and I'm anti-gay marriage. Not in the ceremonial sense of the word. I think you can do whatever you like as far as ceremonies are concerned. However, I do think that the gov't should encourage breeding amongst people who are productive as they tend to produce more productive people. (There is a bell curve here, the 2nd generation wealthy tend to be schleps.) Gay's have a particularly hard to cross threshold regarding the breeding thing. It's inconvenient and inefficient for them.

      Flag burning sucks. What a bestial and primitive way to express yourself. It is protected speech. If only I could get punching people like that in the nose declared protected speech. Almost makes me as angry as those wack-ass evangelicals screaming at soldier's funerals.

      As an atheist, I have never found it difficult to express my views. As a rule atheists spend more time attempting to restrict religious people than the reverse. Mucking about with Christmas and Hannukah traditions is just rude. Your argument is a bit of a canard. Atheists need to spend less time trying convert people and more time showing that you can lead a moral and kind life without a paternal heirarchy based on imaginary friends.

      Just one conservative guy's $0.02.

    73. Re:moto by budgenator · · Score: 1

      that' off topic because this is a Mac threat and Ford's Sync runs on pukey windoses

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    74. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol ... Odd, but isn't that like the pot calling the kettle black?

      Personally, I find it funny how many people believe in the party system ;~]

    75. Re:moto by siesindallerscheisse · · Score: 1

      "Ah, the idiocy of the right. What is it about you people that means you can't accept the fact that better educated, more intelligent people may have considered an issue more carefully than you have and simply come to a different conclusion?"

      What does that have to do with the left?

    76. Re:moto by jbrw · · Score: 5, Funny

      I remember when all of this was green pastures.

    77. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot about the hundreds of thousands who had already been killed by the people we went there to fight.

    78. Re:moto by Malevolent+Tester · · Score: 1

      Really? Google "no platform". Alternatively, look at the treatment of any academic who dares question any of the left's sacred cows. Look at the anti-racism laws in Europe that limit free speech to what is considered acceptable by the left. Intolerance of differing viewpoints knows no political allegiance. It's a function of insecurity, not ideology.

      --
      If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
    79. Re:moto by Malevolent+Tester · · Score: 1

      I'd be willing to bet money that Enoch Powell was better educated and more intelligent than any of the race relations industry. Does that mean the UK should consider compulsory repatriation? Or does it mean that no matter how many languages you speak, how many books you've written, how respected your views are in academia, you can still be completely, utterly and totally wrong?

      --
      If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
    80. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we could treat this as what it is-- a guy who's genuinely annoyed with a bug he can't get resolution for from Apple.

      I think that we all just believe that the guy (Rush) should get the same politically biased reactionary crap, that he manages to spew out every day.

    81. Re:moto by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's why Rush said "... You love Al Gore -- and by the way, I've got no problem with him now,... "! I remember when Jerry Pournelle was doing the "Computing at Chaos Manner" in Byte and he's call some VP at Microsoft to get a problem resolved; after a while he figured out that by going to the normal help-desk he got faster results because there wasn't some VP playing middleman and slowing the process down.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    82. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago," Obama said during a luncheon meeting with editors and reporters of Tribune newspapers. "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute." -- Barack Obama, as quoted in the Chicago Tribune on 2004 July 27.
    83. Re:moto by Samster33 · · Score: 1

      He's been passing regular drug tests since 2003. It was wrong of him to get addicted to prescription painkillers I know, but seriously, why can't people just let it go and move on?

    84. Re:moto by giminy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Last I checked, every attempt at socialism had failed. Egalitarian policies have destroyed public education. Unionised businesses are collapsing left, right and centre. Welfare has turned inner cities into crime ridden Third World hellholes.

      Last I checked, the United States is doing quite well. Our government hires about 15% of the population directly, and has another 20-25% of the population hired under direct contract work. These are rough numbers, but I did spend a while working in .GOV research labs, and as a .GOV contractor. I definitely saw just how much money is flowing through the things. I could make a pretty good argument that the rest of the economy moves from these spenders (I win a government contract, and use the money to buy computers [dell's income], add an addition to my house [construction workers], buy beer, etc, with the government taking a chunk of each purchase along the way for recycling to pay me more contract money in the future). When we had a depression, we worked to solve the problem by creating the Civilian Conservation Core, setting up government crop buybacks, etc. Now that we're in a recession, our government is handing us all money. Economies are just measures of money moving, and there's no better mover of money than the government...I'd consider the US a democratic republic with socialist leanings.

      7) Enough homophobia to shake a stick at.
      I really fail to see the relevance here. (Some) right wingers hate gays, (some) left wingers hate men, the middle class, whites, Christians and their own country. How does anyone of that automatically verify someone's beliefs?

      My guess is that the GP is noting that, in the US, the political right tends to rally behind anti-gay candidates (both the government officials, and their voters). The GP is making a generality here, for sure, but the generality is at least backed up by the fact that the majority of the political right has this sentiment (or such candidates would not consistently win the vote).

      What's most amusing to me is how many of the anti-gay candidates end up rubbing people's ankles in the bathroom (senators, leaders of the christian coalition, etc). Not that the left is any better. I only wish that such political folks would work a little more to understand themselves, and that their constituents would work a little more to understand their leader. That shall continue to be my wish...

      --
      The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
    85. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Dittohead since '88 and counting.

      This is the year you run out of fingers and toes.

    86. Re:moto by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      "instead of the usual "Republicans are evil" flamefest, we could treat this as what it is-- a guy who's genuinely annoying"

      Fixed.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    87. Re:moto by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      Of course, there will be the standard set of "evil people use Macs?" Odd, I would have expected "evil people can't figure out how to use Macs" instead.
    88. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you feel entitled to start the fight with flamebait? WTF?

    89. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7) Enough homophobia to shake a stick at.

      Name calling may postpone the issues but it doesn't change the growing problem of homosexuality. The longer it goes unsolved, the larger the backlash once the effectiveness of attacking people with the 'homophobia' labels wears off.

    90. Re:moto by arexu · · Score: 1

      You two probably remember when he was 'Farmboy Neal"...

      --
      I'd love to help you out -- which way did you come in?
    91. Re:moto by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      It's still that same ugly green to me. Maybe your monitor's flaky?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    92. Re:moto by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Because he himself said we shouldn't.
      "Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods, which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."

      So when is he going to get "sent up" and start putting his fat ass where his mouth is?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    93. Re:moto by geekoid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Except this person is know to intentionally flame, lie, and has a myopic view of the world.

      So if you want a reasonable debate, he can't not be involved in any way.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    94. Re:moto by FatherOfONe · · Score: 1

      While I am against war in general, your comments sound very similar to those statements that kept the U.S.A. out of WWII until it was attacked.

      I have no clue how many people have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since the war started, nor do I know how many were killed by mustard gas by Saddam after Iraq failed in their attempt to take Kuwait in the first gulf war. You throw out numbers, but one thing I am sure of is that those numbers are pretty much made up. I do know that one (of many) safe havens for radical Muslims no longer exist and a leader who thought he had a nuclear program for weapons to wipe out Israel (and hurt the U.S.A.) is gone.

      So in short, I guess neither one of us know how many people would be dead if the U.S.A. (and others) didn't go to war. Would it be more? Would it be Israel, U.S.A. and European people that would be dead as opposed to those that are dead now? Is the world a safer place now than it would have been? What exactly happens if Israel gets destroyed? I am sure of the fact that you and I would disagree on the above answers much like those in the past that thought Hitler would be fine with Poland, and those who didn't. I am positive that you and I would also agree about how to handle Iran, but that is a topic for another day...

      Now, back on topic.

      I personally hope that Apple responds to Rush and helps him with this problem. Apple can use all the help it can get and I would hope that a company that appears to love diversity as much as Apple does (transvestite days...) will respect the views of others and still help them out. If I was Apple I would use this as an opportunity for some free advertising, and "fix" the apparent problem and perhaps even have some PR person do a talk on his show. Obviously I wouldn't have them talk politics, but about Apple products and how they are customer focused. A ton of people that listen to his show are "stuck" with Windows machines and if they see great support and hear about alternatives they may give Apple a shot. It isn't that hard to turn this small negative experience into a huge plus for Apple.

      Lastly, I want to say again that I am in no way a fan of war, but when the enemies of the U.S.A. are mad, that probably means the U.S.A. is doing the write thing. Also, I am not a Muslim, and would rather die than convert to that faith, so I guess, by those in power in some middle eastern countries I AM already at war. That being the case, it is a war that I don't intend on loosing. I like our freedom of religion, and woman having EQUAL rights.

      --
      The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
    95. Re:moto by LarsG · · Score: 1

      Dinosaur.

      --
      If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
    96. Re:moto by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't some MUAs still use the mbox which is a flat single file format which would make restoring a single deleted email a bit difficult

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    97. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like an accurate description of most iFans to me...

    98. Re:moto by Cordova · · Score: 1

      Thought I was old school. But, I do believe I've been way out gunned.

      --
      My microbes must have translated that wrong! - Aeryn Sun
    99. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you rock!!

    100. Re:moto by 2short · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Welfare has turned inner cities into crime ridden Third World hellholes."

      Having lived in a couple of the worst inner cities in the US, and visited the third world, I can tell you haven't.

      "Open debate only works when no possibility is dismissed out of hand."

      What a ridiculous statement. Let us consider at length the possibility that your brain is made of turnips. We can't have an open debate if we dismiss this out of hand. Do you think trepanation would be the best route for investigation?

    101. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a total fag!

    102. Re:moto by CyberSnyder · · Score: 1

      I thought I was doing good with a 4 digit ID. I bow to your lowerness.

    103. Re:moto by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about the first item, I always figured that he just pandered to the neocon Republicans because it made money for him, he's first and for most an entertainer so he's going to play to his demo.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    104. Re:moto by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      You left out the hinge: "considered an issue more carefully"

    105. Re:moto by ROU+Nuisance+Value · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I remember when all you warty old farts were horny teens.

    106. Re:moto by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      I'm atheist, and I'm anti-gay marriage. Not in the ceremonial sense of the word. I think you can do whatever you like as far as ceremonies are concerned. However, I do think that the gov't should encourage breeding amongst people who are productive as they tend to produce more productive people. (There is a bell curve here, the 2nd generation wealthy tend to be schleps.) Gay's have a particularly hard to cross threshold regarding the breeding thing. It's inconvenient and inefficient for them.

      Marriage isn't just about breeding. Our society has a lot of fringe benefits that go along with marriage. There are tax advantages. Spouses have the right to make medical decisions for each other and are the default executors of each other's estate. There is no valid reason to prohibit gays from enjoying these benefits. Arbitrarily preventing some couples to enjoy the benefits others are allowed to have is the same as forcing black people to sit in the back of the bus because 'whites are naturally superior'.

      As for the yahoos that want a constitutional amentment to prohibit gay marriage, I say we should strip these people of their right to vote and hold elected office. These people exhibit a complete lack of understanding of the purpose of the constitution. It it solely intended to restrict the powers of government and not supposed to be a tool to restrict the liberties of the citizenry. This mistake was made once with prohibition. We don't need to do it again.

      Remember, Bush the elder once stated that he thought atheists should be deported. Just because. These are the sort of people you are allying yourself with.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    107. Re:moto by e4g4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm atheist, and I'm anti-gay marriage ... However, I do think that the gov't should encourage breeding amongst people who are productive as they tend to produce more productive people. (There is a bell curve here, the 2nd generation wealthy tend to be schleps.) Gay's have a particularly hard to cross threshold regarding the breeding thing. It's inconvenient and inefficient for them. This struck me as somewhat disconnected from the reality of marriage in this country. First of all, the *only* requirement for marriage in this country is that one person is a man, and the other is a woman (and they're not related). There is nothing requiring both parties to be productive members of society, nor is there a requirement of compatibility in a marriage, nor is there any restriction whatsoever on breeding. There are plenty of statistics to show that the most "productive" members of society (as measured by level of education or income bracket) have far fewer children than the least "productive" members of society. Furthermore, married couples with no children pay *more* in taxes than they would if they each remained single, regardless of whether or not they file jointly or separately. Even better, a divorced couple with joint custody of the children will pay *less* in total taxes than they would as a married couple (assuming their aggregate gross income is the same in both cases). So where is this encouragement you speak of, and how does gay marriage have any impact at all?
      --
      The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
    108. Re:moto by Malevolent+Tester · · Score: 2, Funny

      Having lived in a couple of the worst inner cities in the US, and visited the third world, I can tell you haven't. Mogadisu 87-89, does that count?

      What a ridiculous statement. Let us consider at length the possibility that your brain is made of turnips. We can't have an open debate if we dismiss this out of hand. I'd dismiss it because of the reasons my brain couldn't be made of turnips. Dismissing it out of hand would be claiming that we couldn't suggest this because it was offensive to those whose brains are made of carrots.
      --
      If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
    109. Re:moto by ROU+Nuisance+Value · · Score: 0, Troll

      Note that moto's mishmosh of received opinion from talk radio is +5 Insightful. Another example disproving the assumption that /. moderators are all leftists (or have IQs above 5).

    110. Re:moto by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1, Funny

      Q: What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg?


      One has had said about it, "Oh, the humanity...", and the other, "Oh, the huge mantitties..."
      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    111. Re:moto by Malevolent+Tester · · Score: 1

      Anyone who isn't left wing has an IQ below 5? Would you care to prove my original point any harder?

      --
      If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
    112. Re:moto by Goldarn · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, every attempt at socialism had failed. Last I checked, every attempt at capitalism had failed.

      Oh, wait, maybe we'd better define "success" first. I define it as everyone in a country has access to housing, food, good education, health care, work, transportation, etc. & etc. I don't care how we get that, but IMO you don't have a successful country is some of the people can't get some of that when they need it.

      If you define "success" as "some people have a lot of money, and who cares about the rest," then a lot of capitalist countries were successful. You see, it all depends on your definition of success.
    113. Re:moto by knisa · · Score: 1

      No - all opinions deserve consideration, but it specious to think that all opinions are equally valid: in particular, liberals find opinions that argue for a reduction of choice repugnant.

      ---

      I think you'll find that liberals are perfectly happy to reduce choice; they are just picky about what choices they reduce.

      For example, the DeKalb shooting yesterday. Thanks to liberals that took place in a gun-free zone. They reduced the choices of manners of self-defense available to those who were there. Had someone been carrying their own firearm they could have taken out the shooter before eighteen people were hit. Because liberals believe in the goodness of all mankind or some such tripe (as someone pointed out above, a delusional thought when you look at history), they've run with the belief that criminals and nutjobs will obey "victim disarmament zones".

      The other one is abortion. Liberals all want to say it's about a woman's choice with regard to when she should do with her own body. Never mind the personal responsibility the woman has to not get pregnant in the first place. Never mind the fact that by giving the woman the right to kill you're taking away the right of the baby to live.

      I'm not trying to get into a massive argument here, because I know that nobody is going to change their mind. I merely wanted to point out that liberals are perfectly willing to reduce choice for anyone that doesn't fit their mold.

      --
      This space for rent.
    114. Re:moto by Altus · · Score: 1


      please, the arrogance you reference is at least as common on the right as on the left.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    115. Re:moto by Altus · · Score: 1


      I think his point was that neither side smells like a rose and the sooner people start to realize that the better.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    116. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I so cool, I don't even have a number. I'm off the grid man!

    117. Re:moto by Trillian_1138 · · Score: 1

      I'm atheist, and I'm anti-gay marriage. Not in the ceremonial sense of the word. I think you can do whatever you like as far as ceremonies are concerned. However, I do think that the gov't should encourage breeding amongst people who are productive as they tend to produce more productive people. (There is a bell curve here, the 2nd generation wealthy tend to be schleps.) Gay's have a particularly hard to cross threshold regarding the breeding thing. It's inconvenient and inefficient for them.


      I wanted to respond to this, as I agree with another response stating it doesn't seem to be a fully thought-out argument.

      For what it's worth, I applaud you for acknowledging that ceremonies are not the place of government. If a church (or synagogue or mosque or even a non-religious institution) wants to ceremonially marry two people - even if they're not a man and a woman - it's not the place of anyone else to say they can't or shouldn't.

      That said, I'm somewhat confused by your assumptions that A) allowing marriage is solely (or primarily) to encourage breeding and B) breeding is the sole (or primary) means of determining productivity.

      I readily acknowledge that marriage is, in modern American society, very linked to having children. Marriage provides legal protections and benefits for both partners, and for their children. However, it provides benefits to both partners above and beyond those concerning their children - inheritance rights, medical rights, tax benefits, and more. Likewise, following your line of thinking, heterosexual couples who can't reproduce should be discouraged from marrying (please correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth - that's not my goal). Sterile individuals shouldn't be allowed to marry at all, as they're just as able to produce biological children as gay couples. So, all in all, I think your assertion that marriage is primarily about breeding is way off the mark.

      As for breeding being how we determine productivity in modern America, I don't even know where to start. Going along the line of logic outlined above, is my post-menopausal mother no longer a productive member of society? Did family friends who adopted a child less 'productive' because they didn't pass on their genetic material? It just doesn't work that way.

      I'd love to hear your response to any or all of what I've said. Again, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if I misinterpreted anything you wrote.
      -Trillian
    118. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Btw. is there a market for low Slashdot IDs? My offer: $5,000 for a 10k ID.

    119. Re:moto by mpeg4codec · · Score: 1

      Actually, Anonymous Coward is UID 666.

    120. Re:moto by tungstencoil · · Score: 1

      Where are my ++mod points when I need them? Well put, well put.

    121. Re:moto by Gat0r30y · · Score: 1

      I do think that the gov't should encourage breeding amongst people who are productive as they tend to produce more productive people
      Dude, did you just propose a Federal Sex Bureau?

      Otherwise, they don't drill Really? You genuinely believe that without tax breaks oil companies will stop drilling with Sweet Light at 100$ a barrel?
      I just don't see oil companies in such a desperate position. They can still deliver shareholder value, and invest in new capital without the US Government's help or hindrance.
      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    122. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you may not have found it hard to express your beliefs, but that could be dependent upon what part of the country you have lived your life IN and what social strata you occupy.

      Trust me it gets a lot gamier in other parts of the country and at other social strata!

      But it is not just about expressing your atheism... no it is also about expressing any other minority religious opinion. And trust me on this one you really, really, really want to nip that kind of thing in the bud: In the past I have had 1500 family members butchered by OTHER family members because one prayed in Latin and the other in Gaelic.

      It is in the states best interest to enforce neutrality of religion in the public square for exactly the reason that when it does not it can and has historically lead to excesses and deaths.

      As to gay marriage?

      Your argument like all the conservative ones against it fails: It breaks down because Gays are CITIZENS and are entitled to equal protection under the law. And since married couples have a group of legal benefits deriving from their status Gays are entitled to those self same benefits.

      We are either all equal or we are not. You either believe in the greatest of founding principles of this nation or you do not.

      And from the "productive" people schtick I would say that in your heart of hearts you would argue that. And that sums up the totality of what is wrong with modern conservatism: It is in opposition to American principles at it' base level.

      Because trust me you don't want people to ever start going down that path of who deserves what depending upon what they view as being productive....

      You won't like the results. And the generations after you will mourn them like every other bit of evil inflicted by one man against another on a mass scale. Because the root of it IS evil all that can grow from it is tainted by that evil and diminishes man as a whole.

    123. Re:moto by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Ahh, were you poor wingnut modderes feeling victimized this morning?

    124. Re:moto by CheekyBastard · · Score: 1

      "Not really. Go to a left wing meeting and say you think blacks are genetically less intelligent. Much the same reception as you'd get promoting a 90% tax rate at a Libertarian convention, though probably more shrill. Open debate only works when no possibility is dismissed out of hand. As you're starting from a predetermined political viewpoint, that's not going to be possible." Wrong. Being able to spout ridiculous comments like 'blacks are genetically less intelligent' is no more conducive to open debate than yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is to free speech. With freedom comes responsibility, so you don't make comments like that unless you can damn sure back it up.

      Of course. There are idiots relying on blind faith comes on both sides - the only difference is, the Christian right, for example, will at least admit their views are based on blind faith. The left merely substitutes the State for God, and sociology, women's studies and other non falsifiable circle jerks for Scripture. Really? Then please tell me how we ended up with Creationism and Intelligent Design "theories" being shoved down our throats by these Christians. No Christian I have ever met has ever referred to their faith as 'blind'. Every single one tries to back it up with pseudo-science. If practitioners would actually admit their beliefs were absolutely blind and completely unverifiable; I'd imagine we'd have fewer problems, at least in the US.

    125. Re:moto by ChasmoeBrown · · Score: 1

      Rush uses Macs - who'd a thunk it? There may be hope for that fat fuck yet. . .

    126. Re:moto by nickname29 · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, the United States is doing quite well.

      The United States is fairly right (i.e. high economic freedom). Compare your tax rate to most European countries tax rate - there is quite a difference.

      I definitely saw just how much money is flowing through the things.

      A government does not make money. It merely takes money (tax) and redistributes it - a small portion of the money do end up in the market again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge WP. But this simply reduces the overall efficiency of the market.

      When we had a depression

      Some people (including Alan Greenspan) believes that the Federal Reserve (thus the government) created the depression.

      Economies are just measures of money moving, and there's no better mover of money than the government

      Wrong again. Austrian economics showed that the most effective system is a free market. The problem is that central planning simply does not work.

    127. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where hundreds of thousands died I'm starting to get tired of this statement. It makes it sound like everything was fine there before the US showed up. Given that region's history, in the same timespan that the US has been there it is likely that "hundreds of thousands" would have died/killed/genocide even without help from the US.
      I know that's not a great excuse for the current situation, but there is a certain inevitability when it comes to conflict in the middle-east.

      Can you find a 10 yr period in that region's history where there hasn't been mass killings?
    128. Re:moto by ryder · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ah, there you are enry... be a good lad and fetch my coffee!

    129. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the year you run out of fingers and toes.


      Guess he's got one more year ;)
    130. Re:moto by lauless · · Score: 1

      I'm in the same boat. Lurkers unite!

    131. Re:moto by Tesen · · Score: 1

      With all those prescription drugs, yeah I'd say Rush is pretty high...

    132. Re:moto by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      If you are referring to the current war in Iraq, the total body count is simply not reliably available. Documented violent deaths are about 100,000. Numbers as high as 3/4 million come from household surveys, but (in my opinion) those are extrapolations and include multiple counts per death.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    133. Re:moto by psychicninja · · Score: 1

      It'd be kind of nice if instead of the usual "Republicans are evil" flamefest, we could treat this as what it is--
      You know, that kinda reminds me of my old friend Bill Hicks...
    134. Re:moto by lauless · · Score: 1

      In my best Bill and Ted voice... "We're not worthy!"

    135. Re:moto by 2short · · Score: 1


      What American city do you suggest is just as bad as Mogadisu? I've not been to Mogadisu, but from what I do know of it, I'd rather live in any American city whatsoever.

      You contrast two ideas: That blacks are genetically inferior, and that a 90% tax rate would be a good idea. Both are clearly stupid ideas on the merits, there is no evidence either is true, there is plenty of evidence both are false. One is offensive and stupid, while the other is merely stupid, so while claiming blacks are inferior might cause some to dismiss you on the basis of offensiveness alone, they'd be equally justified in dismissing you on the merits.

      Frankly, I'm mystified that you think the reception of either of these ideas would be substantially different amongst any US political group with more than 1% support. Both ideas are obvious idiocy, and wasting any time debating them would be dumb.

    136. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've been here since day 1 ;)

    137. Re:moto by midnighttoadstool · · Score: 1
      "the only difference is, the Christian right, for example, will at least admit their views are based on blind faith"

      Faith is defined as trusting in God because He has revealed himself; nothing blind about that.

      The origin of the word is 'steadfast' or 'loyal', and there was never any idea, until Pascal and Kierkegaard made their unhelpful contributions, that faith is blind/irrational. Trust, after all, only makes sense when trustworthiness is established. It is stupid to say "I'll trust you" to someone who hasn't earned it.

      Christians claim that God's revelation of himself is direct, and to any individual who sincerely and persistently asks for it; as Christ said "Knock and it shall be opened to you". It trumps the claim of the agnostic "It is impossible to prove the existence of a God", and doesn't do atheists many favours either.

      It may not solve the problem of why so many religions claim exclusivity (though they share more than they disagree on), but it is a rational basis for belief in the existence of God.

      "That God doesn't exist so faith must be blind" is presumption since it is impossible to prove that God doesn't exist, so far as anyone can tell.

    138. Re:moto by Muffhead · · Score: 1

      I always find these threads after everybody else with the four digits has posted.

      Bugger.

    139. Re:moto by ZombieRoboNinja · · Score: 1

      >>However, I do think that the gov't should encourage breeding amongst people who are productive as they tend to produce more productive people.

      Do you have any support for that belief? The majority of the highly-motivated people I know seem to come from mostly modest economic backgrounds.

      Your logic here also assumes:
      1. Gay people will enter reproductive heterosexual relationships if they're not allowed to marry.
      2. Gay people are more "productive" than straight people on average, thus making it benefit society to encourage them to breed.
      3. The government has any place at all performing that kind of social engineering.

      The funny thing is, your argument here (as you've defined it) is more totalitarian than libertarian. You're recommending exactly the kind of "social engineering" that conservatives used to decry Democrats for.

    140. Re:moto by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      VI??? Emacs. Emacs??? Butterflies.
      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    141. Re:moto by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "So when is he going to get "sent up" and start putting his fat ass where his mouth is?"

      Or better yet a public apology for his hypocrisy, expressing a new understanding of the pains of addiction and subsequent reversal of his stance against those who use drugs.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH, OMFG, HAHAHAHAAH sorry i tried to say that with a straight face but we all know that aint gonna happen.

    142. Re:moto by Technopaladin · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, every attempt at socialism had failed. Egalitarian policies have destroyed public education. Unionised businesses are collapsing left, right and centre. Welfare has turned inner cities into crime ridden Third World hellholes.

      -Last i checked Europe which is very socialistic isnt doing so bad..and China is on the brink of knocking us out and while they arent COMPLETE socialistic governments they do claim said title. Oh and 3rd world countries are famous for their welfare systems? Poverty exists in Capitalistic nations in SPADES.

      2) Open debates.
      Not really. Go to a left wing meeting and say you think blacks are genetically less intelligent. Much the same reception as you'd get promoting a 90% tax rate at a Libertarian convention, though probably more shrill. Open debate only works when no possibility is dismissed out of hand. As you're starting from a predetermined political viewpoint, that's not going to be possible.
      - Racism has no place in America. We should all strive to be more accepting of others.

      3) Ideas founded on reality, instead of fear.
      "Bush is going to reintroduce conscription"."The Patriot Act will lead to concentration camps"."Global warming will kill us all"."Dominionists are going to introduce a 10 Commandments based theocracy". You were saying?

      If you dont pass FISA we are gonna be attacked. If Democrats win we are gonna be attacked.

      4) Although many things are, you can't pretend everything is somehow neutral. Some things are right, and some things are wrong. Wouldn't you agree that sometimes there is a wrong way and sometimes there is a right way?
      Of course. There are idiots relying on blind faith comes on both sides - the only difference is, the Christian right, for example, will at least admit their views are based on blind faith. The left merely substitutes the State for God, and sociology, women's studies and other non falsifiable circle jerks for Scripture.

      - So as long as you admit where you get your ideas you are some how better for having bad ones?

      5) Your leaders. (that's enough right there)
      I'm not American, so I've got no idea of who else stands in comparison with Ted Kennedy and Clinton, but I don't think you've got anything to crow about here.

      You sound like one.

      6) Republican values tend to come from "faith based organizations," as opposed to open discussion and debate.
      See #2 and 4#.

      7) Enough homophobia to shake a stick at.
      I really fail to see the relevance here. (Some) right wingers hate gays, (some) left wingers hate men, the middle class, whites, Christians and their own country. How does anyone of that automatically verify someone's beliefs?

      Not sure what you are saying here.

      Pax

    143. Re:moto by ThePromenader · · Score: 1

      Parent has actually provided the solution. Forget Steve Jobs, someone send that guy to /... I hope he reads the whole thread.

      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
    144. Re:moto by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      VI??? EMACS?!!??

      I prefer Pico - it's the myspace of text editors.

    145. Re:moto by NewAndFresh · · Score: 1
      1) History.
      You immediately began to attack socialism. But this is not what I mean. I mean, when trying to decide the best course of action, "the right" tend to often ignore the lessons of history. One obvious example is the tendency of "the right" to support unnecessary wars. America has often been thrust into wars by sensationalist media and war profiteers. It would seem obvious that the US should not being sending it's children to die for trumped up reasons. The Iraq War Disaster, while reaching extremes never before seen, is nothing new to the US. (Let me know if want a US history lesson -I'm not being condescending, you said you are not from the US)
      Your actual response has been so taken apart by everyone here, I don't need to comment on it.
      2) Open debates

      Not really. Go to a left wing meeting and say you think blacks are genetically less intelligent

      Would you get different results at a "right-wing" meeting? Seriously. What meeting would you expect that question to fly in?
      I think CheekyBastard has a good response to your post in comment #22436746.
      3) Ideas founded on reality, instead of fear

      "Bush is going to reintroduce conscription"."The Patriot Act will lead to concentration camps"."Global warming will kill us all"."Dominionists are going to introduce a 10 Commandments based theocracy". You were saying?

      You have a point here. I should have said "Laws founded on reality, instead of fear."
      Thank you for clearing that up. Easy examples:
      Anti-gay legislation. Undeniably based on fear of homosexuality. Three strikes you're out policy in California and other states. Almost every drug law.
      "right wing" politicians (Republicans and Democrats -though mostly Republicans) are constantly using fear-mongering techniques to get votes. From "The evils of drugs" to "the evils of the internet."
      In fact, it would seem that fear-mongering is a defining characteristic of a "right-wing" politician.
      4) Although many things are, you can't pretend everything is somehow neutral. Some things are right, and some things are wrong.

      Of course. There are idiots relying on blind faith comes on both sides - the only difference is, the Christian right, for example, will at least admit their views are based on blind faith. The left merely substitutes the State for God, and sociology, women's studies and other non falsifiable circle jerks for Scripture.

      Do you have any examples of the Christian Right calling their faith blind? You just called women's studies a circle jerk. Sociology is a blind faith? What are you talking about? I think this is a good example of "right-wing" behavior.
      5) Your leaders. (that's enough right there)

      I'm not American, so I've got no idea of who else stands in comparison with Ted Kennedy and Clinton, but I don't think you've got anything to crow about here.

      You must have heard of George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Alberto Gonzales, etc. Senator Craig? Ted Stevens? I mean, these just popped into my head. The list really goes on and on. Sure, you'll find bad democrats too, but they outnumbered by far.
      You mention Bill Clinton. First off, Clinton was actually right-of-center. (Look at his foreign policy) But he wasn't "right" enough for the zealots. His big crime was to have an extra-marital affair. It sounds like a joke, I know, but this is real. He was almost impeached for a blow-job, and look what Bush and pals are getting away with. If don't see the obvious problems with this, well, let someone know and they'll explain it to you.
      7) Enough homophobia to shake a stick at.

      I really fail to see the relevance here. (Some) right wingers hate gays, (some) left wingers hate men, the middle class, whites, Christians and their own country. How does anyone of that automatically verify someone's beliefs?

      Even

      --
      Welcome to Costco, I love you.
    146. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "People like him cheerled us into a war"

      Wait you LET SOMEONE CHEERLEAD YOU INTO A WAR?

      What kind of spineless fuck allows that to happen?

      "It would be amusing"

      It would REALLY be amusing if people like you didn't blame their failure to stand up for what they believe by pretending someone else forced them to do something.

      Here's how I remember it going down (because, incidentally, unlike your fucked up storybook fantasy, this is how it actually happened)

      Bush : WE GOTTA GO TA WAR!!

      Everyone else : Meh.

      Bush : NO SERIOUSLY WE GOTTA GO TA WAR!!!!

      Everyone else : mmmmm yeah ok I guess.

      Now of course, you will pretend to be one of the people who was vehemently and demonstratively opposedto the war, but that won't get you anywhere because we all remember such people WERE NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. The "I opposed the war people" are like everyone who claims they were at Woodstock.

      But let's assume you were vehemently opposed to the war. WHERE THE FUCK WERE YOU? Because I definitely remember a dearth of public outcry, and what outcry there was was muted, half hearted, and easily silenced.

      So, Mr. "he cheeerled us into..." WHY THE FUCK WERE YOU SO WEAK OF MIND AND CONVICTION THAT YOU ALLOWED YOURSELF TO BE LED IN THE FIRST PLACE?

      Right. It's easy when you're a hanger on to pretend you were there from the start, but those of us who paid attention know better.

    147. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it really depends what your definition of socialism is, but I think it's hard to say that states like Scandinavian ones have "failed". Socialized medicine in Canada is not a "failure", bitch and whine as many Canadians will about it, nor is it a failure in Europe, and it is America that lags behind in life expectancy and infant mortality rates. That said, many attempts at social programs have failed in America, it's true, but that's hardly the be all and end all of the discussion, particularly since so much of the population is utterly opposed to such social tinkering.
      And in what way do you see "egalitarian policies" destroying public education in America? I don't really see the two things as being linked. American education is screwed up for a lot of reasons, the concept of giving everyone a decent education doesn't seem to be one of them to me.

    148. Re:moto by jimbojw · · Score: 3, Funny

      See, what some of you won't realize is that ryder's ID is really 7.

    149. Re:moto by Omestes · · Score: 1

      It'd be kind of nice if instead of the usual "Republicans are evil" flamefest, we could treat this as what it is-- a guy who's genuinely annoyed with a bug he can't get resolution for from Apple.

      I don't think he was implying that ALL Republican's are evil, just Mr. Limbaugh. You have to admit his is an especially virulent appendage to the republican party, who often spouts very nasty things. He and Coulter represent the lunatic fringe of the party (I hope). And in that spirit Job's is a damn hippy, though I don't know how far we can draw that since he is a successful capitalist who has been known to have some dubious practices, but his image is that of the ultra liberal.

      I think the ultimate classification of this story would be "vaguely ironic, but generally unnewsworthy".

      The funny thing to me, though, is that a mere pundit is asking the CEO of a large company for tech support.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    150. Re:moto by kir · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, we welcome our new whippersnapper overlords.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    151. Re:moto by andy314159pi · · Score: 1

      Our government hires about 15% of the population directly, and has another 20-25% of the population hired under direct contract work.
      The Federal government has about 1 million employees. There are 300 million people in America so that 0.33% of people are employeed directly by the Federal government.
    152. Re:moto by giminy · · Score: 1

      The Federal government has about 1 million employees. There are 300 million people in America so that 0.33% of people are employeed directly by the Federal government.

      That would be great if only the Federal government taxed us...

      --
      The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
    153. Re:moto by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      "What a ridiculous statement. Let us consider at length the possibility that your brain is made of turnips. We can't have an open debate if we dismiss this out of hand. Do you think trepanation would be the best route for investigation?"

      I believe that would fall under conjecture rather then a debate, since it's your best guess rather then forming the views on a standing issue. Unless you can start with a standing proof, then it remains where it is.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    154. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Last I checked, every attempt at socialism had failed. Egalitarian policies have destroyed public education. Unionised businesses are collapsing left, right and centre. Welfare has turned inner cities into crime ridden Third World hellholes.

      Huh? Are you confusing socialism with communism? Because Europe is doing quite well, has a better standard of living than the US, better infrastructure, and better education, for that matter.

      > Open debate only works when no possibility is dismissed out of hand. As you're starting from a predetermined political viewpoint, that's not going to be possible.

      No disagreement here. Every group has something that will get its members up in arms. Well, with possible exception of some pacifists, who don't have arms.

      > "Bush is going to reintroduce conscription".

      I misread that as 'corruption' at first.

      > "The Patriot Act will lead to concentration camps".

      Guantanamo Bay springs to mind.

      > "Global warming will kill us all". "Dominionists are going to introduce a 10 Commandments based theocracy". You were saying?

      Now those are fearmongering, even though global warming is real enough. It's biggest failing may be that the dangers are real, but not scary enough.

      > I'm not American, so I've got no idea of who else stands in comparison with Ted Kennedy and Clinton, but I don't think you've got anything to crow about here.

      Obama is looking like the best of the lot so far. Given time, though, I'm sure that people will find or invent reasons to hate him. It's pretty much the nature of politics.

    155. Re:moto by siesindallerscheisse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Wrong. Being able to spout ridiculous comments like 'blacks are genetically less intelligent' is no more conducive to open debate than yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is to free speech. With freedom comes responsibility, so you don't make comments like that unless you can damn sure back it up."

      Thank you so much for demonstrating exactly what he meant. You are an example of the very problem he was addressing.

      You have decided, without even hearing the argument. You dismiss it first, THEN go on to claim "you don't make comments like that unless you can damn sure back it up." What if he could? Had you even given him the chance to present his evidence before you declared his point "ridiculous". Why would someone even bother to converse with someone so closed minded as to dismiss a point before hearing the evidence?

      Were you genuinely interested in honest debate, your dismissal of said claim would be based on the evidence presented. Between reasonable people, we can both admit the claim stated would seem silly, but it was done for effect, and to prove a point. Some issues are so contentious that people will refuse to even discuss them, and quash ANY attempt at reasoned debate.

      And you just proved it.

    156. Re:moto by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      I remember when Karma wasn't capped at 50, and we knew that because the actual number was displayed.

      I remember when CowboyNeal wasn't in every poll. Somebody else was for a short while - I think it was Hemos?

      I remember when comments were numbered starting with 1, within each article - thus the race to get first post (comment #1).

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    157. Re:moto by giminy · · Score: 1

      A government does not make money. It merely takes money (tax) and redistributes it - a small portion of the money do end up in the market again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge [wikipedia.org] WP. But this simply reduces the overall efficiency of the market.

      I believe that there is a misunderstanding of my argument here. I am claiming exactly what you are saying in your first two sentences. The government creates monetary flow. At the end of the fiscal year, every government agency must have $0 in its coffers. In this, we agree. Where our opinions diverge is in whether this government intervention in an economy reduces efficiency. I believe that it is a great academic argument to make a claim one way or the other. But show me an economy where the central government takes no money for redistribution, and I'll show you a country that does not exist. Every government has to take some money from its economy, or it simply is not a government.

      I believe that, in many cases, the central government doing this creates market efficiencies (e.g. creating improved markets and new markets where none existed before). Look at the Internet for a great example. Without direct government intervention, the internet simply would not exist as a tool, and I would argue that without this tool, our economies would move far more slowly than they do today. Also look at the space program -- as a strictly free-market venture, companies would have given up on the idea of putting satellites into orbit because (initially) the risk was just too high. Now we have cheap satellite imagery, which has made economies far more efficient (crop production, mining, and even wars are made more efficient in both money and cost in human lives), as well as other fun satellite tech to help us in the future. When initial risk is too high, the basic research foundations for a market will never come about. This kind of risk is okay for a government, though, since it has no competition to worry about.

      I'm sure there are both positive and negative cases for both sides of this argument, though. Governments waste a lot money (slowing down the economy) through failed research/fraud/whatever a lot, just as they help (creating new markets) through research that is simply not feasible by a free market due to risk a lot. I place myself in the camp that we have to accept failure sometimes in experiment, as failure teaches us. In the end, I feel that humanity will not advance as quickly, or at all, in a strictly free market. We need the occasional government-sized initiative to make scientific discovery. Yes, it is possible that discoveries such as those I cited would have come about with government intervention, but to me it seems rather unlikely...

      --
      The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
    158. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marriage is not and should never be about financial incentives for procreation. The financial incentive is found in the Child Tax Credit. Furthermore, it betrays ignorance of either economics or real world to offer a monetary incentive for raising children. The marginal utility of any given amount of money $x is greater for low-income individuals and lower for high-income individuals; any incentive the government could afford would only incent low-income women to become pregnant. Such a system - ostensibly favored by conservatives - would therefore necessarily create more of the "welfare mothers" they so vitriolicly denounce.

      In sum, you have a fundamentally flawed and naive view of the nature of civil marriage, economics, life, the universe, and/or everything.

    159. Re:moto by hobbit · · Score: 1

      Even I remember all that, and I'm no spring chicken...

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    160. Re:moto by localman · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, every attempt at socialism had failed.

      Liberalism isn't socialism any more than conservatism is fascism. You are right that pure socialism has not done well. You might just as well note that nations attempting to run without any social services have not done well either. Can you point out a country with few or no social services where you'd like to live?

      Unions are part of a free market, aren't they? Your other option is government regulation, so I don't see your point there.

      I thought public education is generally superior in europe (based on testing) and they'd call American liberals "centrist".

      Go to a left wing meeting and say you think blacks are genetically less intelligent.

      Apparently you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion. Debates are for opinion. This question has been factually resolved for quite a while now. There's no need for anyone to get shrill about it, but there's not much point talking about it either other than to educate people who are ignorant about it.

      I really fail to see the relevance here. (Some) right wingers hate gays, (some) left wingers hate men, the middle class, whites, Christians and their own country. How does anyone of that automatically verify someone's beliefs?

      I can tell you live firmly in one camp and have bought into what the people around you say without much thought. I'm sorry about that, but you might want to take more than a cursory glance at other humans who have formed opinions different from your own. I am fortunate in that I have a very conservative side of my family and a very liberal side of my family. And I'll tell you this: the conservative side really does hates gays yet the liberal side does not hate any of the things you mention. I love both sides of my family, so there's no bias here: I'm just reporting a data point.

      It's funny to me how your post illustrates several of the points that you're railing against. Good luck being a little less self incriminating in the future.

      Cheers.

    161. Re:moto by hobbit · · Score: 1

      Au contraire, he has been a Mac user since before being a Mac user was cool. Well, then, he's an idiot. System 9 and prior sucked lazy dogs' cocks.
      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    162. Re:moto by medcalf · · Score: 1

      And I thought I'd been around for a while...

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    163. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Your argument like all the conservative ones against it fails: It breaks down because Gays are CITIZENS and are entitled to equal protection under the law. And since married couples have a group of legal benefits deriving from their status Gays are entitled to those self same benefits.

      No. Your argument fails. Gays have equal protection under the law. Heterosexuals are also disallowed from marrying members of the same sex. The fact that they may not wish to do so does not matter, that option is precluded. What you are proposing is that society shift the marriage association contract. Most do not wish this, some do. It is up to those few to convince the many that this is in the best interests of society.

    164. Re:moto by localman · · Score: 1

      Having lived in a couple of the worst inner cities in the US, and visited the third world, I can tell you haven't.

      Thanks for calling him out on this. In my experience as well he's talking from a place of enormous ignorance.

      I also wonder what is supposed to happen if we completely pull welfare... thus emulating the third world... yet suddenly it gets better? How exactly?

      Sure, there is much room for improvement in the welfare system. But it's sad to me how long and shallow the discussions end up being.

    165. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been here since day one! Respect, gentlemen and ladies, that is all I ask.

    166. Re:moto by fbartho · · Score: 1

      VI??? Emacs. Emacs??? Butterflies. Butterflies??? Intelligent Universe Creation.
      Read the mouseover on your linked comic.
      --
      Gravity Sucks
    167. Re:moto by big_paul76 · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, every attempt at socialism had failed. Egalitarian policies have destroyed public education. Unionised businesses are collapsing left, right and centre. Welfare has turned inner cities into crime ridden Third World hellholes.


      That first sentence it true if and only if you feel the words "socialism", "Stalinism", and "Maoism" are basically interchangeable.

      "Every attempt at socialism has failed"? Tell that to Sweden or Finland.

      Go to a left wing meeting and say you think blacks are genetically less intelligent.


      Yeah, um, as much as some people might want to pretend like the jury's still out on that question, that's sort of the equivalent of going into a room full of mechanical engineers and asking them to "keep an open mind" about your perpetual motion machine that you claim to have invented.

      FWIW, a friend of mine is a geneticist, and he'll tell you straight out that "race" has essentially no meaning in the context of biology or genetics. It's not much more than a social construct based on some inheritable physical characteristics.

      Look, I think of myself as a moderate, and there's many different things you can say lefties aren't exactly open-minded about. (try and tell a 3rd wave feminist that, actually, women in positions of authority behave no better than men in positions of authority, for example) but the example of a genetic (read: nothing you can do about it) difference in intelligence across races really is on the order of perpetual motion machines for junk science.
      --
      The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
    168. Re:moto by scuba964 · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points, that was good. See, because he's so old... it's binary!

    169. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and Al as the uber cool guy"

      You know, the first thing I did was erupt into laughter at this, until I realized you might be serious. I suppose you could think he's cool, I mean you used "uber" and weren't being facetious...

    170. Re:moto by WorLord · · Score: 1

      > Last I checked, every attempt at socialism had failed.

      Last I checked, no genuine, non-half-assed attempts have been made. Generally there's too much dissent about having to care for each other to put some sort of full system in place. (Note: this dissent is not entirely unwarranted in some cases).

      > Not really. Go to a left wing meeting and say you think blacks are genetically less intelligent.

      This is a red herring - at _best_ - and deserves no reply.

      > "Bush is going to reintroduce conscription". "The Patriot Act will lead to concentration camps". "Global warming will kill us all". "Dominionists are going to introduce a 10 Commandments based theocracy".

      This is a straw man, and deserves no reply. I _will_ say, though, that there are enough facts out there to make the evidence supporting each of those statements worrying, at best.

      "Of course. There are idiots relying on blind faith comes on both sides" ...just a whole lot _more_ of them on the right-hand-side of politics, than otherwise.

      > See #2 and 4#.

      A red herring and a straw man, respectively? Fallacies are not proper responses, sorry.

      > I really fail to see the relevance here.

      Because someone who makes impacting decisions based upon what citizens do with their wobbly bits in the privacy of their own homes is mentally unsound, unfit for public office, openly discriminatory with little reason, and an overall waste of humanity.

      > (Some) right wingers hate gays, (some) left wingers hate men, the middle class, whites, Christians and their own country. How does any one of that automatically verify someone's beliefs?

      Well, in the case of gay hate (homophobia), man hate (misandry), white hate (racism) - these ALL should be disqualifiers. No one should elect or pay any attention at all to the sort of person who'd profess such a thing, honestly.

      On the other hand, I don't see a problem with hating Christianity (strikes me as a logical conclusion), and sometimes christians themselves make it nigh on impossible to NOT hate them. However, since mythology doesn't belong in public office, I kind of see that as a non-issue.

      Hating one's own country is a complicated topic, but in short, sometimes its a valid response and sometimes it is not. Like above, though, its kind of a non-issue. One is certainly free to hate one's own country, and this should make no difference whatsoever. I'd almost expect it from someone who has a lot of disagreements with current public policy.

    171. Re:moto by WorLord · · Score: 1

      "You have decided, without even hearing the argument."

      The argument has been made, and proven untrue, by very, very intelligent people who make a lot of money to study just this small subset of things.

      "Open Debate" does NOT mean "giving every single presented idea its fair shake". One would expect ideas like "the earth is flat" or "the earth is the center of the solar system" to be dismissed immediately, as well - becasue the evidence has already been heard for each, and the concepts have already proven to be false.

      All he did is prove that Open Debate is not a license to waste time re-treading old and inflammatory ground; all you did was prove that you don't understand Open Debate at all.

    172. Re:moto by cyberworm · · Score: 1

      me too... :D

    173. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess he's got one more year ;) No, didn't you hear? He listens to Rush Limbaugh.
    174. Re:moto by aaronjp · · Score: 1

      Do what I did register and Lurk! :)

    175. Re:moto by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I don't see any mouseover text, and View Source doesn't have any Title or Alt attributes on the link. Send me a copy of whatever malware you're running so's I can see it too :)

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    176. Re:moto by Sergeant+Pepper · · Score: 1

      What kind of spineless fuck allows that to happen? He obviously meant "we" in a general sense, as in the American People.

      It would REALLY be amusing if people like you didn't blame their failure to stand up for what they believe You have no idea what he did or did not stand up for.

      Here's how I remember it going down (because, incidentally, unlike your fucked up storybook fantasy, this is how it actually happened)

      Bush : WE GOTTA GO TA WAR!!

      Everyone else : Meh.

      Bush : NO SERIOUSLY WE GOTTA GO TA WAR!!!!

      Everyone else : mmmmm yeah ok I guess.

      Then your memory sucks ass. It was like this:

      Bush: WE GOTTA GO TA WAR!! FLAGS! AMERICA!
      American People: YEAAAHH! FLAGS! U S A! U S A!
      Small minority: Uh, this is a bad idea, guys...

      people [opposed to the war] WERE NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. Now we know you're wrong. There were certainly a few people. Not a lot, but there were some. (Dennis Kucinich?)

      Because I definitely remember a dearth of public outcry So? Just because there wasn't a lot of people doesn't mean that he wasn't one.
    177. Re:moto by fbartho · · Score: 1
      Since you have XKCD in your sig I don't want to assume you just recently found the site, but XKCD always has messages in the title attribute for the image of the comic. Now from what you're saying in your comment it could be you're poking fun at me for leaving an ambiguous statement out there. Obviously I meant the mouseover/tooltip on the comic itself, which is found at the link provided in the GGP's and My comment above. If you are poking fun at me, then one of us is going to have to be referred to: http://xkcd.com/169/

      also for reference purposes:

      </div>
      <br/>
      <br/>
      <img src="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/real_programmers.png" title="Real programmers set the universal constants at the start such that the universe evolves to contain the disk with the data they want." alt="Real Programmers" /><br/>
      <br/>
      <div class="menuCont">
        <ul>
      --
      Gravity Sucks
    178. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I checked, every attempt at socialism had failed.


      this is true, but you use it out of context.

      *every* governmental system ever devised has failed. the usa form of government is just another failed attempt at human governance with $9+ TRILLION in debt, $100 billion quarterly deficits, corporations buying off both sides of the isle, injustice left and right, etc...

      in fact, *every* government that has ever existed has failed to bring long term peace and prosperity for its citizens and so will every human government that will ever exist in the future.

      i know this because history has 100% supported this biblical revelation - humans are incapable of governing themselves, under any system, due to their selfishness and lack of concern for others. it takes time for governments to crumble, but they all crumble.

      all christians ought to understand this as jesus' second coming is clearly depicted as occurring mere moments prior to humans annihilating all life off the planet.

      so, yeah, socialism sucks, but so does anything you'd replace it with, even if that system served your personal best interest.
    179. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is up to those few to convince the many that this is in the best interests of society. What you're proposing is called the "tyranny of the majority" and it was an evil that the Founding Fathers fought against.
    180. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a bummer, man.

    181. Re:moto by Gorbag · · Score: 1
      --
      -- I speak only for myself
    182. Re:moto by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      I lurked for years as well, but the best I could've had would be a 200k-series UID. Nowhere near enough to qualify as a greybeard.

      Nothing brings out the ancient ones faster than making a joke about UIDs. Is there some sort of secret thread filter they get that highlights these or emails a message?

    183. Re:moto by beamin · · Score: 1

      Get off my lawn, ALL you six-figure UIDs!

    184. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is only on slashdot that a person with the nickname "hobbit" would make a decision about another person's intellect solely based upon his operating system of choice. Way to be wrapped up in your own little world. Bravo!

    185. Re:moto by Lurker · · Score: 1

      What's that young fella? Speak up...and get off my lawn!

    186. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you're probably the OP.

    187. Re:moto by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      The gp's point was wrong. Not all opinions are equal and worth of consideration. In fact many opinions are utter rubbish (e.g. ID is science, gays are ruining society, global warming is a myth, the earth is flat...)

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    188. Re:moto by cycoj · · Score: 1
      Actually he was totally right, if you make a comment like 'blacks are genetically less intelligent' or 'your brain's made of tunips' you better back it up. Otherwise it is a ridiculous comment, because there is plenty of well known evidence against it. I did not see any backing up of the comment, ergo it's a ridiculous claim. You are allowed to dismiss comments as being ridiculous, even in an honest debate.

      Were you genuinely interested in honest debate, your dismissal of said claim would be based on the evidence presented. But that's the thing no evidence was presented. If I would try to start a debate at a left meeting about all conservatives being members of a pedophile satanist cult, they would dismiss the idea just as quick, same as a rightwing meeting (actually I probably get lynched).
    189. Re:moto by gr8scot · · Score: 1

      The other one is abortion. Liberals all want to say it's about a woman's choice with regard to when she should do with her own body. Never mind the personal responsibility the woman has to not get pregnant in the first place. Never mind the fact that by giving the woman the right to kill you're taking away the right of the baby to live. It's not a human until sometime after it has more brain cells than a fruit fly. Advocacy for the "rights of the unborn" is specious and I think you know it.

      For example, the DeKalb shooting yesterday. Thanks to liberals that took place in a gun-free zone. They reduced the choices of manners of self-defense available to those who were there. Had someone been carrying their own firearm they could have taken out the shooter before eighteen people were hit. Because liberals believe in the goodness of all mankind or some such tripe (as someone pointed out above, a delusional thought when you look at history), they've run with the belief that criminals and nutjobs will obey "victim disarmament zones". That's a good point. Gun control laws just make us more dependent on somebody else for protection. Studies show that criminals know where concealed weapons are legal, and go elsewhere.
      --
      All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
    190. Re:moto by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      No, I really thought that you meant the mouseover for the link. The alt-text I usually read in the XKCD forum, as a part of the page, and I even forgot that it's alt-text for most people. Apparently I'm a bit dense today, must be those cosmic rays and butterflies...

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    191. Re:moto by Buran · · Score: 1

      Don't you carry spares with you all the time, like I do? :p

      (damn prenatal rubella, I really am hearing impaired)

    192. Re:moto by David+Rolfe · · Score: 1

      You're lucky to have coffee! Back in my day we built great monuments to Sun-gods at the business end of a whip. Good times.

      --
      Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
    193. Re:moto by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      Actually, it sort of is.

      It's news because it's a known issue with Time Machine that now a high profile user is raising. And it's now something that might get fixed.

      Whether you like Rush or hate him (I find him amusing), I'm actually quite interested that he not only uses Macs, but has a network of them.

      Of course, there will be the standard set of "evil people use Macs?" If someone actually says it in a new way, I may find that entertaining as well.

      I'm one of several republican mac users I know. Let me offer you some theories as to why we use them.

      • We are all intelligent people surrounded by liberals and mocked for our views. This means we are all either contrarians or independent thinkers.
      • Apple is closer to our preferred form of government than Microsoft. We don't want the government taxing us constantly and telling us what to do. We want them to fight our wars, and pave our roads. We expect our operating system and hardware manufacturer to take a similar approach. Give me an OS, and let third parties make the applications. This is less true these days, but the average apple user tends to use third party applications like photoshop and the average Windows user uses office.
      • Generally the intelligent lean towards libertarian. Neither party addresses that political segment well. Of recent presidents Ronald Regan was the closest thing to a libertarian. The fact that most people disagree with that statement proves hos non libertarian the government is.
      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    194. Re:moto by sg3000 · · Score: 1

      > It'd be kind of nice if instead of the usual "Republicans are evil" flamefest...

      Anyone else think it's funny when someone pleads for a "time out" on behalf a professional demagogue?

      Just checking...

      --
      Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
    195. Re:moto by anarkhos · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, the United States is doing quite well. Last I checked, we've been in the shitter for the last seven years. Using pre-Clinton CPI figures, we've been in a recession for at least that long. In the last few years the only companies making a profit are those with government contracts and the federal government itself. This is, of course, all financed with debt and not savings and production.

      I guess everyone can think we're doing quite well, all the way to the cliff.

      I fully expect you to blame the free market when this is more widely realized.
      --
      >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
      >life
    196. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I checked, every attempt at socialism had failed. Egalitarian policies have destroyed public education. Unionised businesses are collapsing left, right and centre. Welfare has turned inner cities into crime ridden Third World hellholes.

      then let's try a few civil libertarian ideas (economically i am a communist).

      Drug Prohibition has turned inner cities into crime ridden Third World hellholes, not Welfare. Drug Prohibition is the number one problem confronting America and its long arms of "justice" and "freedom".

    197. Re:moto by zonker · · Score: 0

      Those were the days...

    198. Re:moto by hobbit · · Score: 1

      Nah, people nicknamed "hobbit" post this sort of value judgment on all sorts of different websites. You obviously need to get out a bit.

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    199. Re:moto by siesindallerscheisse · · Score: 1

      "But that's the thing no evidence was presented."

      No evidence was requested before the point was dismissed.

      Which again proves why you're wrong and I'm right.

      "Actually he was totally right, if you make a comment like 'blacks are genetically less intelligent' or 'your brain's made of tunips' you better back it up."

      Shouldn't you be backing up EVERY comment you make with facts?

      Of course you should, which speaks to your ability to discuss these matters intelligently.

      You fail.

    200. Re:moto by zonker · · Score: 0

      I think you mean Wayne and Garth. Bill and Ted never said that. ;p

    201. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you can do whatever you like as far as ceremonies are concerned. However, I do think that the gov't should encourage breeding amongst people who are productive as they tend to produce more productive people.

      Would you really consider yourself anti-gay marriage then? I feel that being "anti" anything implies commitment. Maybe you just prefer that gays not marry because of these inefficiencies. I myself am not anti-truck or anti-SUV, but I would prefer that people living in a city not drive these monstrous 4x4 trucks just to carry a few sacks of groceries.

      And why would a conservative believe that the government ought to be in the business of encouraging breeding among people who are productive? That sounds a lot closer to what certain *other* governments elsewhere have done. Would you be against allowing heterosexuals with no desire of breeding to get married as well? What about heterosexuals who aren't particularly productive members of society? I'm positive you weren't suggesting that we only allow selective breeding among those heterosexuals who have the best potential of producing high quality offspring, but when you talk about marriage in terms of the ability to breed and then add in human productivity as a qualifier, it kinda looks like you were.

    202. Re:moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time travel, really? Is Rush getting stuck in the past or the future? I can only imagine it to be a process needing absolute accuracy otherwise, as we all know, the entire time-line always causes all of existence to implode if the sequencing isn't atomically equal when tested over the trillions of years man has lived on this planet. A good word other than evil might be average only because it is a standard clearly unacceptable in this highly advanced period...besides it can also be interpreted simply neutral.

  2. Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hire a democrat. They use Macs. You should be using a Thinkpad.

    1. Re:Duh by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I use Fedora. Does that make me an independent, or an asshole?

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    2. Re:Duh by fireslack · · Score: 1
      I use Fedora. Does that make me an independent, or an asshole?

      Who says the two are mutually exclusive?

      --
      This sig only exists because you are observing it.
    3. Re:Duh by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Anarchist! how in the hell is the FBI going to install a keylogger remotely if you use Fedora?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    4. Re:Duh by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Because an asshole is never independent. He's always hanging out with either some pussy, or some cock.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  3. Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The only reason Steve Jobs co-founded Apple was so that he could eventually get even with assholes like Rush Limbaugh. These bugs were invented just for him.

    1. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post is no more flamebait-ey than the gp, and much funnier, too.

    2. Re:Actually by cleatsupkeep · · Score: 1

      you're just saying that because you posted it too... (All AC's are the same, right? :-))

    3. Re:Actually by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Then explain Windows. Who's Gates trying to piss off?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:Actually by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      The entire planet, of course.

    5. Re:Actually by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      The jocks and normals that chided and persecuted him throughout his childhood and highschool years, of course.

      He doesn't even have to worry about colatteral damage with the like-minded nerdy souls he identifies with. All of them use Linux!

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    6. Re:Actually by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      Yes, and that whole departure from Apple was just part of his plan. His founding of NeXT was solely for the purpose of inventing a computer that was filled with the kind of bugs that, later, when Apple acquired NeXT, would annoy Rush Limbaugh.

      And Pixar? Well, we all know that the only reason that movies like "Ratatouille" and "The Incredibles" are made is to annoy, you guessed it, Rush Limbaugh.

      It seems like Steve Jobs really has it out for the guy.

      But not just Steve Jobs. The entire American electorate. Rush Limbaugh himself said that by not endorsing McCain, he was doing McCain a favor - because all the independents and moderates who like McCain would flee from him because they hate Rush so.

      The guy can't catch a break.

  4. I'll be happy to help... by snStarter · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't mind helping the whiner . . . make them worse.

    1. Re:I'll be happy to help... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't mind helping the whiner

      He doesn't need any help, he can whine just fine all by himself.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  5. Fie on Rush by dancingmad · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Considering the bile that pours out of his ginormous mouth everyday (Michael J. Fox, anyone) I hope he totally gets ignored.

    --
    "There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
    1. Re:Fie on Rush by krotkruton · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I hope he responds with something like, "I'll come right down and fix it as soon as you fix the problems with your show, namely all the hypocritical, baseless, or just plain incorrect statements."

    2. Re:Fie on Rush by rpillala · · Score: 1

      I hope he gets ignored by apple because going on your radio show and addressing yourself to the man in charge of apple is no way to get tech support. Maybe his listeners will come up with some fixes, and frankly I hope they do because then anyone having the same problem will benefit from hearing it on the air.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    3. Re:Fie on Rush by cheezedawg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let me get this straight- you are criticizing Rush Limbaugh because you think he insults people, and you chose to do that by... insulting him?

      Its been my experience that the people that most vocally accuse Limbaugh of hate speech have not formed that opinion through their own experience of listening to the show, but rather through what other media and Limbaugh's political opponents report that he said. Is that the case with you?

      Lets take the Michael J Fox story that you mentioned as an example. Mr. Limbaugh stated on-air that he thought Michael Fox had exaggerated his Parkinson's symptoms in a political ad, and that he had done so for theatric benefit. It was clearly in Fox's best interest to make his disease look as debilitating as possible, and his tremors in the ad were much more pronounced than we usually saw from him. Limbaugh said that he would be the first apologize to Fox if that wasn't the case. But guess what? Rush was right. Fox later admitted that he purposely skips his medication before public events like this so people will see his worst case symptoms. Here is a video clip of him admitting this.

      So was that hate speech, or was it an attempt to inject more honesty in a charged political debate? Unfortunately, the partisans have already made their minds up on the answer to that.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    4. Re:Fie on Rush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if he skips his meds before doing this ad
      then he's not exaggerating the effects ...
      then he"s showing all of us what parkinson in its purest form is really like

    5. Re:Fie on Rush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I made up my mind on that when I did my own research and discovered that Fox's movements during the commercial were actually indicative of high-dose L-DOPA use (necessitated by tolerance) rather than being symptoms of untreated Parkinson's disease.

    6. Re:Fie on Rush by Jaeph · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's nice and all, but the clip shows him admitting that he skipped his meds before speaking to congress. It has nothing to do with the political ad that Rush commented on.

      -Jeff

      --
      Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
    7. Re:Fie on Rush by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Mr. Limbaugh stated on-air that he thought Michael Fox had exaggerated his Parkinson's symptoms in a political ad, and that he had done so for theatric benefit. It was clearly in Fox's best interest to make his disease look as debilitating as possible, and his tremors in the ad were much more pronounced than we usually saw from him. Limbaugh said that he would be the first apologize to Fox if that wasn't the case. But guess what? Rush was right. Hear that Mister Jobs! So now go and fix Mr. Limbaugh's Time Machine and Back to my Mac softwares...

    8. Re:Fie on Rush by Casualposter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've listened to his show. Years ago back before he was the poster child for what's wrong with the war on drugs. It wasn't that I dissagreed with his point of view, it was that it was so obviously shallow and completely lacking in anything beyond the moment's sensationalist vocal vomit, that I couldn't stand him. After claiming for years that drug users should be treated harshly, we find that this is just a bunch of hypocrisy, Rush would be the first to condemn the poor to suffer and the first in line for welfare and unemployment if he needed it.

      --
      Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
    9. Re:Fie on Rush by mmarlett · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Not taking meds != exaggerated symptoms.

      Rush Limbaugh is a habitual lier. I don't say that as an insult. It's a well documented fact. When I was in college and Rush still had his TV show, my roommate and I would watch the show and throw a throw pillow at the screen every time he said something that was false or misleading. If we made it to a commercial break with ANY pillows left on the couch, then we knew we weren't up on our current events and needed to study.

      I have no doubt that if HE had Parkinson's, HE would play up the severity of his symptoms. Instead, he says things such as that for feminists "the most important thing in life is ensuring that as many abortions as possible occur." The guy who dismissed torture at Abu Ghraib as "emotional release." Scientist after scientist has denounced him for misrepresenting their work for political gain. The guy who championed family values has been married and divorced three times.

      He couldn't "inject more honesty in a charged political debate" if he had a turkey baster and a voltmeter.

      The real problem with Rush having any real problems is that he is, by default, a distracting touchstone for flamewars. If it was reported that he thought the sky was blue, there'd be 1000 people saying "Yup, it is! And Michael J Fox is an asshole," and 1000 people saying "it's clearly gray, and that fucker is addicted to drugs," and one meteorologist saying "partly cloudy with high wind and a chance of rain later in the afternoon."

    10. Re:Fie on Rush by ContractualObligatio · · Score: 1

      "So was that hate speech, or was it an attempt to inject more honesty in a charged political debate?"

      Limbaugh said what Fox was doing was "purely an act", that it was "really shameless of Michael J. Fox". Clearly that is not an attempt to inject honesty into a debate, because the first point is simply wrong, and the second is a biased opinion. Given the options you provide, I can only conclude that you think it was hate speech.

      "Limbaugh said that he would be the first apologize to Fox if that wasn't the case."

      Which is pathetic, really - who else could be first to apologise for his words? And if you check your facts, you'll find he only offered to do so after he was forced to admit he was wrong, that Fox was displaying symptoms many people had seen before. Simple Christian morality would tell you to apologise after needlessly insulting a diseased man on air, and American principles would tell you that a man is innocent until proven guilty. But Limbaugh does not actually apologise even when he knows he is wrong; he requires that Fox proves his innocence first. His only "principle" seemed to be the cold hearted application of logic to find a way to fit the facts to support the conclusion he had already drawn, a conclusion that looks down on those suffering from disease. *That* is evil.

    11. Re:Fie on Rush by Himring · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'll do the obligatory "I listen to all forms of political commentary" cuz I do. I'm an avowed moderate. That being said, I listened to a lot of Limbaugh. He offended me often especially when making fun of the homeless and such. I think he has some price to pay in the afterlife for that. All of that being said, I found his detailed commentary and explanations of congressional votes very interesting. I must admit that, at times, he would show a cspan clip of a vote and explain, in layman's terms, what was happening. Amazingly, he had the ability to take boring, monotone events such as this and bring them to life. I would then go google the event and learn more.

      Bottomeline: there's a bit more to him than meets the eye. Yes, he's a zealot, offensive, etc., but he is not useless. Everyone has something to offer, and we must glean what we can from all people in our lives whether we meet them in person, watch them on tv or listen to on the radio, or even read their thoughts from a book. Even Hamlet found Claudius intriguing at times.

      Nietzsche had to look into the abyss to discover it looked back....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    12. Re:Fie on Rush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your evidence that Michael J. Fox exaggerated the symptoms of his disease is a video clip where he says he does not take medicine that masks the symptoms of Parkinson's disease. Looks like Fox the person wants to have the symptoms be portrayed accurately -- something Limbaugh had a problem with. Yes, I did not listen to the show where Limbaugh ridiculed Michael J. Fox for exhibiting the symptoms of Parkinson's disease. Rather, I saw the video of Limbaugh wherein he ridicules another person's disease. I am not going to find the video for you. But I can say with authority, based on its contents, Rush Limbaugh and his followers are not helping the world be a better place. You certainly are not injecting honesty into a political debate.

      I am not sure what purpose ridiculing another person's disease serves? Cruelty?

    13. Re:Fie on Rush by ti1ion · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but I don't understand where you are coming from. I don't see how Michael J. Fox did anything wrong, nor exaggerated anything. What you are implying is that if Michael J. Fox can get his tremors under control with some medication, then he should show that? Is that what Parkinson's is really like? Fox did nothing wrong by not taking his medication when trying to show the American people what it is like to suffer from Parkinson's. If anything, he was brutally honest. You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word exaggeration. If Fox had put in an Oscar winning performance by making up all sorts of tremors he does not have, then Limbaugh would have a point. Fox did NOT do this, and you have shown that to be the case. Case closed. Limbaugh showed himself to be the despicable individual he is.

      If I suffer from severe stomach pain and I need to describe it to you, are you suggesting I tell you it is really not that bad at all, because I pop a Tylenol 3 every hour? Is that really the extent of the pain I am feeling? Think about it if you really need to.

      Your other point is baseless, as well. I do not like Limbaugh and I formed my opinion by listening to his show. He is insulting in every way imaginable. Limbaugh's job is not to find a valid argument to counter someone's statements or actions. His job is to find ways of vilifying the person Limbaugh takes issue with. If he can do so by invoking race or sex or physical features, he will do it! For example, if a Democratic politician has a big nose, Limbaugh will use that to call the politician names and assign a variety of immoral or criminal attributes to that politician. Why, so that his faithful listeners will associate the insults with that politician every time they see him. "Oh look, he really does have a huge nose, like Rush said! He's like Pinocchio, his nose grows every time he tells a lie! The bastard!" This is what Limbaugh is all about, and that is all. Perhaps you should listen more carefully to his program.

    14. Re:Fie on Rush by jamie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you are criticizing Rush Limbaugh because you think he insults people, and you chose to do that by... insulting him?

      Hey jackhole, get a clue. When a bloated gasbag spews lies about an advocate for people with a debilitating disease, you're goddamned right he gets insulted. And when Rush mocks the disease's effects , shaking his body spastically around on camera to mimic Fox's illness, oh holy crap does he deserve to be insulted. Shakespeare didn't write enough insults for sick bastard whores like Rush Limbaugh.

      But guess what? Rush was right. Fox later admitted that he purposely skips his medication before public events like this so people will see his worst case symptoms. Here is a video clip of him admitting this.

      Guess what, you brain-dead moron? In that video clip Fox denies what he supposedly admitted, saying explicitly -- listen to your own video clip --

      "It isn't as if I didn't take it deliberately, as some kind of theatrical thing."

      Which of course pustulent corpse-raper Rush Limbaugh quotes as:

      FOX: I didn't take it deliberately as some kind of theatrical thing...

      Here, as usual, Rush listeners learn their facts about the world exactly backwards. It's the price you pay for giving a fat, impotent, parasitic slug-worm an invitation into your living room. Lend credence to the sneering ringmaster of a national freakshow and what happens is that you become stupid. Let me give you another example. If you'd bothered to learn something instead of lazily gulping down Limbaugh's diarrhea, you might have known that the visible tremors Rush was mocking come from the medication:

      In fact, at the time he was over-medicated for his Parkinson's disease, Fox said Thursday in an exclusive interview with CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric.

      "The irony is that I was too medicated. I was dyskinesic," Fox told Couric. "Because the thing about ... being symptomatic is that it's not comfortable. No one wants to be symptomatic; it's like being hit with a hammer."

      His body visibly wracked by tremors, Fox appears in a political ad touting Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill's stance in favor of embryonic stem cell research. That prompted Limbaugh to speculate that Fox was "either off his medication or acting."

      Fox told Couric, "At this point now, if I didn't take medication I wouldn't be able to speak."

      I'm not the president of the Michael J. Fox fan club or anything. But the guy has to take his meds in order to be able to talk and move and interact with the world with some kind of normalcy. Without the medication, Parkinson's patients' muscles become rigid, their movements slow, and they even become unable to move at all. At the start of the filming day, Fox doesn't know if he's going to nail the ad in one take or is going to be there all day, so you can only imagine how carefully he plans out how much medication he's going to take and when, to ride the tightrope between his disease's wracking paralysis and the cure's tremors. Did he guess exactly right? I don't know, maybe not. Is Rush Limbaugh the biggest hate-smeared asshole the world has ever seen for second-guessing a prescription for someone he's never met, someone who is just trying to help a cause he believe

    15. Re:Fie on Rush by Emor+dNilapasi · · Score: 1

      BZZZZT!!! WRONG!!!!

      The "symptoms" that Michael J. Fox was exhibiting (the twitching, etc.) are not symptoms of Parkinson's Disease, they are side effects of the treatment for Parkinson's disease. It's called dyskinesias, and it's a side effect of the Dopamine used to treat Parkinson's. He stops taking the medications before public events so those side effects aren't even worse than what we saw. The symptoms of Parkinson's Disease aren't twitching and swaying, they are rigor, slight tremor (that's slight tremor, not the uncontrolled limb swaying due to the dopamine), and bradykinesia (short, stopping movements).

      But don't take my word for it. Look It Up.

      So no, Rush was not right. He was wrong, and to the best of my knowledge he has still not apologized. As for further analysis of his motives and morals, I defer to my more enthusiastic Slashdot brethren.

    16. Re:Fie on Rush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your right, take a few pills and Parkinsons is just like a bad cold.

      Asshole

    17. Re:Fie on Rush by Notquitecajun · · Score: 4, Informative

      Rush actually HAS a disability, which got hidden in his ADMITTED drug addiction. He's deaf (or was, before some implants) through complications. He didn't make a big deal of it until one day on radio he admitted it to his audience and went and got help. Hasn't spoken all that much more about it.

    18. Re:Fie on Rush by Notquitecajun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I find Rush at his best when he is doing analysis on the popular media. He breaks down - practically every day - the pronounced biases on the left of many media networks. True, there is a lot that goes unreported (which gives some credence to left-wing claims of right-wing media bias), but he shows how journalism is typically left of center.

    19. Re:Fie on Rush by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      Compared to hearing himself, I'd call deafness a blessing.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    20. Re:Fie on Rush by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      wait what? so let me get this straight. you have a disease where you have slight tremors, so they give you some meds that make you flop around like a fish on shore? that makes a whole lot of sense...

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    21. Re:Fie on Rush by Albanach · · Score: 1

      Here is a video clip of him admitting this.
      That wasn't a video admitting anything - it was one of the most selective, heavily edited and cut snippets I've seen come out of fox. Maybe you should read this. Or this Or watch the CBS interview and hear it in his own words.
    22. Re:Fie on Rush by ContractualObligatio · · Score: 1

      When you're happily biased and (like anyone) selective in one's facts, you can show anything you want. Rush is simply too biased to be reliable - he only shows that journalism is typically left of center to those already biased to think so. Anyone else would need a dissenting point of view, a bit of independent research, and the ability to form their own conclusions.

    23. Re:Fie on Rush by Alexpkeaton1010 · · Score: 1

      I'm not the president of the Michael J. Fox fan club or anything.
      Well I *am* the president of the Michael J. Fox fan club and I forgive Rush. He is a great American just like Reagan.
    24. Re:Fie on Rush by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Shakespeare didn't write enough insults for sick bastard whores like Rush Limbaugh

      Come on, man, please don't insult My Friends, the Whores like that! They provide a needed service to the world. "Ralph" (not his real name), my 86 year old friend, would probably be dead if it wasn't for his whores!

      Please don't compare Rush Limberger to whores.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    25. Re:Fie on Rush by goldspider · · Score: 1

      People have done a lot more shameful things than exaggerating illness to score political points. I don't see how a healthy does of initial skepticism, given the state of political discourse in the USA these days, is unreasonable.

      While most of your point is valid (although unnecessarily vitriolic), I think it betrays your own hatred of Mr. Limbaugh (and probably his audience as well). It also demonstrates a reasonable concern by people with whom you disagree that you may be inclined to use your power as an editor here to silence and discourage opposing viewpoints.

      Until you get your own feelings under control, you aught to re-consider passing judgement on others you perceive as fomenting hate.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    26. Re:Fie on Rush by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Ummmm...so the tendancy of journalists - who graduate from liberal arts schools, and typically vote Democrat, is right-wing? Please.

      Journalists are typically liberals, and newspaper owners are typically right-wing big corporation types (sans Ted Turner). Try listening to Rush when he breaks stuff down, big guy - it's pretty telling.

      BTW, EVERYONE is biased in media. There has rarely - if ever - been true objectivity.

    27. Re:Fie on Rush by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Rush actually HAS a disability, which got hidden in his ADMITTED drug addiction.He's deaf (or was, before some implants) through complications.

      First of all, Rush disclosed his disability before the drug scandal erupted. Secondly, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Boo hoo! I have a hearing problem too, so where's my oxycotin? He lost all creditability with me when he proved once and for all that he is just good old radio entertainer named Rusty masquerading as a conservative radio show wind bag.

      . He didn't make a big deal of it until one day on radio he admitted it to his audience and went and got help. Hasn't spoken all that much more about it.

      Why would he? Eating crow isn't something you want to do on a regular basis. So what he's a saint because he got caught being a hypocrite and he prefers to lay low and hope the controversy eventually blows over?

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    28. Re:Fie on Rush by knghtrider · · Score: 1

      FOX: I didn't take it deliberately as some kind of theatrical thing... You know..how about using the entire quote:

      FOX: I didn't take it deliberately as some kind of theatrical thing but it seemed right for me to be -- to be uncomfortable in that situation.

      Please give Rush Limbaugh the benefit of actually reading what Michael J. Fox said--he's admitting to 'tinkering' with his meds--but he did it not to be 'theatrical', but rather to be 'uncomfortable' during his presentation. I actually recall seeing the entire interview with Diane Sawyer, and I'm left with the impression that Fox *did* (at one time) deliberately 'tinker' with his medications so as to make himself 'uncomfortable' and to show the worst case scenario (or close to it) of the disease. I don't disagree that this makes a good selling point--and I'm certainly not saying NOT to develop a cure for Parkinsons Disease; but rather I'm saying that Michael J. Fox or Muhammad Ali should not have to resort to this level of trickery to make their point. That they do have to do this shows the shortcomings of humanity.

      Rush Limbaugh is as much an actor as Michael J. Fox is--he's crass and obnoxious and is always far over the top; but he makes an occasional valid point. Just as Hillary or Barak or Al Franken make occasional valid points. But, those valid points are in the mind of the listener. Remember--most of what Limbaugh (and others of his ilk) is doing is merely providing their opinion. They opine and we listen. It's up to us to decide whether or not we agree with that opinion.

      I also agree that Rush's mocking of the quivering experienced by Parkinson's patients was way out of line.

      Personally, I prefer Glen Beck, but that's just me.

      --
      In America today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the c
    29. Re:Fie on Rush by Arccot · · Score: 1

      wait what? so let me get this straight. you have a disease where you have slight tremors, so they give you some meds that make you flop around like a fish on shore? that makes a whole lot of sense...

      You aren't listening. Slight tremors is one symptom of the disease. The others are much, much worse. Given the choice between shaking more and being completely unable to move, Fox chooses to take the medicine with the chance of increased tremors so that he can move his body.

    30. Re:Fie on Rush by jamie · · Score: 4, Informative

      FOX: I didn't take it deliberately as some kind of theatrical thing... You know..how about using the entire quote:

      FOX: I didn't take it deliberately as some kind of theatrical thing but it seemed right for me to be -- to be uncomfortable in that situation.

      Please give Rush Limbaugh the benefit of actually reading what Michael J. Fox said--he's admitting to 'tinkering' with his meds--but he did it not to be 'theatrical', but rather to be 'uncomfortable' during his presentation. [...] I'm left with the impression that Fox *did* (at one time) deliberately 'tinker' with his medications...

      Here's what Fox actually said:

      It isn't as if I didn't take it deliberately, as some kind of theatrical thing, but it seemed right for me to be -- to be uncomfortable in that situation.

      Fox is explicitly denying the "impression" that you claim you have. You are using a quote from Rush Limbaugh, who chopped off the preface "It isn't as if," which gives the quote the exact opposite meaning.

      And then you chastised me for not using the "entire quote." Wow.

      I mean maybe you want to say Fox is a big liar or whatever, but to selectively edit his quote to pretend he's saying the exact opposite of what you say he's saying...? C'mon.

      What Fox was saying was that he didn't do anything special with his meds that way, but (as he's explained elsewhere) he has good days and bad days, and it did seem somehow appropriate for him to be having a kind of bad day on that particular day. These two things can both be true.

      I know you already said you like Glenn Beck, but... try to think for yourself please. Sheesh.

    31. Re:Fie on Rush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tendency of people who work for a corporation is to try and please the head of the corporation, because that's what gets them ahead.

      This is increasingly the case as "news" agencies have been steadily deregulated from public-service requirements set by the FCC to profit centers.

      Now consider the general political outlook of the typical multinational corporation.

      ( *cough* Murdoch/Fox *cough* GE/NBC *cough* )

    32. Re:Fie on Rush by glindsey · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree. To quote you:

      Mr. Limbaugh stated on-air that he thought Michael Fox had exaggerated his Parkinson's symptoms in a political ad, and that he had done so for theatric benefit. And later:

      Fox later admitted that he purposely skips his medication before public events like this so people will see his worst case symptoms. Rush accused Fox of exaggerating his symptoms -- like he's waving around and shaking on purpose and faking it all. Fox admitted he skipped his medications so people could see what Parkinson's does to a person. These are completely different things as far as I'm concerned.

      I really hope you never have to deal with Parkinson's yourself. I watched my grandfather change from a confident, erudite, decorated World War II veteran to somebody who could barely hold a fork because of what the disease had done to his nerves. For Rush to accuse Fox of faking his symptoms for sympathy was at best ignorant and at worst inhuman, and it is just as insulting to turn it around and claim that Rush was somehow on the side of the truth like some sort of crystal bastion of justice.
    33. Re:Fie on Rush by sorak · · Score: 1

      So was that hate speech, or was it an attempt to inject more honesty in a charged political debate?
      We ARE talking about Rush Limbaugh, right? Just checking. Could someone hand me a paper towel? I seem to have spit soda all over my screen.

      Unfortunately, the partisans have already made their minds up on the answer to that.
      This is just too ironic. So, Limbaugh is the honest and open-minded one, and the rest of the media is biased. For the record, I don't care if it's Sean Hannity, Limbaugh, Sam Sedar, or Michael Moore. If you're getting your news from any of these people, then you're no better off than the guy who doesn't listen to the news at all.
    34. Re:Fie on Rush by Nimey · · Score: 1

      It wasn't that I dissagreed with his point of view, it was that it was so obviously shallow and completely lacking in anything beyond the moment's sensationalist vocal vomit, that I couldn't stand him. What's Colbert's description of his character? "Well-meaning, poorly informed, high-status idiot", isn't it?
      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    35. Re:Fie on Rush by Chemicalscum · · Score: 1

      he shows how journalism is typically left of center.

      In the US "left of center" means somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. Hell they can't even spell centre right. You guys ought to get a real English-English spell checker.

    36. Re:Fie on Rush by Bemopolis · · Score: 1

      His hearing trouble was not HIDDEN by his oxycontin abuse; his hearing trouble was likely CAUSED by his oxycontin abuse.

      Which might explain why he didn't make a big deal of his hearing trouble on his radio show.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    37. Re:Fie on Rush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one cares about your Tourette's.

      Go away.

    38. Re:Fie on Rush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, if only Christopher Reeve had made himself look more paralyzed, or maybe put square wheels on his wheelchair, maybe he would have gotten the stem cells he needed to fly away from all this cowardly idiocy.

      You would think that Christopher Reeve would have had the decency to wrap a paisley scarf around his breathing tube.

      America: son, you just don't talk about it

    39. Re:Fie on Rush by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I have listened to his show, and he is an ignorant bag of crap the represents everything that is wrong with the country.

      He is a radio wave troll only interested in flamewars and not solution. The type of a person that would vote for his party even if he thought they where wrong. One who makes excuses for his party, and spreads lies about the other party.

      you know, a New-Con.

      Just as a reminder Neo-Con aren't true conservative, from a fiscal point of view.

      If you believe in being fiscally conservative, you back things the are fiscally conservitive REGARDLESS of party.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    40. Re:Fie on Rush by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      You have a very interesting definition of American left-wing politics. I'm guessing you lie somewhere around Stalinist-style military-forced Marxism, then.

    41. Re:Fie on Rush by tomcode · · Score: 1

      My biggest criticism is that he purports to tell us what liberals think, believe, and do. Yet I live in very liberal NorCal, and nobody I know fits the description he sells (and his listeners take as gospel). He's not my spokesman, so I don't know where he gets off telling people I want higher taxes, surrender to bin Laden, socialism, communism, etc etc etc. Sure I insult him plenty, but I don't purposefully misrepresent his views.

      It's not the insults, it's that his strawmen get in the way of any meaningful debate. I can't talk politics with my parents (Rush listeners) because I have to first convince them that opposing warrantless eavesdropping doesn't mean I want terrorists to blow up the local mini-mall while we all hold hands and sing kumbaya on communist bicycles because we've banned cars and ownership of personal property.

      If we can't get past that, how can we even start to objectively discuss the empirical results of single-payer health care?

      --
      f u cn rd ths u cn gt a gd jb n cmptr prgmng
    42. Re:Fie on Rush by Samster33 · · Score: 1

      Actually the OxyContin was prescribed for extreme back pain that was compounded by a botched surgery to correct said back pain. It had nothing to do with his hearing loss.

    43. Re:Fie on Rush by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      It wasn't prescribed for hearing loss (and why should it? not being able to hear doesn't "hurt"), but long term abuse of pain killers can cause hearing loss. Why do you think he didn't really want to talk about it too much?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    44. Re:Fie on Rush by workindev · · Score: 1

      I have listened to his show, and he is an ignorant bag of crap the represents everything that is wrong with the country.

      Actually, I think that automatically dismissing somebody who disagrees with you as an "ignorant bag of crap" represents everything that is wrong with the country.
    45. Re:Fie on Rush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rush would be the first to condemn the poor to suffer and the first in line for welfare and unemployment if he needed it.


      Hello, strawman.

      Let's just ignore the fact that he's a strong supporter of privately funded charities (as opposed to government mandated charity), routine attends charity golf tournaments and similar venues, and does things like this.

      Clearly this man hates the poor and wishes them all to die of starvation, simply because he believes that it is specifically not the GOVERNMENT's responsibility to redistribute wealth.

      I don't know you, but based purely on his public record and the laws of probability, I'm willing to bet Limbaugh has been responsible for giving more money to various charities than you ever will in your entire lifetime.
    46. Re:Fie on Rush by ildon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The assumption is that if you want the other side of the argument, you're smart enough to research it for yourself. Limbaugh only presents one side of the issue because he feels that the other side already has adequate representation. It's understandable if you don't agree with that position, but it doesn't invalidate it.

    47. Re:Fie on Rush by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 1
      I am NOT supporting what Limbaugh said in any way, but this accusation did not just come out of left-field:

      I had made a deliberate choice to appear before the subcommittee without medication. It seemed to me that this occasion demanded that my testimony about the effects of the disease, and the urgency we as a community were feeling, be seen as well as heard. For people who had never observed me in this kind of shape, the transformation must have been startling. --Michael J. Fox. "Little Man" (2003) page 247

      If you don't believe me, you can use Amazon's book search to check out the quote and the context.

      In his actual testimony, he said that medicine and "hundreds of little tricks" made it possible for him to hide his symptoms. If anything, the "theatrics" were the HIDING of his symptoms, rather than any emphasis of them. I don't disagree with a thing that he did, he wanted to show people what the illness had done to him.
    48. Re:Fie on Rush by ContractualObligatio · · Score: 1

      I didn't claim to invalidate Limbaugh's position. I pointed out that if you accept his position as proof of anyone having liberal bias, you are being rather non-critical in your thinking.

      Incidentally, that's an awful assumption. People do not always want the other side of the argument, propaganda often relies on reinforcing existing prejudices, and it's unlikely that someone as intelligent as Limbaugh is unaware of this.

    49. Re:Fie on Rush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an opinion show. I can see how ``sensationalist'' could refer to someone who's supposed to be reporting objectively, how does that make sense with respect to someone who is only presenting his opinion? You've used the incendiary and superficial phrase ``vocal vomit'' while complaining about his shallowness. How is that in any way staying on higher ground than the ``sensationalist'' Rush Limbaugh? Then that brings us to the word ``hypocrisy''. Never mind, this has already gone on longer than it's worth discussing.

    50. Re:Fie on Rush by ContractualObligatio · · Score: 1

      "so the tendancy of journalists - who graduate from liberal arts schools, and typically vote Democrat, is right-wing?"

      There is absolutely no logical path from my pointing out that Limbaugh does not provide an objective opinion, to the conclusion that I believe journalists are right wing. If that kind of willful misunderstanding (or simply poor logic) is indicative of your objectivity, you're only supporting my case.

      "Journalists are typically liberals, and newspaper owners are typically right-wing big corporation types (sans Ted Turner)."

      Exactly. There's no clear case to make that the media as a whole displays a liberal bias, but Limbaugh will have plenty of material given to him to make a compelling argument irrespective of the truth of the matter.

      Yes, everyone is biased, and not just in the media. But if you accept the opinion of someone who chooses an extreme bias, to the extent that his career, power and finances depends on it, you're a fool.

    51. Re:Fie on Rush by ildon · · Score: 1

      It's not a news program, it's an opinion/editorial/commentary/entertainment program. If it doesn't serve either the purpose of 1. entertainment or 2. expressing the hosts opinion, why should it be a part of the show? And if this has been a successful model for the show, why should he change it?

      Is it the hosts' responsibility if his audience is "non-critical in their thinking"? I certainly don't think so.

    52. Re:Fie on Rush by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes there is bias, but there are ways to minimize it's impact.
      Not exactly earth shattering news there.

      However the media isn't as biased as people say. Whenever a news station says something unflattering abut a party, that party immediatly starts screaming bias. Usually as an effort to confuse the issue.

      Example: :People say "The Daily Show" is biased, when in fact it is not. It
      s just in the last 8 years the republicans have done some monumentally stupid things, and they where in control of all three branches. SO guess which party is going to be looked at by a show whose goal it is to make fun of political things?

      It ripped on Clinton, but quite frankly nothing Clinton did compares to the stupidity of what Bush has done. If you can't see that then you are self delusional.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    53. Re:Fie on Rush by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      ah, i see. forgive me for not being fully up to speed on all the symptoms of Parkinson's disease.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    54. Re:Fie on Rush by cheezedawg · · Score: 1

      Rush accused Fox of exaggerating his symptoms -- like he's waving around and shaking on purpose and faking it all. Fox admitted he skipped his medications so people could see what Parkinson's does to a person. These are completely different things as far as I'm concerned.
      I don't fault Fox at all for doing what he did. Like I said, it was clearly in the best interest of his cause to make his disease look as debilitating as possible. But I also don't fault Limbaugh for highlighting this as the manipulation that it was (and no, Limbaugh did NOT accuse him of faking).

      I too had a close relative pass away from Parkinson's disease, so I have seen how bad it gets. But the point is that even though the symptoms that Fox that appeared with in front of congress and in that TV commercial were caused by his condition, they were not representative of his daily life. He normally counteracts and controls some of the symptoms, but he chose not to for the TV cameras. That is manipulation.
      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    55. Re:Fie on Rush by ContractualObligatio · · Score: 1

      Because you seem to be wandering all over the logical landscape rather than directly responding to anything I'm posting, I'll make a few quick points and hope one of them is still relevant:

      If we're talking about what Limbaugh "should" do, note I didn't say he should do or change anything.

      If we're talking about his audience, note I do not talk about Limbaugh having any responsibility for them. (note: you seem to be fond of straw man arguments.)

      If we're talking about news vs. opinion programs: Don't forget that except for ideologues and the weak minded, we all know we have the right to our own opinion but not our own facts. Limbaugh's a smart guy, so he knows this and corrects himself when necessary.

      If you just acting as an apologist for loud mouthed arseholes, then of course you have the right to your opinion.

    56. Re:Fie on Rush by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Eh, I extrapolated a little too far from your statement (you were a couple of words short of stating the media was full of right-wingers, and I read it in and it wasn't there. Unless that's your opinion.)

      My bad.

    57. Re:Fie on Rush by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      "Daily Show" is remarkably LESS biased than most media, actually. They really don't hold much back on anyone.

      If you know what to listen for, you'll figure out fairly quickly who is slanted where, though. That is, if you care to listen...I pretty much stick to headlines (Drudgereport tends to be the best one, even though it's hardly a glorified news-link front page).

    58. Re:Fie on Rush by Omestes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ummmm...so the tendancy of journalists - who graduate from liberal arts schools, and typically vote Democrat, is right-wing? Please.

      I don't think you know what "liberal arts" are. Liberal Arts in the academic context has nothing to do with political affiliation, and more to do with an academic philosophy based on balancing practical knowledge with more esoteric cultural studies and arts. Thus you can't just go to school for your MBA, you must also take some humanities. A Liberal Arts school is one with a focus ON humanities, I'm guessing.

      "Liberal" has many meanings. If I make liberal use of butter in my recipe, does that mean I'm intoning the "Communist Manifesto" over my butter?

      Looking at the 3 big cables news networks, I don't see any latent bias, left or right. Fox is mainly right leaning, CNN is slightly to the right with Beck, but Dobbs is schizophrenic enough to balance that out. MSNBC leans hard to the left with Obermann, but not too far because of that Tucker guy balances that out. But then again these networks are about ratings, and part of ratings is finding audiences. People want to hear what they agree with, thus all niches are filled.

      The journalists themselves have less to do with any perceived bias then the corporate executives, who are generally more right leaning, and who select journalists based on what perceived audience they want to convince to watch ads.

      Thanks to the FCC, there really isn't that much difference between newspapers and TV, since they are largely owned, and controlled, by the same people. Ditto with radio. These "bias" is again selected by corporate folk, to align the selected media towards the perceived audience.

      Actually the media is leaning MORE leftward now, thanks to a groundswell of disgust in the Republican policies of the last 12 or so years (since the Gingrich coup taking the House), and especially of the last eight. Before the anti-war movement got authentic grass-roots groundswell status, the media was largelly right leaning in coverage. I heard NO critique of the war, or the rampant attacks on American freedom from the media until it became popular despite the media.

      That said, this might be my selection bias, just as the leftist media theory could be due to yours.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    59. Re:Fie on Rush by SandwhichMaster · · Score: 1

      Rush is an idiot. A few years ago he was whining about the minimum wage. If you're going to argue strongly against something, you should at least be well informed.

      "It's -- whatever it is, six and a quarter, seven bucks an hour,"... "[t]he minimum wage has gotten so high that it's paying people that are not skilled to do anything."
      - Rush
      "75 percent of the people earning minimum wage are teenagers"
      - Rush

      http://mediamatters.org/items/200408130005

      Given at the time minimum wage was $5.15/hr, and less for tipped employees (in Wisconsin it was $2.33/hr at the time) he wasn't even close. Not to mention that teenagers only make up about 1/3 of minimum wage employees.

      Between that and his hypocritical drug garbage, I have no respect for the man, or his listeners.

    60. Re:Fie on Rush by krotkruton · · Score: 1

      Can you explain what you mean by the media tending to be leftist? Is it just because journalists tend to be liberal or Democrats? To me, the media favors the right because they focus on the "unimportant" or superficial issues that Republicans usually do better with instead of real issues that matter. I'm not saying Dems do better with the "real" issues, just that Republicans sound good when they're talking about "pro-life" and other such things.

      I'm not trying to pick a side here either, I just honestly don't understand why people think the media leans to the left. Could you give a couple real examples?

    61. Re:Fie on Rush by oroborous · · Score: 1

      Okay... so as someone who apparently knows dink about Parkinsons Disease, let me (a Ph.D in Neuroscience with an emphasis on Motor Control) fill you in on your ignorance there. The jerky movement that Fox displayed came from the fact that HE WAS ON HIS MEDICATIONS! It's a symptom of being on LDOPA for too long. Most patients prefer the jerky actions to the locked in state they'd be in otherwise. Fox never admitted to going off his medications. If he had... he wouldn't have been moving very much at all. Rush still was an asshat for making fun of him. It's a plain and simple fact (you know... one of those things that that that tub of lard often neglects).

    62. Re:Fie on Rush by ContractualObligatio · · Score: 1

      My bad.

      Fair enough. As for my opinion, I'll certainly provide a few facts: My only absolutely regular reading is The Economist. Occasionally I pick up a Financial Times, and I've subscribed to the Harvard Business Review ever since doing my MBA in the US. Today I was job hunting via The Times (I'm based in London) which is well known as a conservative paper here. So yes, I know the media is full of right wingers because I read them, even in a country where I can get state funded news for free.

      The bias of the media is towards making money. Some do so by staking out an attention seeking, pandering ideology - Rush Limbaugh being a good example. Some by trying to provide an attractive product for their customers, which means information biased towards the target market's tastes. Therefore there is no more bias than already exists in the population. Rupert Murdoch's The Sun, for instance, changes sides in Scotland vs. England according to the local politics. Which is why to a European, looking at the US with its centre right and far right politics, with a population clearly split fairly evenly between the two, it's just funny to hear the "liberal bias" claim. Claiming to be out-numbered or otherwise threatened is simply the oldest trick in the book.

    63. Re:Fie on Rush by workindev · · Score: 1

      You will note that the parents post claimed (and the video from Fox confirmed) that "Fox later admitted that he purposely skips his medication before public events like this so people will see his worst case symptoms".

      This has everything to do with the political ad, along with his testimony to Congress.

    64. Re:Fie on Rush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hilarious. You claim that it is a "documented fact" that Limbaugh is a "habitual lier" (sic), but the only "documentation" that you provide is the fact that you throw pillows at your TV?

    65. Re:Fie on Rush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay... so as a person who watched somebody very close to me over the course of 10 years die due to complications of Parkinsons Disease, let me suggest that you get a refund on your (apparently worthless) Ph.D. Her original symptoms, before she ever was diagnosed with PD and began treatment, was jerky movement and loss of motor control. She didn't start "locking up" until well after she was taking medication.

      In other words, you are wrong. Sucks that you claim to have a Ph.D, huh?

      By the way, you are an asshat for making fun of fat people by calling them tubs of "lard".

    66. Re:Fie on Rush by runningduck · · Score: 1

      So you agree that Mr. Limbaugh was wrong. According to your post and proof Fox did not exaggerate his Parkinson symptoms, he merely exposed them.

      --
      -rd
    67. Re:Fie on Rush by Ffakr · · Score: 1

      Lets take the Michael J Fox story that you mentioned as an example. Mr. Limbaugh stated on-air that he thought Michael Fox had exaggerated his Parkinson's symptoms in a political ad, and that he had done so for theatric benefit.

      At issue wasn't just Rush accusing Michael J. Fox of misrepresenting himself, it was also the bobbling around making light of a serious illness which will eventually kill Michael J. Fox. It was another asshole move. That's what caught Rush as much grief as anything. The larger problem in my opinion was Rush's typical practice of accusing Fox of essentially lying with zero evidence of any impropriety. Of course, Rush was also 100% wrong in his 'analysis' but I'll get to that in a second.

      It was clearly in Fox's best interest to make his disease look as debilitating as possible, and his tremors in the ad were much more pronounced than we usually saw from him.

      Well that seems clear cut. I always thought motive was irrefutable proof.

      Limbaugh said that he would be the first apologize to Fox if that wasn't the case. But guess what? Rush was right.

      Actually he was 100% wrong and he DID appologize.. briefly. More below

      Fox later admitted that he purposely skips his medication before public events like this so people will see his worst case symptoms. Here is a video clip of him admitting this.

      Nice cut clip. I like how the video ends mid sentence. I like the part where she says he does it on purpose then he says he doesn't do it on purpose. The disease makes you catatonic. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/parkinsons-disease/DS00295/DSECTION=2 It STARTS with tremors and ticks but Fox has had this for a long time. He's in the phase where he is normally rigid, even to the point where he has trouble swallowing.
      Rush said Fox didn't take his medicine so that he would appear out of control. Of course Rush had no idea what he was talking about but that's never stopped him before. On October 26th, Rush 'apologized' for speculating that Fox didn't take his medicine and then immediately stated that he purposefully took too much. Hey, if you throw enough crap at the wall maybe some of it will stick. Fox responded that same night on the CBS Evening News, stating that it's difficult to gauge the correct dosage and that the dosage that day did kick too hard.

      The Mayo Clinic article that I quickly found points out the dosage is a moving target.. Your medication needs may change over time, and the drug dosage and timing may require adjustment. For these reasons, you and your doctor will work together to design a program that best suits your needs, especially as the disease progresses. And of course, pulling slander out of his butt isn't enough. Rush not only knows what M.J. Fox is thinking (well, maybe the 2nd time around) but he also seems to know that the Democrats wrote the tremors into their script.
      Here's the kicker. Only Rush can do something and then immediately lie about it, then do it again and still have an audience that doesn't get it. Straight from the pie hole of Rush..

      Rush: - there is an irresponsible charge that I was making fun of Michael J. Fox, and that I said Michael J. Fox was faking it. Neither of those two charges have any foundation of truth whatsoever..

      Now without looking up the original transcript (though I should) let's give Rush the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he didn't say the word "faking". He only said Fox intentionally took too much medicine or he was intentionally exaggerating. That's totally different than faking. Of course he then says Fox was totally not faking when he was faking by intentionally overdosing. Congratulations for being a ditto head. It'd be too much, I'm sure, to realize he's calling you sheep.

      P.S. Probably my favorite Rus

      --

      I'm not feeling witty so bite me

    68. Re:Fie on Rush by piedmont67 · · Score: 0

      Fox PLAINLY stated that he did INDEED NOT TAKE his meds to prove a political point. Fox lies, and people die. Why? Oh to get a CURE! For what? Nothing at all. The lie sailed the bill on through, the people of Missouri are saddled with a 3 Billion dollar EMBRYONIC stem cell research bill. Be sure and send an email out to us when the cure, which has to come at the expense of breathing human beings, makes its way out. Fox proved nothing more than lies work even though embryonic stem cells don't.

      I advocate the withdrawal of US troops from Islamic countries so that they will no longer die to protect the leftist cowards sitting safe from Islamic law back here in their homes. Let 1,000,000 mosques bloom.

    69. Re:Fie on Rush by cheezedawg · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but I don't understand where you are coming from. I don't see how Michael J. Fox did anything wrong, nor exaggerated anything.
      I didn't say I thought Fox did anything wrong. Where did you get that idea? I have huge respect for him. He did take deliberate steps to make his argument as compelling as possible, but he was well within his rights to do so. But Limbaugh was also within his rights to point out that the Michael J Fox in that TV ad doesn't necessarily represent Michael J Fox of everyday life.

      What you are implying is that if Michael J. Fox can get his tremors under control with some medication, then he should show that?
      You sure do read into things a lot. I think that Fox should probably do whatever he ethically can to make his point, but I don't see any problem with Limbaugh pointing out what Fox had done.

      Your other point is baseless, as well. I do not like Limbaugh and I formed my opinion by listening to his show. He is insulting in every way imaginable. Limbaugh's job is not to find a valid argument to counter someone's statements or actions. His job is to find ways of vilifying the person Limbaugh takes issue with.
      Actually, no. Limbaugh is an entertainer. His job is to entertain people so they will listen to his show and hear advertisements from his customers, and he does that by giving his opinion and telling jokes.
      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    70. Re:Fie on Rush by cheezedawg · · Score: 1

      Okay... so as someone who apparently knows dink about Parkinsons Disease, let me (a Ph.D in Neuroscience with an emphasis on Motor Control) fill you in on your ignorance there.
      Thanks. Nobody likes to be ignorant.

      The jerky movement that Fox displayed came from the fact that HE WAS ON HIS MEDICATIONS! It's a symptom of being on LDOPA for too long.
      Well, thats not what Fox said about his congressional testimony. He wrote in his book that he made a deliberate choice to modify his medications before his appearance to give the most "startling" visual impression that he could (page 247 of his book "Lucky Man").

      Rush still was an asshat for making fun of him.
      I don't get to listen to Limbaugh's show more than a couple times a year, but I actually was listening the day he made these comments, and given the context, I think it is absurd to characterize anything he said as "making fun" of Fox.
      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    71. Re:Fie on Rush by oroborous · · Score: 1

      "Well, thats not what Fox said about his congressional testimony. He wrote in his book that he made a deliberate choice to modify his medications before his appearance to give the most "startling" visual impression that he could (page 247 of his book "Lucky Man")."

      Actually... that's not exactly what I remember. He said he deliberately chose to be on his medications so that people could see his dyskinesia. This is besides the point however, Rush explicitly accused him of exaggerating his symptoms and "acting" which Fox WAS NOT doing.

      "I don't get to listen to Limbaugh's show more than a couple times a year, but I actually was listening the day he made these comments, and given the context, I think it is absurd to characterize anything he said as "making fun" of Fox."

      I'm sure that listening might not have seemed so offensive as SEEING him make fun of Fox's symptoms in the video of the program. Watch the video and listen to the whole segment, and it's obvious that El Bimbo was a) Making fun of Fox's disease and b) accusing him of faking or exaggerating his disease for political gain.

      So in line with the parent thread, why should Mr. Jobs help a bully when it will just facilitate his continued bullying?

    72. Re:Fie on Rush by cheezedawg · · Score: 1

      Actually... that's not exactly what I remember. He said he deliberately chose to be on his medications so that people could see his dyskinesia.
      Here is the exact quote from his book:
      "I had made a deliberate choice to appear before the subcommittee without medication. It seemed to me that this occasion demanded that my testimony about the effects of the disease, and the urgency we as a community were feeling, be seen as well as heard. For people who had never observed me in this kind of shape, the transformation must have been startling."
      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    73. Re:Fie on Rush by A+Jew · · Score: 1

      Not taking meds != exaggerated symptoms.

      sounds like he identified a real problem, but reached the wrong conclusions based on partial information.

      Rush Limbaugh is a habitual lier.

      please bring concrete examples.

      I have no doubt that if HE had Parkinson's, HE would play up the severity of his symptoms.

      you have not brought any evidence to support this claim.

      The guy who championed family values has been married and divorced three times.

      and what exactly is wrong with divorce? family values isn't about sticking together no matter how much you totally can't stand each other. if you would have said he cheated on his wives that would be a different matter.

      What I have a real problem with is people who force the world into their view, like the Europeans making nation states out of the Arab tribes they conquered. Why not try to understand reality according to what it is, rather than according to how you would like it to be? not all people want to just live and let live. some have ideals beyond just surviving, or material thriving. some people won't be nice to you just because you are nice to them. bullies get encouraged by weakness. worse of all, real hate exists today, no less than before. the best way to get rid of racism is to stop using racist term like "African American" or "white".

      different people have different goals, and they can conflict. therefor, progress for liberalism is total backwardness for a conservatism. what I really can't take is when people assume only their ideals exist, so therefor when conservatives make progress on their goals, it annoys me that liberals talk as if it's objectively moronic because it conflicts with the liberal's goals. it is not moronic, it is simply an attempt to solve a completely different problem that arises from having a completely different purpose. it would be moronic if it was trying to solve a problem the liberals face, but it doesn't.
    74. Re:Fie on Rush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure that listening might not have seemed so offensive as SEEING him make fun of Fox's symptoms in the video of the program.


      Hey moron, Limbaugh is a radio host, not a TV host. His program is entirely based on audio, not video.
    75. Re:Fie on Rush by pr0nboy · · Score: 1

      his is besides the point however, Rush explicitly accused him of exaggerating his symptoms and "acting" which Fox WAS NOT doing.
      Bzzzt. Rush said that the Michael J Fox in the ad was so different than the Michael J Fox that he saw every week on Boston Legal that he thought Fox was "acting or off his medication". These words have meaning, you know, and you look like an ignorant sheep when you feign outrage based on a few words that Rush's political opponents cherry pick out of an entire monolog.

      And as it turned out, Michael J Fox had a history of manipulating his medication to get the greatest visual impact in his public appearances in favor of stem cell research. Rush was wrong on the specifics of his manipulation in that ad- he didn't skip his medication, he took too much of it- for which he offered an adequate apology.
    76. Re:Fie on Rush by pr0nboy · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that listening might not have seemed so offensive as SEEING him make fun of Fox's symptoms in the video of the program. Watch the video and listen to the whole segment, and it's obvious that El Bimbo was a) Making fun of Fox's disease and b) accusing him of faking or exaggerating his disease for political gain
      Oh, and claiming that video shows Rush making fun of Michael J Fox is equally ignorant. Rush was attempting to describe Michael J Fox's actions in the TV ad to an audience that had likely not seen it yet and was used to a Michael J Fox that appeared somewhat normal every week on TV. Rush was being descriptive. He wasn't mocking.

      And were you aware that the Rush-hating media sped up the video clip of him demonstrating Michael J Fox's actions when they played in on TV in an attempt to make him look bad? I can't believe that is the media you chose to trust...
    77. Re:Fie on Rush by pr0nboy · · Score: 1

      fter claiming for years that drug users should be treated harshly, we find that this is just a bunch of hypocrisy
      Yeah, because developing an addiction to pain killers after a painful back injury is morally equivalent to selling crack to teenagers on the streets. Moron.
    78. Re:Fie on Rush by pr0nboy · · Score: 1

      At issue wasn't just Rush accusing Michael J. Fox of misrepresenting himself, it was also the bobbling around making light of a serious illness which will eventually kill Michael J. Fox. It was another asshole move.
      The only way you could read into that video clip that Rush was trying to make light of Michael J Fox's condition is if you already had your mind made up that you don't like Rush and were looking for anything to justify that.

      Rush was describing what he saw to a radio audience. Most of the audience had not seen the ad yet unless they live in MO, and they were used to seeing a normal looking Michael J Fox on TV every week. Rush was being descriptive. He wasn't mocking.

      And Rush's accusation that Michael J Fox was "either acting or off of his medication" was essentially proven. It turns out that he didn't skip his medication for the ad (like he had done previously for his congressionaly testimony), but instead he had taken too much medication. Either way he manipulated the situation to get as much sympathy as he could for his cause (which, by the way, was a bill that he had never read himself supporting stem cell research that has never produced anything but cancer, let alone a cure for any disease).
    79. Re:Fie on Rush by ti1ion · · Score: 1

      Please re-read what you originally wrote. Rush Limbaugh attacked Michael J. Fox for exaggerating his symptoms. That implies that Fox was faking; that the tremors were not real and he faked it to get more sympathy for his cause. That is the point of the whole controversy over the issue. I did not read anything into your comments, you made them clear. You wrote that Limbaugh was right because Fox admitted to not taking his medication before taping. My response took issue with your logic and you have not refuted it. In fact, you wrote "I don't see any problem with Limbaugh pointing out what Fox had done." If Limbaugh had stated that Fox did not take his medication and that he, Limbaugh, had a problem with this, then you would have a point. Limbaugh strongly implied Fox was faking. This was a diversionary tactic to take the spotlight away from the issue and attack the messenger. That is what I already stated Limbaugh does.

      And, if you think that's entertainment, well, I hope you will give that some thought.

    80. Re:Fie on Rush by workindev · · Score: 1

      No, all Rush did was point out that Fox appeared week after week in a TV drama and other Television appearances without any apparent symptoms, but when he appeared in a political ad with the very sharp political accusation that George Bush and Michael Steel didn't care about people like him, things were strikingly different. That is a pretty obvious manipulation, and it is perfectly valid to point that out. You will note that Limbaugh's harshest words were for the politicians who were behind this manipulation of Fox for their own political gain.

    81. Re:Fie on Rush by mmarlett · · Score: 1

      Rush Limbaugh is a habitual lier.

      please bring concrete examples.

      That's easy enough. People write books about his lies. Amongst them:

      Or, read any of Rush's own books -- but you'll have to do all the fact checking yourself. But you may be able to pick out plenty without doing a lot of research, such as when he says in See, I Told You So that "There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived." (There are fewer than 2 million Americans claiming native ancestry now, but there were between 5 million and 15 million Native Americans in 1492. Or, sticking to the same theme from the same book, Rush said "There are more acres of forestland in America today than when Columbus discovered the continent in 1492." In fact, there is a quarter billion fewer acres of forest. But those aren't honest mistakes. Those are lies.

      Still need evidence that he is a liar? How about Rush saying that he's glad the mid-term elections are over so that he doesn't have to lie for the Republicans anymore? "There have been a bunch of things going on in Congress. Some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at. And it has been difficult coming in here trying to make the case for it when the people who supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves."

      I have no doubt that if HE had Parkinson's, HE would play up the severity of his symptoms.

      you have not brought any evidence to support this claim.

      Really? The only claim there is that "I have no doubt ... ." That is, it is my opinion. Consider it original research, but I assure you that it is my opinion.

      The guy who championed family values has been married and divorced three times.

      and what exactly is wrong with divorce? family values isn't about sticking together no matter how much you totally can't stand each other. if you would have said he cheated on his wives that would be a different matter.

      Well, he met his last wife via Compuserve in 1990. In 1992 she divorced her then husband. She married Rush in 1994. In 2000, she bought a house of her own. In 2004 they were divorced. He has been married a total of 16 years to three wives and spent more than seven of those years separate from his wife. Rush told the Palm Beach Post that "Marriage is about raising children. That's the purpose of the institution." He has no children. He has no interest in making a successful marriage. He has said, "If you want a successful marriage, let your husband do what he wants to do." And that makes him a complete hypocrite.

      Why not try to understand reality according to what it is, rather than according to how you would like it to be?

      A good question for Rush.

      the best way to get rid of racism is to stop using racist term like "African American" or "white".

    82. Re:Fie on Rush by A+Jew · · Score: 1

      "you are -- subjectively, and in my opinion -- a moron." - why?

      BTW, thank you for your pointers, I just wanted to know that you have something beyond your personal bias backing your claims, but I still might check them out.

    83. Re:Fie on Rush by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      You're confusing opinion content with news reporting. Journalists who form initial reports, as a rule, are left-leaning, and that bias leaks through most of the time (though not blatantly). You really have to know what to look for.

      BTW, I've my MA in history - I know very well the liberal arts world, which is part of the reason I left it.

    84. Re:Fie on Rush by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      One is precisely that journalists tend to be liberals and vote overwhelmingly Dem.

      The prime example that you're looking for is Dan Rather's reporting on the whole GWB "AWOL" non-issue - he let his personal political opinion get in the way of good reporting. He may actually have been partially right, but underestimated the ability of the internet to search his claims out. Also, there is a decent amount of NON-reporting coming out of Iraq - the only headlines you see are who has been blown up. Success stories, stories with extreme detail, and some sort of attempts at really digging into the whole complcated situation (which is what Iraq is - this is not a black and white issue) gets washed away.

      Also, you need to differentiate between journalists and media ownership. Editorial content tends to come from some of the money guys who control WHAT is reported - and thus you get the idiocy of Britney and Paris and other sensationalist issues. It's not about agenda or left/right - it's about money. The reporters themselves tend to be lefties.

    85. Re:Fie on Rush by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      I'll go a little step further - the bias of media OWNERSHIP is toward making money - which is why there is a lot on both sides of the aisle that is underreported (or poorly done).

    86. Re:Fie on Rush by ContractualObligatio · · Score: 1

      To make that statement strongly implies that ONLY the ownership is biased towards making money. This requires the assumption that journalists are never biased by the desire to be well paid, a famous pundit, or generally just have reliable, professional income. It doesn't stand up to the most cursory inspection.

      It is a useful thing to believe if you wish to justify a believe that the media has a liberal bias, of course. How convenient.

    87. Re:Fie on Rush by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      No, but they're the ones paying the bills and making the most out of what you see on television...and they're the ones with the ultimate editorial control. They're the ones who put up the whole Britney-Paris claptrep and the "if it bleeds, it leads" type stories on the front page.

      True - there are plenty of journalists out there ready and willing to go the sensationalist route out there, but the reason which they are is because of the guy who cuts the paychecks and a stupid viewing audience.

      There may be millionaire journalists out there, but they aren't the ones pulling the purse strings and who reap the ultimate benefits.

    88. Re:Fie on Rush by ContractualObligatio · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree with you more on that one.

      But follow the implications: the ownership is right wing and has control not just editorially but also through the ever present "keep the boss happy" dynamic. The result recently (i.e. under a conservative government) is a media diet that heavily supports the conservative agenda by ignoring the oversight role of the press to focus on the trivial. There are just as many right wing pundits as left, and an entire right wing news channel (or comedy channel to non-Americans) in the form of Fox. Against that backdrop, and taking into account the fact that many people who are left wing when young but right wing when older, and I don't see the basis for giving much credence to the fact that journalists graduate from liberal institutions. Universities generally are liberal institutions, but clearly the adult population is not heavily split either way so just how much influence can they have in practice?

      So I find the "liberal media" claim difficult to believe. Often when it is used, the context suggests the intended meaning is not "that section of the media which is liberal", which would be fine. Instead it has distinct overtones of "the media has a left wing bias, so ignore what others have to say and listen to me for the truth", which is disgusting and generally corrosive to informed debate - something the US is in dire need of.

    89. Re:Fie on Rush by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Media ownership isn't necessarily conservative - they are more likely to be overwhelmingly corporatist (please don't confuse the two - they may overlap, but are not the same thing). Ted Turner isn't exactly the right's best friend...and Rupert Murdoch you pointed out is more along the lines of sensationalist than right-wing.

      If you think that the everyday media here completely supports the government completely, you're watching something different. Sensationalist has sold under any administration, particularly the last two (as Clinton was a bit of a sensationalist president), and doesn't necessarily help. Think about Iraq - we RARELY hear positive - just body counts - and to pretend that the situation there is completely negative is ignorant and idiotic...and the lack of challenge to Hillary or Obama is amazing...neither has had to answer a difficult question yet or make a serious positive stand.

      I think that we're seeing two sides of the same coin here...we have similar opinions and come to similar conclusions somewhat based on political bias.

    90. Re:Fie on Rush by ContractualObligatio · · Score: 1

      No. It is precisely that kind of lazy thinking and willing acceptance of bias that is the problem with America today. Such attitudes have spoiled what used to be the greatest country on Earth.

      Your initial point was that a pundit at one end of the political scale shows how the media is biased against his point of view - I say that's not possible. You say there is a liberal bias, I say there is not. These are not similar conclusions, these are opposites. And in the post above, the casual statements of distortion and bias are exactly the kind of thing I was posting against.

      "Completely supports" is an absolute, and a complete distortion of accusing someone of failing their oversight duties. It's logically equivalent to saying that the Democrat Congress completely supports Bush. This is the kind of nonsense that propagandists use.

      The presence of sensationalism is a given, but what are the actions of the Clinton administration that you feel did not receive coverage because instead they chose to discuss Britney? I don't recall any time where the entire planet was wishing to God someone would start challenging the Bush administration on its various abuses of their own country's principles.

      The reason you rarely hear positives about Iraq is because positives are rare. To believe the situation is generally (as compared to completely) negative is not ignorant and idiotic, but to talk once again in absolutes is.

      What are the questions that are not being asked? Lack of experience, ties to slum landlords, an extremist liberal voting record, attendance at a Muslim school, divisive politics, failure to deliver on heathcare reform, relying on familiarity rather than achievement, voting for the war but claiming to be against it -these questions have all been asked. What is the difficult question you feel should be asked?

      Because Obama seems such an impressive candidate, I've gone through his policies. They're more than detailed enough, especially when you consider that whoever becomes the presidential candidate will have to change their policies to represent their party and not just their own point of view. The role of the President is not to write policy, but to lead the nation. So what is a "serious positive stand"? Or are you just using vague accusatory questions as per standard smear tactics?

    91. Re:Fie on Rush by oroborous · · Score: 1

      Bzzzt. Rush said that the Michael J Fox in the ad was so different than the Michael J Fox that he saw every week on Boston Legal that he thought Fox was "acting or off his medication". These words have meaning, you know, and you look like an ignorant sheep when you feign outrage based on a few words that Rush's political opponents cherry pick out of an entire monolog.

      Okay... so another prize for "You've missed the point!". As mentioned in the thread above, he wasn't off his medications in the commercial. So Rush was wrong on both counts as he wasn't a) acting or b) off his medications. His symptoms were normal symptoms of people on his medications. I've seen it ALL THE TIME in PD patients. And I did listen to the WHOLE segment when it first came out (with and without video) so I'm not relying on a few words cherry picked by his opponents. The drug addled gas bag puts his foot in his mouth just fine without the help of others. Maybe you should actually listen to what he says and watch what he does sometimes.

      Second, the quote excerpted above from Fox's bio says that he "manipulated" his medications by going off it in the congressional testimony. So I fail to see how him showing the true symptoms of his disease is being manipulative when giving congressional testimony on the nature of his disease. But then again, I'm not the one picking on someone with Parkinson's Disease or defending those who do.

    92. Re:Fie on Rush by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Your initial point was that a pundit at one end of the political scale shows how the media is biased against his point of view - I say that's not possible. You say there is a liberal bias, I say there is not. These are not similar conclusions, these are opposites. And in the post above, the casual statements of distortion and bias are exactly the kind of thing I was posting against.

      "Completely supports" is an absolute, and a complete distortion of accusing someone of failing their oversight duties. It's logically equivalent to saying that the Democrat Congress completely supports Bush. This is the kind of nonsense that propagandists use.

      So do you fall somewhere in between the whole left-wing/right-wing media debate, or do you discount the media altogether? Some of the angles I think you seem to take promotes a right-wing media that MOSTLY supports the presidency, but from this side, I can't see how - and I've studied this (not just taken Rush's word for it).

      The presence of sensationalism is a given, but what are the actions of the Clinton administration that you feel did not receive coverage because instead they chose to discuss Britney? I don't recall any time where the entire planet was wishing to God someone would start challenging the Bush administration on its various abuses of their own country's principles.

      How about few real challenges to Clinton from the media? Outside of the whole Lewinsky deal, which I felt they were almost forced to report on, the Clintons have had few challenges - especially recently - from the media. Tim Russert has been one of the few to call Clinton to carpet, and there has been little that doesn't challenge her pre-prepared answers to pre-prepared questions.



      The reason you rarely hear positives about Iraq is because positives are rare. To believe the situation is generally (as compared to completely) negative is not ignorant and idiotic, but to talk once again in absolutes is.

      I cede your point on the "completely" - stupid adverbs - but the point remains that too many reporters were holed up in hotels in Baghdad than out in the field like the initial invasion. I understand why many think it's "generally" negative, but I don't believe it's as bad as the mass media makes it out to be and not as good as the administration pushes.

      What are the questions that are not being asked? Lack of experience, ties to slum landlords, an extremist liberal voting record, attendance at a Muslim school, divisive politics, failure to deliver on heathcare reform, relying on familiarity rather than achievement, voting for the war but claiming to be against it -these questions have all been asked. What is the difficult question you feel should be asked?

      Most of which were out of the Clinton campaign before hitting the media, or filtered from them FIRST. Several of those points they were riding or pointing at before I saw any other reporting from mass media.

      Because Obama seems such an impressive candidate, I've gone through his policies. They're more than detailed enough, especially when you consider that whoever becomes the presidential candidate will have to change their policies to represent their party and not just their own point of view. The role of the President is not to write policy, but to lead the nation. So what is a "serious positive stand"? Or are you just using vague accusatory questions as per standard smear tactics?

      You pointed out several items - such as the war - which weren't positive stands for Obama. Clinton is especially bad about moving all over the place to tell people what they want to hear, and all we hear out of Obama's camp is "change." I shouldn't have to dig deep to find what they stand for, and I haven't quite found it, outside of general party principles, which I oppose most of the time anyway.
    93. Re:Fie on Rush by ContractualObligatio · · Score: 1

      I shouldn't have to dig deep to find what they stand for, and I haven't quite found it, outside of general party principles, which I oppose most of the time anyway.

      Looking up a web site with the exact same name as the candidate before shooting off your mouth is hardly "digging deep". Some people are happy to hear only what they want to hear, I guess. A few quick points, because it's probably wasted on someone who needs to be spoon fed:

      The bias appears right wing to me, because to a Brit both your parties are right wing. To the extent that the US media failed to hold a conservative adminstration to account even as treated the Constitution with contempt and generally screwed the US to no apparent benefit, it is certainly difficult to see a liberal bias.

      What are the things the Clintons were not challenged on by the media? Anything on a scale measured in dead Americans, trade and budget deficits, or significant increases in foreign ownership of US assets?

      During an internal selection process, it simply isn't the media's role to create the news and invent questions to satisfy the nutjobs in the other party. Filtering out smear tactics is entirely appropriate. You're concluding the media is biased on by doing what it is supposed to do.

      Obama's stance on the war has been consistent. If you don't think that's positive, then you really are as biased as you're pretending not to be. If you think voting to fund troops stuck in a war zone is the same as wanting to bring those troops home, you are quite simply wrong.

    94. Re:Fie on Rush by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      The bias appears right wing to me, because to a Brit both your parties are right wing. To the extent that the US media failed to hold a conservative adminstration to account even as treated the Constitution with contempt and generally screwed the US to no apparent benefit, it is certainly difficult to see a liberal bias.

      Here is probably the biggest factor in our discussion - Euros have been removed for so long from decent right-wing politics that it's hard to recognize the good parts about it, or sometimes to even consider valid points that can have reasonable arguments (firearms for self-defense, pro-life positions, free market medical care, etc).

      What are the things the Clintons were not challenged on by the media? Anything on a scale measured in dead Americans, trade and budget deficits, or significant increases in foreign ownership of US assets? Hillary hasn't been answering tough questions lately. Little about gun control, what she'll really do about Iraq or Afghanistan, how she plans to pay for ANYTHING she's promoting...I know that Europeans love the Clintons. I'm not sure if you can see how devisive a figure she is over here - she's one of the few people those of us on the right may be afraid of, because we see her almost as an outright Marxist.

      During an internal selection process, it simply isn't the media's role to create the news and invent questions to satisfy the nutjobs in the other party. Filtering out smear tactics is entirely appropriate. You're concluding the media is biased on by doing what it is supposed to do. I thought you considered them to be the arbiters of accountability? There isn't any question they SHOULDN'T ask, in ANY stage of the electoral process. She should answer the same questions she would answer in the general election - which she will have to or be hit hard by the Republicans.

      Obama's stance on the war has been consistent. If you don't think that's positive, then you really are as biased as you're pretending not to be. If you think voting to fund troops stuck in a war zone is the same as wanting to bring those troops home, you are quite simply wrong. Quite the contrary - it's a good vote if you're on the left. Funding the troops should be seen as a protection measure for them - it does NO good for them to be unfunded...it won't get them home sooner and it gets them the resources that they need. However, all that is heard out of the campaign is mostly the "hope, change, we can" stuff...but it's going to wind up being probably something along the lines of left of JFK politics.
    95. Re:Fie on Rush by ContractualObligatio · · Score: 1

      Euros have been removed for so long from decent right-wing politics

      Oh, give me strength. I grew in Hong Kong, whose market was freer than the US prior to the handover to China. I've got an Ivy League MBA and private health insurance. This year I celebrated New Year in Dallas. I hardly think I'm ignorant of the advantages of conservative thinking.

      we see her almost as an outright Marxist.

      On the other hand, do you have any clue what left wing really is?

      Little about gun control

      Irrelevant, in case you weren't aware of the issues of the day.

      what she'll really do about Iraq or Afghanistan

      You may not like her answers, but don't give me the "questions not asked" bullshit

      how she plans to pay for ANYTHING she's promoting

      Same answer again. There's broad agreement on the Democrat side on policy, so why not leave this until it's more entertaining when the Republicans try and claim anything other than a complete fiscal cockup?

      I thought you considered them to be the arbiters of accountability?

      No, there are three other branches to get through before you get to the fourth. Further, holding the elected government to account in the media for its actions is not creating the news - it is reporting it. Going through the minutiae of a candidate's background for anything that might be turned into a scare tactic (he once went to primary school!) would not be intelligent coverage of a candidate selection process. Spending a year or two ensuring every single President of the USA dragged through as much irrelevant shit as possible before taking office would simply not be a good system.

      There isn't any question they SHOULDN'T ask, in ANY stage of the electoral process.

      Do you spend much time in reality, out of interest? Time is a finite resource. Smear tactics take up time, distract from worthy issues, and add no value. The challenge is to know what questions SHOULD be asked, not to make whiny idealistic statements like some hippy who doesn't work for a living.

      it's a good vote if you're on the left

      This kind of line is the problem with the Republicans currently. You're too scared to answer a question straight. Too dishonest to say right at the start of the conversation that you're right wing. Too self-obsessed to understand the world outside your borders. It's a shame. I wonder how long it will take you to recover.

  6. I would suggest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he blow hard

  7. Significance... by Sorthum · · Score: 1

    This isn't signficant from a technical perspective-- one off problems occur quite frequently.

    What it is is a high visibility problem by someone with a huge soapbox to talk about them from. I'd be shocked if Apple's PR types didn't treat this one with kid gloves, and use it for the marketing opportunity that it has the potential of being...

    1. Re:Significance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be shocked if Apple's PR types didn't treat this one with kid gloves, and use it for the marketing opportunity that it has the potential of being... I'd be shocked if Apple didn't deny the existence of Rush Limbaugh's Mac use. I'd be shocked if they didn't delete all Rush-related threads in Apple's forums.

      Face it, Rush Limbaugh is an embarrassment to Apple.

    2. Re:Significance... by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      s/Apple/the human race/

      Fixed.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  8. a slashdotter can dream... by BrynM · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I can fix that stuff right away. It'll cost you:

    • You publicly apologizing to every liberal that you've ever met.
    • then the moderates
    • then the republicans you've disappointed over and over again.
    • A personal apology to each member of the Clinton family (including pets and household staff)
    • Spend one normal work week being nothing but kind, courteous and thoughtful to everyone you talk to (everyone.).
    • Go 5 hours without insulting someone or insulting their intelligence
    • Form no arguments without providing sources and reference data for 1 day
    • Stop using drugs and/or stop lying about it by accusing others of being druggies.
    • 1 cent for tax purposes and account tracking

    When you've gathered all of that together, give me a call.

    -Jobs

    --
    US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    1. Re:a slashdotter can dream... by dgatwood · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Best... response... ever....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:a slashdotter can dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I can fix that stuff right away. It'll cost you:
      • You publicly apologizing to every liberal that you've ever met.
      • then the moderates
      • then the republicans you've disappointed over and over again.
      • A personal apology to each member of the Clinton family (including pets and household staff)
      OTOH, I'd like to thank Rush for his persistent trashing of the only Republican who doesn't make me barf (J. McCain). I'm convinced his "anti-endorsement" helped McCain's image in the eyes of moderate Republicans.

      As for his computer problems, Rush can go frick himself. Same with Michael Moore, Bill O'Reilly, Al Franken, et. al.

    3. Re:a slashdotter can dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Rush, Here's how to fix your Mac. - Get off drugs - Shower - Learn how to be nice - Lose weight - Volunteer for NASA flights to Saturn

    4. Re:a slashdotter can dream... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      I can fix that stuff right away. It'll cost you...
      We should all be thanking Rush for exposing to the world the people that think like him as the selfish ignorant fools that they are. While it's true that some people actually do believe that sort of tripe, Rush exposes these people to the vast majority as the dangerous buffoons they really are.
      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    5. Re:a slashdotter can dream... by pr0nboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Spoken like somebody who has never actually listened to Rush's radio show.

    6. Re:a slashdotter can dream... by TriggerFin · · Score: 1

      OTOH, I'd like to thank Rush for his persistent trashing of the only Republican who doesn't make me barf (J. McCain). I'm convinced his "anti-endorsement" helped McCain's image in the eyes of moderate Republicans.


      So, you agree with him then? He said that before it was parroted by half a dozen talking heads.

      But anyway, does your less-negative view of Sen. Cain mean you hate free speech, or just that you want to exploit Mexicans?

      Oops. Broke my karma. Sorry.
      --
      Here's your sig.
    7. Re:a slashdotter can dream... by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      If he doesn't want to fix it himself, can't he just hire a stupid and unskilled Mexican to do it for him? Rush, man, live up to your own principles.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    8. Re:a slashdotter can dream... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Actually, let me fix your reply.

      A personal apology to each member of the Clinton family (including pets and household staff)

      A personal apology from each member of the Clinton family

      There, that's more like it. Why should anyone apologize to them? They're a completely oily, power-hungry pair of triangulating, platitude-uttering, poll-driven sharks. They haven't changed a bit, and still haven't apologized for bringing FBI records on political opponents into the White House for campaign research, crucifying people in their travel office for their own misdeeds, getting Bill's staff to lie for him about his own lies in front of a judge, issuing pardons to rich fugitive felon/donors on Bill's way out the door, and so on. Why should anyone apologize to them, of all people? I have no intention of voting for Obama, but I think he deserves an apology from Bill, too. Just wait to see what the next several weeks of the Democrat primary campaign looks like - the Clintons have only just begun to get really desparate, and their machine is going to go into full politics-of-personal-destruction mode. They're the masters of it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    9. Re:a slashdotter can dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont forget
      'your from arkansas and lived there most of your life and your the senator from new york'
      IIIIIIINnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnTeresting choice...

      At this point the 'interesting' choices have dropped out of the race. The only ones left are douche and turd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_and_Turd.

    10. Re:a slashdotter can dream... by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      I'm convinced his "anti-endorsement" helped McCain's image in the eyes of moderate Republicans. Maybe that's why he's doing it?
      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    11. Re:a slashdotter can dream... by BrynM · · Score: 1

      Spoken like somebody who has never actually listened to Rush's radio show.
      I grew up in Sacramento. I heard Rush a lot on Talk 650 and have listened to the occasional episode in the past few years. I've even met Rush more than once (he's a jerk in person) and had a friend who owned a Dittoheads Diner during the 90s. I meant the post mostly in jest though there was a spot of animosity in there. You should see the moderation email from today... Up then down then up then down. It's insightful... no a troll.. no overrated.. no funny... no flaimbait...

      Slashdot is always an interesting place to post :)

      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
  9. !newsworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell me this article is posted solely to try and bring them down via slashdot effect. If not, I am very saddened at the fact that someone thought this to be anything close to newsworthy.

  10. Isn't the answer obvious? by Faylone · · Score: 4, Funny

    Get a PC!

    1. Re:Isn't the answer obvious? by edwardpickman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Is simply going to a system that lacks the features a fix or learning to live without?

    2. Re:Isn't the answer obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Academics would have us believe that Macs are favoured by creative people.

      This proves it.

    3. Re:Isn't the answer obvious? by dotancohen · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Get a PC! Hi, I'm a PC. Hi, I'm Ru... POP!
      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    4. Re:Isn't the answer obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you referring to Linux or Vista? I'm confused...

    5. Re:Isn't the answer obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shhhh...please don't try to tell the Jobians that other OSes can do everything Mac OS X can. You'll get them angry and they might spill their Kool Aid.

    6. Re:Isn't the answer obvious? by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Druggies prefer Macs.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:Isn't the answer obvious? by ACMENEWSLLC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A Mac is a personal computer.

      My Macbook PRO 10.5.x (now on 10.5.2) locks up a lot more often than my XP machine does. XP almost never locks up.

      But my Mac works correctly when it's not locked up. My XP machine often has problems. CD lower filter driver conflicts, explorer locking up because I close Acronis True image interface, Explorer extremely slow when I right click on a folder with WinZip explorer extensions turned on....

      The Mac locks up on stupid stuff - like listening to a CD/watching a DVD or using Video Chat with friends on the other side of the world. Most of the problems seem to be with Front Row, for me.

    8. Re:Isn't the answer obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't realize all mac's were server grade machines... score!!!!

  11. I learned a little-late that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Rush Limbaugh actually hides his distress in little episodes of "service requests" with great "follow-up" solution and satisfaction as an easy way to advertise for companies and corporations that endorse or pay him. I use to "tune" my locker radio into him through KFI AM-640 when I was in Junior High schrool around about 1993. He was quite honest about it back then, and recently these past years since about September 11, 2001 has become a dishonest creature that is all but on my ignore-List. He has lunch with Hillary Clinton every day, and holds unequal measure as to what he compains about punnishment enflicted on others with eschewing and discharging the matters of his own that warrant the same but with leniency. He's just like Bill Oreilly and that Beat-Nick Michael Weiner Savage; too luke-warm that you can't fill your hot-air balloon with their inefficient gas-passing, and yet not hot enough to do some useful cooking and heating. My dial is tuned to Radio-free Johnstown Denver/American Freedom Network (64.72.126.49:3030/), Republic Broadcasting Network, First Amendment Radio, The American Voice, GCN Network, Truth Radio, Revere Radio Network, and Alex Jones (PrisonPlanet.com). Anything else is just nerds doing somthing useless, as we don't like to hear computer shows of repair and remedy in the likes of Jeff Levy and such (yawn), but I would go for a daily show on eMacs versus Vim!

  12. I'll be happy to by hksdot · · Score: 1, Funny

    Just send me your root account information.

    1. Re:I'll be happy to by hksdot · · Score: 0

      nm I got it on the first guess, it was rush/god. Hackers was right.

  13. Rant In E-Minor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "Doesn't Rush Limbaugh remind you of one of those gay guys who likes to lay in a tub while other men pee on him? Can't you see his fat body in a tub while Reagan, Quayle and Bush just [pee noise] Just standing around pissing on him, and his piggly-wiggly dick can't get hard." - excerpt from Rant in E-Minor, Bill Hicks

    1. Re:Rant In E-Minor by Chas · · Score: 1

      It's called Projection.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
  14. Chicken of the VNC and Vine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget "Back to my mac"...

  15. Time Machine restores Mail Just Fine by jwdav · · Score: 4, Informative

    Time Machine works just fine with Mail - you can restore one message or a whole deleted mailbox if you like. It wouldn't work with Entourage or any other mail program with a single massive database, or with an IMAP server, both for obvious reasons ...

    1. Re:Time Machine restores Mail Just Fine by anagama · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can attest to this. I wanted to test it out to see if it really worked as promised. So I duped my macbook to be safe, made time machine do one last backup, then formatted the laptop drive and installed Leopard. During the first bootup process, I just ticked the option to recover from Time Machine, and everything transferred -- my mail boxes, rules, accounts, passwords. I was quite impressed. It does hourly, daily and weekly snapshots and is brain dead simple to run, and brain dead simple to restore from.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    2. Re:Time Machine restores Mail Just Fine by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 1

      During the first bootup process, I just ticked the option to recover from Time Machine, and everything transferred -- my mail boxes, rules, accounts, passwords. I was quite impressed.

      It's not difficult to do manually, either. I've duplicated the contents of Mail.app's mailboxes between computers without problems (basically, I didn't want to download a large set of IMAP mailboxes again) - you just need to know which files to copy. I think I cheated and did the whole of ~/Library/Mail along with ~/Library/Preferences/com.apple.mail.plist, but you can do it on a finer-grained basis too.

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    3. Re:Time Machine restores Mail Just Fine by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't work with Entourage or any other mail program with a single massive database, or with an IMAP server, both for obvious reasons ... I believe I heard a rumor that Entourage 2008 does work with Time Machine, but I can't confirm that.
      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    4. Re:Time Machine restores Mail Just Fine by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      I believe I heard a rumor that Entourage 2008 does work with Time Machine, but I can't confirm that.


      Nope, they improved support for Spotlight and things like that, but it's still one giant file that gets updated anytime anything changes.
      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    5. Re:Time Machine restores Mail Just Fine by samkass · · Score: 1

      Even with one giant file it's my understanding that it would be possible for them to utilize the Time Machine API such that single records could be restored out of that file and searches performed from the past. That's part of the power of Time Machine-- that it's much more than a simple file-by-file or volume-by-volume snapshotting solution.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    6. Re:Time Machine restores Mail Just Fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Time Machine works just fine with Mail - you can restore one message or a whole deleted mailbox if you like"

      Too bad the Bush administration wasn't using Macs.

    7. Re:Time Machine restores Mail Just Fine by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      OK, so you did a successful restore after wiping your disk, as I understand it, anyway. (I haven't been near a Mac since 1996, when I started building my own PCs, so pardon me if I am misunderstanding...but "formatted the laptop drive" probably means the same thing to a MacGuy as it does to me.) However, your test doesn't show what you think it does. It only shows that if you want to recover to a previous back-up after wiping your disk, you can do it. It certainly doesn't enlighten us about the bug alleged by Mr. Limbaugh.

      Granted, I'd probably want to ask Limbaugh for some more details, but I think you ought to try something like this: Simulate a test bed having a really huge number of emails in its database. Write a test script that simulates receiving large volumes (hundreds) of emails per day, and deletes a random number of them at random times. I see no way to avoid running this script over at least a couple of weeks of real time (unless you want to get fancy and mess with the datestamps and the system clock...which intruduces variables you really don't want). Now try (or have the script try) to

      1. Restore specific deleted emails, based on criteria such as sender or date received.
      2. Restore the state of the entire email database as it was at a specified time and date
      3. Repeat 1 and 2 at least a couple dozen times over several days, while continuing normal email operations.

      If those tests don't turn up a problem, then I think you can say something authoritative about the reliability of this backup utility (disclaimer: I don't know what "Time Machine" thing claims it can do...I'm assuming what I would expect to be reasonable functionality from such a system "for the rest of us").

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    8. Re:Time Machine restores Mail Just Fine by johnpaul191 · · Score: 1

      When i saw this mentioned elsewhere, the article said that Rush would not specify (to the public) how he was handling his mail. It was unclear what app he uses to read it, and if he downloads the mail, or leaves it on a server. That's an obvious question before anyone could troubleshoot. It kind of makes it a non story to everyone he is squawking to.
      I would assume he has some sort of IT helper that would point out obvious things, like that Time Machine won't backup IMAP? Other people have said Time Machine works fine with Mail.app. I have Time Machine running and use Mail.app, but i have not tried to resurrect old emails.

    9. Re:Time Machine restores Mail Just Fine by anagama · · Score: 1

      Fair enough -- my test didn't take all those things into account.

      As for what "time machine" is, it's what rsync would do with a good script and and cron. Nothing earth shattering, but easy enough so anyone can use it. It isn't very configurable -- "on" or "off" and you can pick which external drive to use -- but I imagine it is going to save a lot of the "that was my only copy" pain that unsophisticated users often endure from not knowing how to back up, and the same pain for more sophisticated users who find backing up to be too rote or dull.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    10. Re:Time Machine restores Mail Just Fine by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Too bad the Bush administration wasn't using Macs.
      I don't believe Time Machine even existed when the e-mails were deleted. So, I doubt Macs would of helped. I also doubt that if Time Machine did exist during that time period, that the e-mails would of been recovered.
      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  16. We're doomed. by goodmanj · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh, lord. A story that brings together the Mac-vs-PC debate and the Conservative-vs-Liberal fight.

    It's the Reese's Peanut Butter Cups of Internet flame wars. I predict a global meltdown of the entire Net within a week.

    1. Re:We're doomed. by i_liek_turtles · · Score: 1, Funny

      Linux users are the ignored Ronulans, as always. :(

    2. Re:We're doomed. by simong · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's an easy way to prevent it.

      HITLER!

    3. Re:We're doomed. by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 1

      The thing is even worse, since it makes the heads of us librul Mac-heads to explode because of its contadictory nature: how can a guy like Rush Limbaugh be a Mac user???

    4. Re:We're doomed. by vjmurphy · · Score: 1

      If only there was some way to get a Star Trek vs Star Wars spin to this, or at least a Kirk vs. Picard, we'd be in the Perfect Storm of Flamewars.

      --
      Vincent J. Murphy
      Spandex Justice
    5. Re:We're doomed. by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 4, Funny

      I heard Al Gore uses emacs and Rush Limbaugh uses vi.

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    6. Re:We're doomed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Emacs!

    7. Re:We're doomed. by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      More like the ignored Routerians... just let me tell the facts... no spin please.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    8. Re:We're doomed. by fondacio · · Score: 1

      No, it's the other way around. Ha! Now you really can't tell my preferences, right?

    9. Re:We're doomed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he uses vi-agra.

    10. Re:We're doomed. by jrothwell97 · · Score: 1

      And I heard Mike Huckabee uses a word processor on a ZX81.

      --
      Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
    11. Re:We're doomed. by IdahoEv · · Score: 1

      You're about an hour too late to Godwin this discussion. C.F. the traditional "hindenburg/flaming nazi gasbag" joke upthread.

      --
      I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
    12. Re:We're doomed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're too late, someone already compared Limbaugh to a flaming Nazi gas bag.

  17. BOFH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think Rush could use a visit from the BOFH. *Clickety click*

  18. Mistaken identity by FoolsGold · · Score: 4, Funny
    I live in Australia, so I don't really know much about this Rush Limbaugh fellow.

    But from a glance at the last name I, for just a brief second, saw the article title as

    Bill Lumbergh Begs Steve Jobs For Bug Fixes

    "Steve, what happening? Look, I've got some problems with my Mac here, it's being a bit of a bother... yeah... so if could you come in on Saturday to fix it, maybe even Sunday... that would be terrific... mkay?"
     
    /wakes up from nightmare, cold sweat
    1. Re:Mistaken identity by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      In the words of JMS, Rush is a "Leading American proctologist. Trust me."

    2. Re:Mistaken identity by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I live in Australia, so I don't really know much about this Rush Limbaugh fellow.

      Lucky you!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  19. Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by soren100 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Bugs are a part of life in the software world -- they're annoying and painful, but like death and taxes, there's no way of avoiding their existence.

    But what I don't get is why this guy gets to have a personal forum on Slashdot to solve his problems. The guy is a vicious hypocrite who makes his living inciting attacking people all day and getting his audience angry.

    Instead of the Orwellian "two minutes of hate" this guy puts forth a daily radio show full of hate and anger 3-5 hours a day (I don't know, I don't listen to the show) and I have heard the show and he is often inaccurate but very capable at seeding his audience with misconceptions and anger.

    Before the Rwandan massacres, they had similar radio programs pumping the audience full of hate and anger with deadly results.

    That kind of behavior has made him a wealthy man, but I don't see why it should get him any love from Slashdot, or any priority over anyone else who has technical issues.

    1. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by Moonpie+Madness · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Man you're crazy.

      Rush is definitely a hyperpartisan, but he's an opinion man. Most of what he says is just opinion. He's not comparable to Rwandan massacres, and he's probably more accurate than Air America, (I enjoy both, but Rush is a lot more chill, frankly).

      Rush is following a high tradition: free speech. Yeah, I disagree with a lot of it, but I wish all hyperpolitical folks did their work with such a sense of humor about them. I certainly don't think he's dangerous. He's been attacked by censors who are linked to powerful political dynasties, and a lot of the "hate radio" label has come from them. They are your enemy, my friend. They wan tto shu Rush up so they gain some miniscule political advantage. Let Rush speak, and feel free to speak against him. That's what democracy looks like.

      It's sad that liberals aren't all like me, and willing to let everybody give their best argument. I don't pretend anyone has all the answers, so no one out there can claim to always be right and Rush to always be wrong. Listen to him sometime, an be serious about it. He's full of goading and he's biassed as all hell, but he really isn't that angry.

    2. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Man you're crazy.

      You think so, Mr. Pot? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own set of facts. Rush is the personification of the Republican parties penchant for making up their own facts - anytime he opens his mouth he is very likely to be 100% full of crap.

      And that's before you get to the massive hypocrisy on the subject of drugs and drug addicts.

    3. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Bugs are a part of life in the software world -- they're annoying and painful, but like death and taxes, there's no way of avoiding their existence. Is that a truth, or the way you (and most of the software industry) thinks right now?

      I think it's the later. Claiming that bugs are simply there and you should take it like a man are cheap excuses to avoid the less sexy, more structured and more formal methods that do exist and are proven to produce code that, while it isn't without bugs entirely, has a bug count several orders of magnitude lower than the way most of us write code.
      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by stupidflanders · · Score: 1
      MOST /.'ers have probably NEVER listened to him, when it comes down to it. I'd wager a 5 1/4 floppy that less than 2 in 10 people on /. have listened to his show ever. Let alone listen to AM, or the radio at all anymore.

      Come on, admit it.

      (I don't know, I don't listen to the show)
    5. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by vbraga · · Score: 1

      Can you please brief those methods?

      [I have a really strange feeling replying to such a low ID. It's like talking to grandpa again or something like that ;D]

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    6. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let Rush speak, and feel free to speak against him. That's what democracy looks like. not exactly, democracy is an utopian state where everyone have the ability and brain to inform themselves accurately about an issue, THEN discuss the point of view about the FACTS, and confront the needs and whants, then, if a perfect agreement is't possible, it usually end with a vote and the majority winning, but not ignoring or despising the minority.

      premises, i do not know a bit about limbaugh, but I have seen too much persons that do what it is said that he does.

      people that tell many things, but not FACT, at best doctored fact, falsified statistics, and plain lyes (spin doctor).

      based on this MAINLY FALSE DATA this peoples build their "opinion" whitout anyone that could have the possibility to contest with real FACT nor discuss the conclusion that the "opinion MAKER" does and so spread disinformation and hate based on it.

    7. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by goldspider · · Score: 1

      Good thing this article gives partisan Slashdotters their own two minutes of hate towards Limbaugh. Thanks for your contribution.

      See how that works?

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    8. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by goldspider · · Score: 1

      Why do so many people equate vigorous political discourse with HATE? Who is Limbaugh espousing and encouraging genuine hatred of?

      I think most of you people accusing Limbaugh of "spreading hate" are in serious want for perspective.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    9. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by malice · · Score: 1

      Instead of the Orwellian "two minutes of hate" this guy puts forth a daily radio show full of hate and anger 3-5 hours a day (I don't know, I don't listen to the show) and I have heard the show and he is often inaccurate but very capable at seeding his audience with misconceptions and anger.

      "I don't listen to the show" && "this guy puts forth a daily radio show full of hate and anger 3-5 hours a day" begs the question... how would you know?

      Now that's entertainment right there, boys and girls. :)

    10. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by Tontoman · · Score: 1

      You obviously have never heard his show.

    11. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      'their own set of facts'

      Indeed. Looks like the Democratic primary race is afflicted with that evil as well.

      As if there's a nickel's worth difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both will mis-state anything to either gain an advantage or make a point at the expense of their opponents and the truth.

      It's naivete or hypopcrisy to claim one group or the other is more or less righteous. Give it up. American Politics is in the toilet, to our great shame and loss.

      You haven't listened to much Liberal radio lately, have you?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    12. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Dead on, my friend.

      Many a diatribe against Rush starts with 'I dont't really lissten to his show...'

      And many a diatribe should end there. Clever rhetorical device, objecting to that which you do not know for fact.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    13. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      OMG, someone who actually gets it!

      BTW, I found that I didn't care for Rush too much, but I love Glenn Beck. Both are really about delivering commentary & opinion with entertainment, satire & sarcasm. Do I always agree, no, but I am blown away by the people who will demonize them for pieces that are clearly satirical. Or who will decry censorship and how it is wrong to create an .xxx domain, but then in another post express how Rush should be censored, removed from radio, etc.

      People may not agree, but we should agree to be free. And to speak freely. Otherwise, one day it will be us who won't be allowed to voice our disagreements.

      If I could, I'd MOD your post with +1 Intelligent!

    14. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      *yawn*

    15. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by badc0ffee · · Score: 1

      Back in the good old days when I was actually designing, coding, implementing code, I was given the mandate of "1 bug per KLOC". Had a hell of a time getting that many bugs in my code just for the testers to try to find. They only thing they found were features they did not understand. BTW I flagged all the bugs in source so I could find them. Must have been a trivial program. All assembler, no highlevel language other than notes on napkins. Maybe Rush should switch to Gmail?

      --
      1011 1010 1101 1100 0000 1111 1111 1110 1110
    16. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by Evangelion · · Score: 1

      Totally.

      I *used* to listen to his show all the time (back in 94ish), because it was funny and fun to listen to. It's really stopped being as funny, but that's just because the whole political climate has gotten alot less fun (what, with all the war on terror and formation of a nascent police state), so I don't really tune in at all.

      I really do have alot of respect for the guy, despite the fact he happens to work within a genre that's populated by alot of truly worthless people.

    17. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Design defects are a part of life in the automotive world -- they're annoying and painful, but like death and taxes, there's no way of avoiding their existence.

      Sounds funny when you change the context to a different industry. The response to this is "software today is so complex", well, it isn't THAT complex. Your car has hundreds of thousands of little bitty MOVING parts. The microprocessor itself is very complex, yet we only hear about Intel bugs every decade or so.

      If we as customers would stop accepting shoddy products from every software house in existance including Apple and Microsoft then software bugs would be as rare as Intel Pentium bugs or exploding Crown Vics.

      If there's a defect in a product, any product, somebody fucked up.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    18. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by KP+Cubed · · Score: 1

      Why does Al Gore get to fly around in a private jet while the rest of us are supposed to stop using anything that might make our life better? They're VIP's. Right or wrong. Many times problems are not brought to the light until someone with a "NAME" speaks out about it. Mac users should be thrilled that the problems are getting attention on a national scene, not to mention that Rush has been a devout Applehead for a long time. If because of his "soapbox" the problem is fixed, do you really care if he thinks that liberals are all idiots? If he got on board with "Global Warming" would you buy another SUV and keep it running just to go against him? Stop hitting yourself in the head with a hammer.

    19. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by Anonymous+Meoward · · Score: 1

      I've listened to the show, and frankly, it's just one flavor of the canned crap that's used to feed the herd that still listens to commercial radio.

      Limbaugh may get the occasional zinger or two, but to be honest, he's as dumbed down as Your Friendly Morning DJ (tm). Junk, from whatever source, is still junk.

      The spooky thing to me is that his listeners consider themselves incredibly well-informed, even tho' they're getting their opinions from one talk show host (who does, and let's admit it, have a history of getting his facts wrong). This makes as much sense as claming to have refined musical tastes because your local Clear Channel classic-rock DJ constantly plays "Stairway to Heaven".

      --
      --- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
    20. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      That's because there are no such things as the anthropomorphic software "bug" that creeps in to your system at night and takes up residence.

      There is no bug.

      However, there is an error. A programmer made your program, and in doing so, he made an error in his logic which he did not fix.

      Would you let something supposedly of high quality be released if it was full of errors? But there's just a few bugs in it...

      --
    21. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by Moonpie+Madness · · Score: 1

      you freaking crazy.

      Yeah, Rush had a problem with drugs. I don't really think that makes him much of a hypocrite. Maybe slightly. Addiction is a disease, and it's bad. If Rush condemns druggies all the time, and becomes a druggie after surgical pains then quits, I don't really think that's something to beat him over the head with.

      It's a tragedy. It's helpful. It's a learning tool. I don't really listen to Rush except if I'm driving a very long distance, but I don't hear him condemn drugs anymore, and he probably never did it that much.

      You claim he is wrong 100% of the time. That's very arrogant of you, because you are asserting you are right 100% of the time. You think Republican = bad, but I don't see why that's the case at all. Democrats routinely do virtually everything the Republicans do.

      You want to talk about a blowhard, attack Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly. I think Rush is significantly more moderate in his temper and tone, though he's obviously no moderate politically.

      You call me a pot, but I'm not mirroring your idiotic point of view in any way. I don't think Al Franken is wrong 100% of the time (I actually lean closer to Al than Rush, but that's beside the point). I'd never say something that stupid.

    22. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by Moonpie+Madness · · Score: 1

      Dude, you're just totally fucking wrong.

      Democracy isn't about facts. There are very few things we really know, and I would never trust the government to "know" anything. We have opinions. that are often wrong. About WMDs in Iraq, about Hoover-villes, about Don't Ask Don't Tell.

      We all have our opinions.

      Now, you do realize that the minority is the GOP, right? Their opinions about wars and pork spending really pissed off everybody, and now the dems are in power. I see a HELL OF A LOT of hatred and anger at Republicans. IF you don't you're probably stupid fucking idiot.

      You speak of disinformation and lies, but you admit you don't know ANYTHING about Limbaugh. You are demonizing him as a propaganda lying monster, and you have no idea if that's true. Already you are far less honest and far more "hate mongering" than Rush will ever be.

      I personally think folks who are that interesting in hearing what one person has to say have something wrong with them. I don't like Rush's program very much. But it's purely American freedom of speech in exactly the way that separates us from the rest of the world. It's one of the few noble American traits that is not fictitious. We live in a world of Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh and free will to listen to who you like, or better, listen to music.

      too bad so many people are happy to condemn Rush for "disinformation" that almost certainly is minuscule in comparison to the misinformation you will find in any normal newspaper or even the New York Times.

    23. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      The problem I have with Rush is he doesn't give opinions. He just calls them opinions when people point out how wrong he is. He's an absolutist. He'll expose the benefits of "conservatism" over "liberalism" without acknowledging that there might be any middle ground between them. He always talks from the perspective of the individual, without any regard to the effect an individual has upon the larger community, or the effect the community has on the individual.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    24. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      >>Rush is a lot more chill, frankly

      Im in ur slasdhotz, adjektiving ur verbs!

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    25. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by ildon · · Score: 1

      The answer is: "Ad Revenue."

      You posted, didn't you? ;)

    26. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by mckinnsb · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. I am also a liberal, but I believe that Rush has his right to say what he believes- as do many of the "hate radio" (although I'm not sure how much I agree with that label) talk show hosts-that is one of the founding principles of this country, and an important one.

      And, in this case, while he didn't understand why Time Machine wasn't backing up his mail (apparently it wasn't on his computer, so he would have had to configure his mail program to save to a local folder), I personally would like Apple to make a few improvements to Time Machine myself- for instance, I'd like it to back up other partitions on my drive, particularly my Boot Camp drive, but I understand that this might not be technically feasible. It would also be nice to change the frequency of updates, or allow for a manual backup. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't seem to figure out how to do that.

      That would be *really* nice.

      Even if he might be wrong, calling attention to a product that might need improvement isn't a bad thing. I'm also a little surprised as to how quickly this became a discussion about politics-and not Apple or Time Machine. But, then again, I guess it is an election year.

      But I would like to remind the readers of Slashdot that not all Liberals are reactionary, or believe that global warming will destroy mankind, or believe in abortion, or believe that discussions of genetics as pertaining to race and sex are forbidden topics, or believe that terrorism isn't a real threat.

      God, look at that. I am a programmer...its seeping into my grammar.

    27. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Sounds funny when you change the context to a different industry. The response to this is "software today is so complex", well, it isn't THAT complex. Your car has hundreds of thousands of little bitty MOVING parts. The microprocessor itself is very complex, yet we only hear about Intel bugs every decade or so.

      Just about every chip ever made has documented errata, it's just that they can usually be worked around. Cars are an awful example--they need regular maintenance and fail pretty reliably after awhile.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    28. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by Blain · · Score: 1

      Instead of the Orwellian "two minutes of hate" this guy puts forth a daily radio show full of hate and anger 3-5 hours a day (I don't know, I don't listen to the show) and I have heard the show and he is often inaccurate but very capable at seeding his audience with misconceptions and anger.

      1. It's 3 hours a day, less breaks.
      2. You've heard the show, but you don't listen to it, so you don't know how long it is, but you're sure that it's full of hate and anger and is often inaccurate.
      3. You do realize that every radio station he's on has regular mainstream news at the top of every hour, right?
      4. I'm interested in this seeding process you're talking about, and how it's significantly different from things done by Bill Maher, or Steven Colbert, or John Stewart in technique.
      5. I'm also interested in how this seeding process is supposed to produce these misconceptions and anger, or, hell, any evidence you can site to support any claim in this quoted material.
    29. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *fart*

      Right in front of your mouth as you start to inhale.

    30. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Looks like the Democratic primary race is afflicted with that evil as well.

      Examples?

      As if there's a nickel's worth difference between Democrats and Republicans.

      Sorry, but Nader was a complete fucking idiot to have said that back in 2000, and that was before 7 years of Bushco's incompetent fascism.

      You haven't listened to much Liberal radio lately, have you?

      All the time. The part that you don't realize is that due to decades of vicious right wing attacks, liberals by and large make sure their shit is on point. Whereas the right wing is just full of shit.

    31. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Too bad he offers opinion as facts.
      And don't compare them to Air AMerica as a "Better or Worse". The point is Rush is a horrible puss covered blister on the ass of politics.

      That doesn't mean Air AMerica is better or worse, and trying to draw a useless comparison is exactly the kind of crap people like Rush do to draw attention away from the issue.

      AS far as facts go, based on my very limited 1year study, Air America was more accurate with thier facts, but only because Rush states shit as facts and then later back pedals up an excuse.

      heh, Rush, the munchkin* of the airwaves.

      A year was about all I could take of either.

      *as in gaming, not little people.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    32. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      >Indeed. Looks like the Democratic primary race is afflicted with that evil as well.
      >
      >Examples?
      >
      Um, looks like Hillary and Barack are trading personal attacks. Usually that behavior is reserved for attacks on Republican opponents. Of course, Hillary also made a mean comment about Vlad Putin. He took it real well, too.
      >
      >
      >As if there's a nickel's worth difference between Democrats and Republicans.
      >
      >
      >Sorry, but Nader was a complete fucking idiot to have said that back in 2000, and that was before 7 years of >Bushco's incompetent fascism.
      >
      What ARE you talking about? What's Nader got to do with this? Oh, did he make that comment? I was convinced of that before I knew who Nader was. And yes, that is long time ago. My mother first made that comment to me, some time in 1969, I think. Don't presume for a moment you can categorize me so glibly.

      >
      >You haven't listened to much Liberal radio lately, have you?
      >
      >All the time. The part that you don't realize is that due to decades of vicious right wing attacks, liberals by >and large make sure their shit is on point. Whereas the right wing is just full of shit.
      >

      Remarkable. You expect me to accept that the Left Wing is always correct, and most importantly does not manipulate or spin the facts, while the Right Wing always does? You can try, but if you value your time, don't bother to try it with me. It's fairly obvious to any careful observer that either party will gladly cast their opponents in the worst possible light. And if it takes innuendo or outright falsification, they'll both do as much as they dare to. If you recall, the hoorah about memos and correspondence about W's Guard service brought to light what can best be described as forgeries by a zealous but misguided Democrat sympathizer. You're not going to try and argue that those memos were genuine, are you? I was servicing IBM typewriters back then. Not many Guard officers were skilled enough int he use of an IBM Composer or Executive to type those, and not many Guard bases would have either machine available. Some had Model Ds with Annunciator baskets, but that's as special as it got.

      Really, claiming that the Democratic Party doesn't behave like the Republican Party is naive. Just let it go. Call Republicans worse if you want, but to lay bad actions exclusively at their door ignores reality.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    33. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by timewasting · · Score: 1

      Let Rush speak, and feel free to speak against him. That's what democracy looks like.


      This is a common misconception. Democracy provides no protection for free speech of its own accord. The greatness of the Constitution comes not from the republican form of government (the US is not a democracy) but from the Bill of Rights protecting us from government. It was James Madison's Amendments (strongly influenced by works by fellow Virginians George Mason and Thomas Jefferson) that have left an indelible legacy of freedom and justice. It is the Rule of Law that guarantees our freedoms, not the Rule of Mob.
    34. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by dustmite · · Score: 1

      As if there's a nickel's worth difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both will mis-state anything to either gain an advantage or make a point at the expense of their opponents and the truth.

      Aren't you conflating "Democrat and Republican politicians" with "Democrat and Republican supporters"? The politicians are problematic (almost entirely because most people vote on pure emotional base instinct), but I'd say that in general there are definite differences amongst support ideologies.

    35. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Google for "Zero Defect Software Development" or "They write the right stuff" for a couple pointers into real-life examples. When you study CS you learn a couple more formal methods of coding, but I don't know if they are actually employed for any actual software.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    36. Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      You must be a liberal...

      How can I tell? Because you take offense at a minimal slight but are disgustingly offensive and rude yourself. ;)

  20. Well, his fault by El+Lobo · · Score: 0
    There's nothing wromng with the Mac (well, a little underpowered and overpriced, but nothing else is wrong). OSX on the other hand....I have been using it for 5 years now and even today I wonder why do people prizes it so much. Yes, it's pretty and elegant, but in my eyes, there are a lot of problems with it (technical AND of design type). Yes, it's not worse than any Linux Distro or Windows but in many things it is not better.

    And it's definitly a thing of taste: after all this years I have never (and I may never will) like this system. I find it dull in many ways. So when I see people talking like if this was the best thing since fried chicken, I can only smile for myself: "Maybe for you, but not for me and many others".

    So if Mr sonebody here is now whining about some problems , my question is: "And WHAT were you expecting?" When i upgraded tiger to leopard i was expecting the typical Abble problems, and that's what I got, but if he was just reading all the hype about Leopard and *believing* it... then he got what he deserved.

    --
    It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
    1. Re:Well, his fault by moogaloonie · · Score: 1

      I think the "newsworthiness" of this article is that Rush appealed to Apple on his show.

    2. Re:Well, his fault by Rickz0rz · · Score: 1

      If it's that bad... why are you still using it?

    3. Re:Well, his fault by El+Lobo · · Score: 1
      I'm not saying that it's *bad*. I'm saying that I don't like it. I am a mac user at work back from OS8 times, unfortunatly. I don't like the Mac way, that's all, but that doesn't mean that it's necesarly bad.

      I am only saying that i don't understand when people say "ohhh MacOs!!" like if it was obviously that everyone should like and praise the Gods that it exists. Well, not. I think it's dull, and boy I have worked on it for years now.

      --
      It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
  21. I'm a PC.... and I'm a Mac by djupedal · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Hi, Mac!
    Hi PC.
    What's new in your world?
    Well, PC, this buffoon I'd normally expect to see mooning the likes of you, owns a Mac and has a burr under his saddle over some software issues and he's making a public plea for the 'ol reality-distortionist hisself to come to his aid.
    ...and...
    Well, PC, there's this saying about how any publicity is good and good publicity is even better, but I'm not so sure it's a good thing to be associated with this wart-of-a-human, if you know what I mean.
    Oh, sure, Mac...like the time my owner wanted to use me as a doorstop AND an umbrella holder at the same time just because I refused to boot. Turned out the wall switch was off and he never did apologize...humph. I faked a bad SIMM card for a weak just to get even. Maybe your demon will get bored and go away on his own...? Ya think?
    PC, the only way for this to work out is for this demon to fall dead in his Cheerios and Vicodin.

  22. Re:What a fat slob by doktor-hladnjak · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not that I really want to dignify your post with a response, but I'm gay and you straight people can keep that son of bitch!

  23. Update by professorfalcon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Someone from "high up" at Apple corporate ("a West Coast guy", he said) called his office on the morning of Valentine's Day. Now they've got IT people working it out.

    1. Re:Update by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now they've got IT people working it out.

      "Yes, Mr. Limbaugh, if you just open a terminal right now ... then type rm -rf ~/Library/Mail to initialise the backup... Have you got your Time Machine plugged in? Good, if you'll just open Disk Utility, select that disk, and 'Erase' ... yes, Mr. Limbaugh, it's just to erase space for the new backup... Have you disabled the firewall yet? It needs to backup things from the local network, you know. ... Now open Safari, type in g-o-a-t-s-e-dot-c-x, yes, that's a virus-checking website, it'll make sure there are no gaping holes in your security ... What's that, Mr. Limbaugh? It's found a gaping hole? Oh no! We'll need to cleanse your firewall with FIRE! Get the matches, Mr. Limbaugh! This system must burn!" ...

      And so on.

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    2. Re:Update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goatse holds no horror for him. Falafel boy has had his head up his ass for his entire career.

    3. Re:Update by jayhawk88 · · Score: 1

      No fair stealing ideas from the BOFH!

    4. Re:Update by Cosmic+AC · · Score: 1

      Falafel boy has had his head up his ass for his entire career. Do you mean Bill O'Reilly?
    5. Re:Update by PhiloBeddoe · · Score: 1

      rm -rf ~/Library/Mail rm -rf *

      -- bypasses steps 2, c, IV, 00000101, and many more...

    6. Re:Update by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 2, Funny

      rm -rf * -- bypasses steps 2, c, IV, 00000101, and many more...

      Yes, but it removes the possibility of leading Mr. Limbaugh realistically on to step (xiv), the Infernal Dance of Data Recovery - namely, him dancing around on the charred remains of his former abused Macintosh, stark-bollock-naked, covered in animal grease, recovery CDs stuffed up his backside, singing the Swedish national anthem.

      Backwards.

      Y'see, you have to pace your technical advice properly. What's the use of destroying all his data in one fell swoop? No fun at all.

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    7. Re:Update by Hillgiant · · Score: 1
      AAAAAaaaaaaggggghhhh!

      Excuse me while I gouge out my mind's eye.

      --
      -
    8. Re:Update by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 1

      I thought they were the same guy?

      --

      Stop the brainwash

    9. Re:Update by punissuer · · Score: 1

      I read your post out loud and found myself in tears with laughter. Well done.

  24. epitome of a worthless slashdot story by EjectButton · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Wow this one really has it all:
    1. A troll story (watch where much of the discussion will go), linking to a troll website (they refer to themselves as a "gossip rag" in their header), focusing on a giant troll king (am radio political hack).
    2. Is not news for anyone, much less nerds. Does not matter.
    3. Apple story with no useful information. Apparently being able to form a sentence containing the word "apple", "mac", or "Steve Jobs" is enough to warrant a front page article.
    4. Posted by kdawson or zonk.

    1. Re:epitome of a worthless slashdot story by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      You forgot the last two steps:

      5. ???????
      6. PROFIT!!!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  25. Sorry, can't help you by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Helping you would be welfare. You want a handout? What do you think this is, soviet Russia? Its leftist pinko commies like him that are ruining America. They want something for nothing, and they want you to pay for it. Well let me tell you about this little thing called the free market. It means if you want something done, you have to pay for it. Its the American Way. And if you don't like it, go live with the commies in China.

    Oh what, it isn't supposed to apply to him?

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    1. Re:Sorry, can't help you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, tech support for a product you paid for is welfare? You're trying to hard to be clever.

    2. Re:Sorry, can't help you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *too* hard. Correcting my own post before someone else does.

    3. Re:Sorry, can't help you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You honestly think he wouldn't be able to afford to pay if someone would actually fix it? Of course, by your logic, since this falls under a bug, shouldn't Apple be expected to fix it because Rush bought a system that doesn't perform as advertised so why should Rush give a handout to Apple to fix their own mess? Would you pay apple to fix bugs?

    4. Re:Sorry, can't help you by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      He buys his systems maxed out, so no doubt he's paid for AppleCare, which is pre-paid tech support.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  26. The unaccustomed humility of Rush Limbaugh by Kupfernigk · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Looks like McCain will get the Republican nomination and the man he tried to paint as some Jihadist crazy will get the Democrat one, that or one of his favorite Clintons - and now he has to go cap in hand for help to some West Coast liberal. I feel for the poor guy.

    If after the election he decides he can't live in the new pinko US any more, the problem will be to find somewhere to go where he won't get himself locked up or bankrupted by lawsuits, now the Australian government has changed character. My suggestion is he ditches his Macs for OLPCs or old PIII boxes running Windows 98, because those are likely to be the only computers available in the sort of places that will have him.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:The unaccustomed humility of Rush Limbaugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and now he has to go cap in hand for help to some West Coast liberal."

      The funny thing is, that west coast liberal, Steve Jobs is a CEO of Big Business(TM) that makes "obscene profits" in a free market capitalistic society, that Rush has been arguing for and many liberals dislike, even going so far as wanting to take "obscene profits" away, whatever that means... (See Hilary Clinton). I'm surprised that steve jobs doesn't give 100% of Apple's "obscene profits" to the government to pay for more programs that sound good on paper, but in the end make the problems worse. Doesn't that make Steve Jobs a hypocrite for not doing so? Why doesn't Apple ever pay for the health care of anyone outside of Apple? I'm sure with some of those billions of dollars apple makes in profit they could pay for some decent percentage of the folks health care in California, screw Apple, shut it down, liquidate the company, put it's top executives in a gulag and just think all the good that money could do for the government? /sarcasm

  27. Well... by jmoo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Okay, I don't really listen to your radio program Mr. Limbaugh, but from what I can tell it seems your a complete jackass. However, as a life long IT guy, I've always tried to help out a user even if they are a nut case.

    1.) Screen Sharing - Use VNC. http://www.redstonesoftware.com/products/vine/server/vineosx/index.html. Its free, easy to use, and if someone whines about it being insecure - kick them, hard.

    2.) Email backup with Time Machine - You failed to mention just what email program you are using, I fear you may be using Apple Mail. If so you have you have my condolences as Apple Email is not truly an email program, but some sort of psychological test program designed at driving its users insane. I suggest using thunderbird - http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/thunderbird/. There are many add-on for backup email. Again its free and easy to use.

    Somewhere along the line Apple got this reputation that ANY thing they make is solid gold and perfect in all ways. I can assure you this is very much not true. Hopefully this helps and lets you get back to your insane rantings.

    --
    The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes, little bits of data.
    1. Re:Well... by NMerriam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I fear you may be using Apple Mail. If so you have you have my condolences as Apple Email is not truly an email program, but some sort of psychological test program designed at driving its users insane. I suggest using thunderbird - http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/thunderbird/ [mozilla.com]. There are many add-on for backup email. Again its free and easy to use.


      Apple Mail has worked fine for our users for a number of years, the big advantage is obviously its integration with OS X features like the address book, dictionary, keychain, and for iPhone users the todo and notes.

      I can't imagine how he's having trouble recovering deleted messages from his Time Machine backup -- he talks about "wherever they are" which makes me think he's rooting around in the Finder trying to dig up his mail files. If you run Time Machine while Mail is open, it will show you right in the Mail interface all your old deleted stuff and let you restore. It's pretty simple. Far simpler (yet more powerful) than any other mail application backup or restore process.
      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    2. Re:Well... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      I use Apple Mail at home (and used to use Mail.app), and Thunderbird at work. I've found Thunderbird slightly more exasperating than Apple Mail. (And a hell of a lot less exasperating than Outlook, Eudora, KMail, Pine, and Elm).

    3. Re:Well... by yabos · · Score: 1

      I've been using Apple Mail since 10.0 and it's generally fine. I can't complain at all. Rush's problem seems to be that he doesn't get that Time Machine works at best on an hourly schedule. And I don't know why he's deleting emails left and right if he really needs them. If you get an email after Time Machine did it's last backup but before the next one and you delete it from the Trash in Mail then there's no backup of that email. You may ask why is he deleting emails so often that he really needs. Just file it away or stop emptying the trash every minute. Or don't use IMAP because all the email is on the server not your computer so it's no wonder it's not going to be backed up by Time Machine.

    4. Re:Well... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      I've been using Apple Mail since 10.0 and it's generally fine. I can't complain at all.
      I've not been using Apple Mail since forever and I can complain about other users using it.

      I am constantly receiving harassing messages from Apple mail users asking to be removed from mailing lists, because their client removes the footer of every e-mail by default. Meaning, it hides the unsubscribe links.

      Usually I am sympathetic to the plight of users, but I sense I will slap Apple mail users around if I encounter them in person.

      I hope the Apple mail user agent gets banned from posting messages on mailing lists, so we don't get this harassing crap anymore.

      I am already dropping all e-mail to mailbox from Apple Mail user agents, due to this. Unfortunately, I still receive a ton of replies from people telling these 'users' how to remove themselves.
      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    5. Re:Well... by yabos · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should check your mail format because I'm on many email lists and I've always seen unsubscribe links at the bottom of messages. Actually, looking in the Mail preferences I don't see anything to not show footers. Maybe your message is malformed.

    6. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, looking in the Mail preferences I don't see anything to not show footers.
      Why would Apple give you a option to re-enable it? They usually don't give you options for other things.

      You can't even turn off the majority of animations in OS X that I find annoying.
  28. I feel him by rtobyr · · Score: 2, Informative

    He can probably be helped... unless he's already installed the 10.5.2 update. Those of us that made that mistake are totally screwed.

    1. Re:I feel him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rtobyr wrote: I feel him
      If I were you I would not say this publicly.

    2. Re:I feel him by WilyCoder · · Score: 1

      rtobyr wrote: I feel him

      You may feel HIM, but knowing Rush and his oxy, I doubt he can feel YOU.

    3. Re:I feel him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You feel Rush? Jeepers!

  29. huh? by NewAndFresh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe I am somewhat new here, but this place seems to be overrun with Republicans.
    Yeah, there's plenty of moderate opinions (known in America as "the left"), but the amount of right-wing posts and moderation here seems a little strange. (election year?)

    --
    Welcome to Costco, I love you.
    1. Re:huh? by Shadowmist · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Techies and Trekkies (of which Slashdot is full of) in my experience tend to lean towards the right.

    2. Re:huh? by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 0

      I found that out the hard way after I posted this, which apparently offended many people, while this cute and funny gem was modded(partially) insightful. Will all you intelligent-design folks please step out of the closet?

    3. Re:huh? by Scudsucker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Slashdot is much like the rest of the population: Kool-Aid drinking wingnuts might be in the minority, but they frequently make the most noise.

    4. Re:huh? by The+Slashdot+Guy · · Score: 1

      This is a case of perception. You must be so far to the left that everything just appears right-wing to you. As someone who considers himself a somewhat right of center, this place appears to lean to the left most of the time.

    5. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Liberals just amaze me.

      I'm looking down over this first page of posts, and at least every other is some negative comment (often dripping with hate) about republicans and Limbaugh....

      ... Interspersed with comments like this claiming the site is overrun with republicans.

    6. Re:huh? by deKernel · · Score: 1

      You have got to be kidding me, right?

    7. Re:huh? by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      That was sarcasm right?

      I mean come on, there are probably 10 left (and left not equal moderate FYI) posts for every 1 post that is even mildly conservative or Republican.

    8. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because his post seemed to be thought about, and yours was just spit out and seems like we've heard it before. his was funny, yours wasn't.

    9. Re:huh? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Not everyone that hates Limbaugh is a liberal. Some of us are reactionaries. Others
      of us are just not neo-cons. We're more "old school" conservatives. Perhaps we need
      our own spiffy label... like retro-con or something.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    10. Re:huh? by Altus · · Score: 1


      I believe you are responding to a forigner who has confused the libertarian/conservative sentiment here on slashdot for the republican sentiment (traditional or neo-con flavor... neither is libertarian) note the comment about how the liberals here are still on the right? that indicates a non american most of teh time bitching about how we dont know the first thing about progressive politics. This is likely someone from a country where most of the voting power is centralized in the city instead of spread out like it is here.

      I believe there are plenty of extremely liberal people in the US, mostly in cities, but they dont have the power to implement what they would like the way the might in other countries so they are "dragged" to the center by the mid west conservative types. It is up to the reader to decide if this is a good thing or a bad thing. I'm just making the observation.

      Of course it also helps that in other countries they have more than 2 political parties so you get some representation from the further extremes of the political spectrum.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    11. Re:huh? by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      Not everyone that hates Limbaugh is a liberal. Some of us are reactionaries. Others
      of us are just not neo-cons. We're more "old school" conservatives. Perhaps we need
      our own spiffy label... like retro-con or something. How about Decipticons?

      That sounds cool!

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    12. Re:huh? by Arcane_Rhino · · Score: 1

      You MUST be new here. If you feel confident about your karma, post a positive remark about President Bush with no hint of sarcasm. The responses your receive may assist you to not feel "so alone" on /.

    13. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a case of perception. You must be so far to the left that everything just appears right-wing to you. As someone who considers himself a somewhat right of center, this place appears to lean to the left most of the time.

      No, that's just silliness. European politics span a much broader spectrum. "Everything" does not appear right wing.

      This is the whole problem. Your perception of reality does not match reality, and you seem to think your way (and some minor variations) are the only way. This is dead wrong, backwards, and disgusting.

    14. Re:huh? by chaney · · Score: 0

      Is that so hippy? Would you like a mouse pad made of hemp? Just kidding, all the left wingers went over to digg at some point within the last 2 years. =]

    15. Re:huh? by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      Nah, it's Libertarian, not Republican.

      In other words "real" right-wing, as opposed to batshit crazy pretend right wing.

    16. Re:huh? by gobbo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there's plenty of moderate opinions (known in America as "the left"), but the amount of right-wing posts and moderation here seems a little strange?)

      I guess it depends on your measure: what do you see as "center?"

      Since I live in Canuckistan, you all look like a bunch of flamin
      --- 503 error: THIS POST INTERCEPTED BY GODWIN'S LAW

    17. Re:huh? by slapout · · Score: 1

      "Will all you intelligent-design folks please step out of the closet?"

      Actually, it's people on the left who tend to come out of closets. :-)

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    18. Re:huh? by zonker · · Score: 0

      In my experience it is quite the opposite, both in life and on slashdot. Especially in the earlier days of slashdot (I remember before there were custom user profiles) it was extremely rare to see a right leaning viewpoint in both articles and comments. In the past 5 or so years things have unfortunately changed quite drastically here and the intarweb in general...

  30. Apple should transfer his request... by kcbrown · · Score: 1

    ...to the call center in India!

    After all, Rush is a dyed-in-the-wool new-age Republican (a.k.a. neocon), who believes corporations have a Right to make a buck, even if by doing so they make life harder for the people in the very same society those corporations shelter themselves in, right?

    Let him experience first-hand the consequences of that view.

    --
    Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    1. Re:Apple should transfer his request... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Troll

      Neocons are Jews. Rush Limbaugh isn't a Jew. You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Apple should transfer his request... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  31. Now I understand by dbIII · · Score: 1

    So that's why everyone would think I'm gay if I get an apple! It's all by design!

  32. Tags by paulmer2003 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Whomever tagged this as oxycotin is lame.

    1. Re:Tags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's right. They should have tagged it Viagra!

  33. Dumbass by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

    Its the vi/emacs vs gimp/photoshop debate. I mean any retar .........oh, you were right ... carry on.

    ;)Sera

    --
    Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
  34. Indeed by JavaRob · · Score: 1

    Exactly the type of solution I was imagining....

    You could make it simpler, though -- give him a few scripts to run on each computer in his network, entitled "defect_patch_432553.sh". ...then really have fun.

    "You may get a few warnings, and you'll need to enter your password to authorize the changes -- yes, that's pretty normal when you're applying a custom patch like this, since it needs to make some changes to the underlying operating system, which is protected. Ah, it's all done now? Excellent."

  35. That must be... by ChePibe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the most vapid post I have read in a long, long time on Slashdot.

    And I just finished up a lengthy back and forth with a Ron Paul guy - so that's saying something.

    No one denies that bugs are a part of life. No one denies that we all have experience with them. The article is noteworthy - and Slashdot assigns it primarily, and appropriately - to the "it's funny" tag because, well, it's funny to hear a national talk show host discuss not only bugs with software, but to discuss them quite specifically. It's also fairly rare to hear bugs in a fairly niche OS get national play like that. Bonus points for Limbaugh using a machine manufactured by a company of which Al Gore is a part. As a Mac user, I even find myself sympathizing with him.

    So grow up and deal with it. Yes, we all deal with bugs, but they rarely get this exposure.

    And then there's this gem:

    Before the Rwandan massacres, they had similar radio programs pumping the audience full of hate and anger with deadly results.

    That kind of behavior has made him a wealthy man, but I don't see why it should get him any love from Slashdot, or any priority over anyone else who has technical issues.


    It's hard to imagine a more asinine allusion. Really, you can't honestly be trying to compare the two, can you? I mean, this is either one of the sickest pieces of political posturing or the most feeble-minded reasoning I have read in some time - and like I said, I've been talking with Ron Paul fans, so that's really saying something.

    Are we really going to equate Rush Limbaugh to these people? Oh, I'm sure we'll all get to hear some nonsense about him "stoking the flames of war with Iraq" or whatever, and you'll do your best to provide a tenuous link between Limbaugh and ongoing U.S. military action, but really - when was the last time Limbaugh got on the radio and told anyone to grab a machete and go murder their neighbors of a different ethnic group next door - really, when? Or are you just spouting nonsense? You even further your claim by arguing that he is getting wealthy off of such comments. According to Wikipedia (yeah, I know...) twice as many people listen to his show as there are in the entire population of Rwanda. Where's the uprising?

    So, assuming you believe that Limbaugh can lead a bunch of hillbillies or whoever to load up and start gunning down their neighbors, what do you suggest? Since you feel free to make allusions, should I? Should I assume that you believe we should regulate political speech? Should we prevent people from being paid for political speech? Should we only allow the good, happy, cheerful thoughts to be put out over the airwaves, so as to avoid the mere possibility of genocide? (A genocide which, as it just so happens to be, has never occurred in the U.S. and is exceedingly unlikely to occur?) Should we simply prevent criticism? Free discussion? Should we shut up radio announcers here who happen to express ideas you don't like because a bunch of a slaughter that occurred in the third-world that just so happened to use radio as a medium of passing along information?

    The scary thing is that the government - and, one would assume, the party in government you yourself would favor - is trying to do that exact same thing with attempts to return to the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". We just can't have people expressing their ideas over the radio, can we?

    And you have the gall to refer to others as "Orwellian"? It would appear that we were reading very different copies of Mr. Blair's work.

    Hell, I don't even like Limbaugh.

    1. Re:That must be... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      It's hard to imagine a more asinine allusion.

      On the contrary, it is entirely appropriate to go there. In this country, the Nazis (rightly) face a good deal of demonization for the concentration camps they set up for Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, dissidents, and other "undesirable" people. But the U.S. had concentration camps of it's own, only they are euphemistically referred to as "Japanese internment". The U.S. only had to take one more step - starve the prisoners and put them in gas chambers - and we would have been in the same boat as the Nazis.

      Right wing talk radio is the same way - only one step away from those radio stations in Rwanda that called for genocide. And if there was another major terrorist in attack, I would be surprised if Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or especially Michael Savage didn't call for violence against Muslims. Their base sure as hell would.

    2. Re:That must be... by joss · · Score: 1

      > The U.S. only had to take one more step - starve the prisoners and put them in gas chambers

      Um, sure, but that's a pretty significant step isnt it. "You're just the same as those guys who went round massacring the jews, except for the actual massacre bit..."

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    3. Re:That must be... by rickb928 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've owned two cats in my adult life. That leaves me one step away from being an animal abuser?

      I have a son. I'm just one step away from a child abuser, and should be equated with child abusers?

      And I've had sex with a woman (see above), does this leave me one step away from being a rapist and misogynist?

      Yup, entirely vapid post, you got it right.

      It's been my experience that many of the people that hate Rush the most are genuinely intolerant of dissenting opinion, recommend that he (and others 'like him') be jailed or restrained from offering opinion, and that their views be suppressed at every opportunity.

      Amerika the Beautiful. Hypocrites.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    4. Re:That must be... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      > The U.S. only had to take one more step - starve the prisoners and put them in gas chambers

      Um, sure, but that's a pretty significant step isnt it. "You're just the same as those guys who went round massacring the jews, except for the actual massacre bit..." Well, if you then take into account things like the "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male" or MKULTRA, the pretty significant step is just a few inches long.
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    5. Re:That must be... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Yup, entirely vapid post, you got it right.

      You think so, Mr. Pot?

      I've owned two cats in my adult life. That leaves me one step away from being an animal abuser? I have a son. I'm just one step away from a child abuser, and should be equated with child abusers? And I've had sex with a woman (see above), does this leave me one step away from being a rapist and misogynist?

      I suppose I could see it that way, if I was a complete moron. Here, let's add a few details to make your analogy remotely applicable: you're also a bipolar meth addict who was sexually abused as a child. That puts you much closer to abusing animals, beating your son and forcing yourself on women.

  36. Dear Rush: by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    When you can Champion geek causes and stop your fellows from walking all over the Constitution, I might care.

    When you can stop painting people like Mr Jobs as terrorist surrender monkeys, I might care.

    When you can stop earning a living by breeding hate amongst your fellow citizens, I might care.

    When you can hold your own ideologues to task - just once, I might care.

    When you can admit your own drug addiction, and eat your words, every one of them, and then help a Friend of Bill W, I might care.

    Until then Rush, I got nothing for you but Pity. At least Elementary Schoolyard bullies don't know any better.


    Sera

    --
    Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
  37. maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because of his stance on net-neutrality?

  38. Does anyone here actually listen? by xx01dk · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Seriously, why is anything that Rush has to say relevant to /.? If I could mod down the article I would.

    I fear for anyone gullible to take any talk show host at their word and support them blindly. I fear for their souls, and yet I hope that some day they shall become enlightened as I have, before it is too late.

    The only reason this is news is because it caters to the lowest common denominator. For shame, Slashdot. For SHAME.

    What's next, reporting on that blond girl that went missing in Aruba? Spears? Who. The Fuck. Cares.

    Calling you out /..

    --
    There is simply too much glass..
    1. Re:Does anyone here actually listen? by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I think it's tongue-in-cheek. Like, look: Rush is an idiot. That's worth something, right?

  39. thanks by NewAndFresh · · Score: 1

    Do have any ideas as to why that might be?

    --
    Welcome to Costco, I love you.
    1. Re:thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nerds are often "sheltered" and have less real world (as in not-in-front-of-a-computer) experience. Unrealistic and idealistic (aka silly) ideas abound in people who don't go outside.

    2. Re:thanks by HanzoSpam · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Maybe because Techies and Trekies tend to be pretty smart people?

      --

      Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
    3. Re:thanks by somersault · · Score: 2, Funny

      Smart people who are angry at the world because they're not getting any?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:thanks by HuguesT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, techies and trekies tend to focus on the problems they think can be solved through the use of science and technology, and call the potential solutions smart, even though they may not necessarily work in the real world.

      They also think that they are being quite successful thanks to their wit and they can't see why everybody cannot do the same, and consequently wonder why they should pay for social security. Hence, they lean to the right. Techies are not very good with empathy, usually.

      However, when the whole planet catches on and starts threatening their job, they call for government intervention.

    5. Re:thanks by PortHaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually I find a mix of liberals and libertarians, few conservatives in the mix.

    6. Re:thanks by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Only the young ones. We old ones are all divorced drunken whoremongers.

      Well, not all of us, just me.

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    7. Re:thanks by Applekid · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      As the saying goes: Republicans have no heart and Democrats have no brain.

      Since I don't consider myself either I suppose I lack both a heart and a brain, but, thems the breaks.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    8. Re:thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because their posts are hidden by the majority of leftists moderators and this stupid new moderation/display system they have. You'll never see a conservative opinion unless you click on the "more" link for 5 mins straight.

    9. Re:thanks by sketchydave · · Score: 1

      RE: Social Security, I think that techies also understand the idea of mismanagement and compounding interest. I don't trust the government with a spork, let alone my financial well-being in my old age. As such I'm an advocate of smaller government, which is generally to the right, but certainly not a factor in the current administration and congress.

      I'm not without empathy, but social security was never supposed to be used for full financial support and people wonder why the hell its not working anymore. Or you could buy a smaller house, smaller car, put your money ideally in an employee matched 401K or a Roth IRA and retire a millionaire. Guess which way I'm going.

    10. Re:thanks by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "No, techies and trekies tend to focus on the problems they think can be solved through the use of science and technology

      Yeah, and everybody knows that the conservative right is all about the "science and technology" based solutions. They have no use for "faith" or "religion" based solutions.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    11. Re:thanks by kellyb9 · · Score: 1

      Actually I find a mix of liberals and libertarians, few conservatives in the mix. Don't forget to sprinkle in a few anarchists.
    12. Re:thanks by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      Only some solutions need religions.

      Whereas all the solutions of the left rely on the inherent goodness of humanity, which is as equally delusional and fantastical as a belief in a Magical Sky Daddy.

    13. Re:thanks by maxume · · Score: 2, Funny

      I thought it was Techies and Trekies have longs necks, and are good at blowing themselves(having long since moved past patting themselves on the back).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    14. Re:thanks by soulfury · · Score: 1

      Actually I find a mix of liberals and libertarians, few conservatives in the mix.

      I find a mix of Linux communists and Unix hippies.
    15. Re:thanks by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Informative

      Stocks are for suckers. It's almost as bad as trusting social security.

      You're still abdicating way too much control.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    16. Re:thanks by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Nerds are often "sheltered" and have less real world (as in not-in-front-of-a-computer) experience.

      Maybe because Techies and Trekies tend to be pretty smart people?

      Interesting seeing those two posts consecutively, posted by two people who obviously come from opposite sides of the political spectrum. It's a good reminder that people see what they want to see. I'm not making a judgement about which of those is true; maybe they both are, maybe neither. But it's a good reminder to everybody to not unquestionably assume that people that agree with them are smart/healthy/educated/wonderful and people that disagree with them are dumb/fat/ignorant/repulsive.

    17. Re:thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odd... I've been a professional coder for more than a decade, and I've noticed the exact opposite, that roughly 4 out of 5 coders are either moderate or left. The best ones I've met tend to be moderate, viewing both extremes as roughly equally wrong.

    18. Re:thanks by Grygus · · Score: 2, Funny

      If we could do that, there would be no posts.

    19. Re:thanks by Cyno · · Score: 1

      You would have to be pretty dumb to not use science or technology to solve your problems today. Economists may solve many problems, but I doubt they will have much of an impact on Global Warming or finding new sources of energy.

      And the only reason social security is necessary is because you forgot that old people can't work. Don't make me pay for your mistakes. Fix your system.

    20. Re:thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I find a mix of Linux communists and Unix hippies."

      And I guess that leaves Windows fascist, neo-cons and Mac liberals?

    21. Re:thanks by timewasting · · Score: 1

      Roth IRA's are for poor people. If you're a semi-decent techie, you haven't made that little money in a long, long time.

    22. Re:thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here, let me fix that for you: "Actually I find a mix of liberals and libertarians [most are really just disaffected republicans, too ashamed now to call themselves such], few conservatives [loyal republicans] in the mix."

    23. Re:thanks by Arterion · · Score: 1

      Goodness, no! Not a democratic system! But it's so unfair to the conservatives! You can meta-moderate if you think the moderators are unfair. :)

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    24. Re:thanks by Omestes · · Score: 1

      I always said "Never trust a democrat with money, but never trust a republican with social policy", I had to stop saying this with Mr. Bush who decided cutting income AND increasing spending is a great idea.

      But then again I am distrustful of anyone who strongly aligns with a prenamed set of ideologies and dogmas, especially those who are willing to insult others on their choice of proper noun to which they pigeonhole themselves. The only truly genuine noun to self-identify with is independent, since all parties and ideologies have at least some redeeming ideas.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    25. Re:thanks by Sergeant+Pepper · · Score: 1

      Whereas all the solutions of the left rely on the inherent goodness of humanity, which is as equally delusional and fantastical as a belief in a Magical Sky Daddy. Wait, since when did "lets mandate that we help the poor" rely more on the inherent goodness of humanity than "we don't need to help the poor because people will give their money to charities who will take care of the poor"?
    26. Re:thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! I'm dumb/fat/ignorant/repulsive, you insensitive clod!

    27. Re:thanks by Toonol · · Score: 1

      I know, but I wasn't talking to _just_ liberals.

    28. Re:thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah...It's about like the mayor of Berkley stealing all the editions of the morning paper.

    29. Re:thanks by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      When you assumed that the poor wouldn't become useless bums, gleefully leeching their living out of the tax payers.

    30. Re:thanks by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      If this was the "Wizard of Oz", it'd mean you lack courage... ;)

    31. Re:thanks by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Just to warn you...

      More and more Conservatives are switching to Macs!

    32. Re:thanks by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      And at least one "Communist Libertarian"

    33. Re:thanks by sketchydave · · Score: 1

      Good techie, made the choice to work for a nonprofit. Good hours, you actually make a difference, and I get paid very well compared to the average American. I get to be happy and provide for my family, works for me.

    34. Re:thanks by sketchydave · · Score: 1

      True, the key is to stay diversified. I actually do better when the stock market dips as my funds are spread over a wide number of stocks and bonds. When prices dip I get to buy more stock, value goes up when the market is in an upswing. I have another 30-40 years before I have to worry about not being able to work. Combine that with real estate, the pension plan through work, and the rest going to a high interest savings account and you stay in good shape.

  40. Are you sure about that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Best response ever



    That's the best response to a story you've ever read on Slashdot? Are you sure about that?



    Take this comment from the original post:

    Spend one normal work week being nothing but kind, courteous and thoughtful to everyone you talk to



    I don't know Limbaugh. I'm not in the U.S. He's apparently not a nice man. But this is supposed to be coming from Steve Jobs! I'd understood Jobs's character was not unlike that portrayed in The Pirates of Silicon Valley. He apparently deliberately humiliates people. On what basis would Jobs be demanding from anyone standards of personal behaviour that himself won't, or can't, deliver?



    How, in any case, could one run a business on the basis that customers must have superior manners or they get no help? Not only would this be financial suicide, but, as I already implied, who would you be to judge? And do you not have contractual (and moral) obligations to people whether they are "nice" or not?



    Of course, if, as appears, the gentleman in question is using his radio show as a platform to demand help that other customers can't get, then I've no time him (although I do understand his frustrations).

  41. The bugs may not be fixable... by FellowConspirator · · Score: 2, Informative

    He had two: Time Machine didn't back up his mail (and can't backup web-mail that isn't on his computer), and the second was that he couldn't use Back to my Mac (because his router didn't support UPnP or NAT-PMP). What's a digital fruit peddler to do?

    1. Re:The bugs may not be fixable... by yabos · · Score: 1

      He can't even buy a new router for $40 to solve his problem, or just open the damn ports so it works. PEBKAC

  42. Found it! by N8F8 · · Score: 4, Funny

    if (userName=='Rush Limbaugh')
    {
      ramdomError();
    }

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  43. The inner struggle.... by palndron · · Score: 1

    Apple fanboi wants to help
    knows this will be good for Apple

    but HATES that guy.

    Dammit.

    --
    a man, a plan, a canal, panama
  44. This reminds me of. . . by MT628496 · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of that Mac Sucks video. True, most of these things don't happen in OS X (or so I hear. I don't use Macs), but it's still funny.

  45. Rush deserves worse... by m2bord · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Rush screamed and bellowed the lies this administration used to create a war in Iraq. Rush has the blood of thousands of US servicemembers on his hands.

    Let him suffer....and better yet..someone come up with a Rush worm that will only attack his Macs and render them as boat anchors.

    I know...I know...but I hate him and can't wait to see him on judgement day being tossed into the eternal lake of fire. That's all that he deserves.

    --
    Is it 5:30 yet?
  46. Rush Limbaugh uses a Mac? by quag7 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Isn't that a bit...metrosexual? For him, I mean?

  47. you Americans.. (tsk tsk) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good thing this article gives partisan Slashdotters their own two minutes of hate towards Limbaugh. Thanks for your contribution.


    See how that works?

    There's two kinds of Americans: - Those who support that Limbaugh person, and those who don't.


    To the outside world, both camps are still American, so it doesn't make either a damn bit better than the other.

    (And a good day to you.)

  48. Lets see what we're talking about please! by microbox · · Score: 1

    Fox later admitted that he purposely skips his medication before public events like this so people will see his worst case symptoms.

    Skipping medication is *not* the same as play acting. Popping pills isn't always as straight-forward as asprin, or as dreamy as acid. If people never see warts and all, then they're living in a world of tranqualizers.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  49. backwards? by NewAndFresh · · Score: 1

    (statistics are not on your side)
    That reminds me of the time there was a debate as to who was more intelligent, the viewers of "The O'Reilly Factor" or the viewers of "The Daily Show."
    It's the fact that you expect people on slashdot to be smarter that makes the right-wing comments and moderation strange.

    --
    Welcome to Costco, I love you.
    1. Re:backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's the fact that you expect people on slashdot to be smarter that makes the right-wing comments and moderation strange. Riiiiight, because of course nobody who was smart might believe in some conservative principles! They're too smart for that!

      That kind of blind condescension will get you nowhere (unless it's slashdot).

      It's the classic tripe:

      If someone agrees with you: "A that guy is very bright and enlightened."
      If someone disagrees with you: "Oh I thought you were smarter than that."

      Sorry to tell you, but you position is not automatically correct.

      Posting anon to avoid modding by just this sort of one-sided thinking.
    2. Re:backwards? by NewAndFresh · · Score: 1

      "conservative principles" and "right wing" are not the same thing.
      I didn't mention conservative principles.
      I am saying "right-wing" is kinda dumb.
      I mean noo, the Iraq war was smart, the top 1% do deserve a tax break, (the internet really is a series of tubes) and gays should go back in the closet.
      No, It's not dumb at all.
      (And politics have no real-world consequences)

      --
      Welcome to Costco, I love you.
  50. It was ever thus by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 1

    Granted I've not been around forever, but IMHO this has been the case as long as I've been here. I have wondered whether the fact that right-wing views are so frequently and strongly expressed reflects a US/non-US split in /.'s user-base with US contributors (the bulk of users) being on the whole more right-wing than their European counterparts (the "significant minority" of ./ users).

    1. Re:It was ever thus by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I just don't think there's a common point of reference.. just because its English doesn't mean we're talking about the same thing. On the political compass I, my friends, and most of the politicians I know of are on the bottom left square. The entire US political system maps onto the top right.. but I know lots of people I'd consider 'right wing'.

      OTOH that's not the whole story. The terms don't mean the same thing. eg. in the UK Christians, if they're anything, tend to be associated with what we call left wing policies* - social justice, feeding the poor, equality, welfare state, etc. In the US they're universally described as right wing, for, I presume, similar reasons.

      The terms used by the political compass, clearly US based, are interesting reading - we see extreme right wing as about control (a legacy of world war two I suspect) and left wing as about freedom (power to the people etc.).. whereas the political compass defines them in completely opposite.

      Basically until we can agree on clearly defined terms that mean the same globally it's meaningless to even try to compare. The best you can do is agree/disagree on certain points and form your own unique political stance - then vote for the best candidate at the next available election.

      * That's a simplification - there are plenty of christian conservatives (again that word doesn't mean the same thing it does in the US).

    2. Re:It was ever thus by Altus · · Score: 1


      religious folks used to be very democratic in the US, its only in recent decades that the republicans have taken over that demographic. Many people believe this is due to a highly organized campaign of talk radio throughout the "bible belt." Rush would be a big part of this actually.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    3. Re:It was ever thus by cmacb · · Score: 1

      Basically until we can agree on clearly defined terms that mean the same globally it's meaningless to even try to compare. The best you can do is agree/disagree on certain points and form your own unique political stance - then vote for the best candidate at the next available election.


      Well, I don't think that is likely to happen any time soon. The confounding of the terminology isn't an unfortunate accident, it is in fact a tool used by both sides (but I'd claim more frequently by the "left") to muddle the debate in order to corral voters who don't have the time, inclination, or education to wade through it all. In the end the politicos resort to "trust us, because you're not smart enough to work all this out on your own".

      We noted that 1984 came and went without the existence of a worldwide "Big Brother", even though there have been some countries that have come close to such a thing. But you don't have to be paying too much attention to see a steady drift toward less and less control by the individual over their own destiny. This is a reversal of the long lasting historical trend towards more personal freedom, and it was during that previous time that the classical definition of "liberal" and "conservative" were coined.

      Todays political parties only pretend to be following that terminology though, and I suspect it is no different in America than in many other countries: One party wants freedom from excess taxes and growth in domestic spending, but somehow, can't quite bring itself to let the rest of the world go its own way. We either have to bomb them, or in some other way convince them to cooperate with us, both options seem to be equally expensive. The other party invents one new government program after another to make life better for individuals, in the process creating an unbreakable dependency on more such programs. Both parties, even when having full control of the government are somehow thwarted in achieving even their primary stated goals, even though government as inexorably grown with their efforts.

      You have only to look at the events of yesterday to realize that relative financial security does not lead to universal happiness, nor does a relatively lax legal system result in universal respect for law an order. In the end, society has to choose just how important true freedom (freedom to act as opposed to freedom from worry) is in the equation, and unfortunately, now that our world is fully inhabited there is no way for the individual to make that determination for themselves alone.
    4. Re:It was ever thus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eg. in the UK Christians, if they're anything, tend to be associated with what we call left wing policies* - social justice, feeding the poor, equality, welfare state, etc. In the US they're universally described as right wing, for, I presume, similar reasons.

      perhaps i'm misreading you (and, if so, i apologise), but in the u.s. "social justice, feeding the poor, equality, welfare state, etc." are considered left-wing policies (at least they have been throughout the course of my lifetime).

    5. Re:It was ever thus by jd · · Score: 1
      OTOH that's not the whole story. The terms don't mean the same thing. eg. in the UK Christians, if they're anything, tend to be associated with what we call left wing policies* - social justice, feeding the poor, equality, welfare state, etc. In the US they're universally described as right wing, for, I presume, similar reasons.

      Only those involve taking the money from the poor and putting it into expensive cars, women, etc. I forget the exact name of it - the Make Money Quick Gospel, or something like that - is popular in the US, where churches encourage members to (a) take as much from others as possible, and (b) give most of that to the Pastor. Scottish-style "fire and brimstone" sermons are surprisingly popular. Views that suggest that other religions may have a point (Prince Charles wanting to be "Defender of Faith", rather than "Defender of The Faith", the Archbishop's call for a better respect of Islamic law, etc) are hardly what you'd call popular in England, but I don't want to imagine what would happen if an American President said something similar in the Bible Belt.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:It was ever thus by Sergeant+Pepper · · Score: 1

      OTOH that's not the whole story. The terms don't mean the same thing. eg. in the UK Christians, if they're anything, tend to be associated with what we call left wing policies* - social justice, feeding the poor, equality, welfare state, etc. In the US they're universally described as right wing, for, I presume, similar reasons. Actually, they're described as right-wing for different reasons. Those are all described as left-wing in the U.S. also (social justice, feeding the poor, equality, welfare, etc.). It seems like Christians in the U.S. (as a group, not INDIVIDUALLY - not saying ALL do, just as in general [hence the term Moral Majority, etc.]) focus more on the "don't do this" than on the "do this" aspects of the Bible. Rather than "do feed the poor, do tolerate others" it tends to be "don't have abortions, don't let gay people get married," etc. Thus, they tend to be associated with right-wing policies.
    7. Re:It was ever thus by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      The political compass is a terrible test of political views. Its questions don't deal with actual policies for the most part, but with semipolitical moral opinions. They might indicate your attitude, but not what you support.

      And their plotting of political figures of nonsense, in relation to how they plot quiz takers. They have no way of knowing candidates views on a lot of their questions.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
  51. You must be a tolerant "loving" liberal by geoffrobinson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hear so much about how conservatives are evil jerks and liberals are "loving" and "tolerant." This is a prime of how stereotypes bite the dust.

    It's ok to hate someone because I disagree with him!

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    1. Re:You must be a tolerant "loving" liberal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Nobody mentioned anything about Rush being a conservative. Just that he's an asshole. If you think "conservative" when you read "asshole" then maybe you need to look at your own prejudices.

      That aside, why would you assume that anyone who doesn't like Rush Limbaugh must be a liberal? It is possible to dislike Rush completely independent of his politics because he is, in fact, an asshole. I don't like him and I'm an independent voter that has voted for both Democrat and Republican candidates. And I probably know more Republicans who don't listen to Rush than those who do. And I'm talking about the card-carrying, RNC-donating, Ron-and-Nancy-signed-photo-on-the-mantel kind of Republicans.

      By any standard definition of the term, Rush is just an asshole. And I'm sure that he would still be an asshole even if he was a liberal. It has more to do with his personality than his politics.

    2. Re:You must be a tolerant "loving" liberal by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Is it ok to hate haters? To be intolerant of intolerance?

    3. Re:You must be a tolerant "loving" liberal by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      Is it ok to hate haters? To be intolerant of intolerance?


      I can only assume you are NOT talking about Rush. I mean, his show is a matter of public record, and it's all too easy to simply spend some time in the show transcript archives to find out that Rush is neither a hater, nor intolerant. So you must mean somebody else, or are just speaking to general principle. Right?
      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    4. Re:You must be a tolerant "loving" liberal by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Yes, I was asking about the general case. Read into things much?

    5. Re:You must be a tolerant "loving" liberal by d3ac0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, it's just that threads like this tend to (as this one already has) turn into huge flamefests. Just trying to keep a damper on the flames. Didn't mean to imply you were saying anything you weren't. My Apologies.

      As far as the "general case" goes, I would just quote Thomas Mann: "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil."

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    6. Re:You must be a tolerant "loving" liberal by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Your assuming that Limbaugh is a conservative.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  52. Re:Karma's a bitch you fat fuck boy diddler bastar by geoffrobinson · · Score: 0, Troll

    Based on what you just said, you should expect to meet him there. He's still a human being. Even if you disagree with him.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  53. Rush's problem with time machine... by Tetrad_of_doom · · Score: 1

    is that he is enable to return the Republican Party to a time before W's presidency.

  54. Rush's problem with time machine... by Tetrad_of_doom · · Score: 1

    is that he is unable to return the Republican Party to a time before W's presidency.

  55. How about this one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My turn.

    Question, what's the difference between disliked subject and neutral subject?

    Answer, one is a disparaging but accurate remark seemly to describing neutral subject, and the other is an accurate remark describing neutral subject.

    Comedic genius! How about another?

    Long build-up with ironic turn of events that disparages disliked subject.

    Time to hit the road!

    I dislike Rush as much as the next guy, but is it really so amusing to rehash template jokes to take pot-shots for no particular reason?

    1. Re:How about this one? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 5, Funny

      I dislike Rush as much as the next guy, but is it really so amusing to rehash template jokes to take pot-shots for no particular reason? Well, now that you mention it...

      Rush Limbaugh and his chauffeur were out driving in the country and accidentally hit and killed a pig that had wandered out on a country road.

      Limbaugh told the chauffeur to drive up to the farm and apologize to the farmer.

      They drove up to the farm, the chauffeur got out and knocked on the front door and was let in. He was in there for what seemed hours. When he came out, Limbaugh was confused about why his employee had been there so long.

      "Well, first the farmer shook my hand, then he offered me a beer, then his wife brought me some cookies, and his daughter showered me with kisses," explained the driver.

      "What did you tell the farmer?" Limbaugh asked.

      The chauffeur replied, "I told him that I was Rush Limbaugh's driver and I'd just killed the pig."

      Disclaimer: this joke is not original...

    2. Re:How about this one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The chauffeur replied, "I told him that I was Rush Limbaugh's driver and I'd just killed the pig."

      Disclaimer: this joke is not original... Gotta post AC here... true, joke is not original but still effective. That same exact joke was going around in Germany in 1943 - except the driver's passenger had this funny little mustache and a bad superiority complex. My grandfather from Munich told me that joke during the Eisenhower administration.
    3. Re:How about this one? by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      Answer, one is a disparaging but accurate remark seemly to describing neutral subject
      In Soviet Russia, accurate remarks disparage YOU!
    4. Re:How about this one? by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      If you liked that, here's some REAL comedic genius:

      Q: What's the difference between an Anonymous Coward and you?

      A: None. You are both a humorless, pucker-assed twit without a clue.

      (Hint: I said it for the joke value because it's funny, not just for the cheap pot-shot. I couldn't care less about Rush, really. Get a sense of humor. Or a life. Whatever...)

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
  56. Re:Just buy a real computer. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    You Apple trolls have to get it straight: is a Mac more expensive or less expensive than a "good" computer?

    Somehow I don't think running Vista will help him back up his web mail, which is apparently what he is expecting Time Machine to do.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  57. Please use Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russ,

    There are some people that we'd rather use Windows!

    Thanks, Steven

  58. #1 Thing I Hate About Liberals by PortHaven · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Ironically, all these people accusing of hate, etc. Are the same ones accusing Rush of lying & using false and misleading facts.

    Of course, they're all blithering idiots too stupid to understand that facts are often open to interpretation unless they are hard facts. And in the political world there are few hard facts, most are warm, eewwy goey brown facts to be honest.

    ***

    The #1 fact I hate about liberals is that I always feel they have a double-standard. They demonize anyone who thinks differently than them for doing what they do. There are very few things I hate in life more than the fact that "life ain't fair". And I hated double standards throughout my childhood.

    That's what the Democrat Party means to me...double-standards. We can do x, and it's okay, but if you do x you're a racist, a bigot, a liar, a Nazi, etc.

  59. What? by Slash.Poop · · Score: 0

    This story can't be true. Everything is perfect with everything Apple has ever made. (Well except for all of the mice they have ever made.) But this can't be true, marketer Steve Jobs and his commercial told me about "time machine" so it must great. Rush, what are you thinking taking on Jesus like this?

    1. Re:What? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Haven't you ever heard the old axiom "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer?"

  60. Mac's by jriding · · Score: 2

    "It just works!!!"

    --
    love the taste, hate the texture
  61. ROOTKIT? by StCredZero · · Score: 2, Funny

    Rush, I can fix it! I have just the thing to fix your problem. It's called a "Rootkit." We'll install it right away!

  62. bored/board by Descalzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    I take it you've never seen Al Gore.

    --
    I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
    1. Re:bored/board by d3ac0n · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I take it he can't spell "board".

      Of course, this IS Al Gore we are talking about. Perhaps "bored" (or boring) isn't such a bad choice of words after all.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    2. Re:bored/board by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, way to rehash the GP joke into a less-funny form.

    3. Re:bored/board by Spookticus · · Score: 1

      EXCELSIOR

    4. Re:bored/board by mark72005 · · Score: 1

      Hell Gore might be bigger than Limbaugh these days.

    5. Re:bored/board by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cried real tears when Le Mu Bai died? I came up with the story for Crouching Tiger/Hidden Dragon. The credited screenwriter hated my ending, but my version was kept, probably because I invented "The Force" and "The Jedi" and because the "E.T." logo is my handwriting, duh. This one, unlike Green Mile & Majestic, was true to my vision and I was very pleased. The walking on water bit was sacreligious, but otherwise it was faithful. It was my little ploy to enlist the Chinese film industry. Worked, too.

  63. Quite right by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    I too am amused by Limbaugh claiming to disagree ideologically with Jobs, though I have to note that Apple doesn't make obscene profits. Even stranger is that my harmless little post got modded flamebait - Limbaugh has made clear his hostility to McCain, Obama and Clinton, and he would definitely be prosecuted in Europe if he tried to broadcast the same sort of stuff there. Can it be that wingnuts get mod points?

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Quite right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      , and he would definitely be prosecuted in Europe if he tried to broadcast the same sort of stuff there Damn that free speech! Damn it to hell!
    2. Re:Quite right by CajunArson · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, Europe is so much better than America where you'll be prosecuted for criticizing those in power. Thank God the Europeans have those laws or someone might try to say something bad about Mustached Germans, Italians with helmets, or Russian "presidents" who poison their political opponents.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  64. What? by framauro13 · · Score: 2

    Rush Limbaugh knows how to use a computer? A Mac specifically? I thought those were just the tools of the liberal media to spread porn and socialist ideas to our youth.

    --
    In an effort to conform with internet communication standards, please note that the above comment is 100% biased opinion
  65. Too true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haters are (mostly) libs.

    1. Re:Too true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know! Hate radio is almost exclusively left-wing.

      The billboards in Atlanta that read "Stop Hillary now! Listen to Sean Hannity" are an exception. But the only one.

  66. Re:Karma's a bitch you fat fuck boy diddler bastar by gelfling · · Score: 1

    You can sizzle in a molten steel shower too.

  67. Mail.app's IMAP model pisses me off. by argent · · Score: 1

    Time Machine didn't back up his mail (and can't backup web-mail that isn't on his computer)

    If that means he's trying to back up mail he's reading through a web interface, than that's consistent with his straightforward lack of connection with reality I heard on his show after the damn radio station I was accustomed to listening to on the drive home replaced NPR with Rush.

    If that means he's using an IMAP interface to gmail and Mail.app's damn "I'm not actually going to save your mail, I'm just going to cache what you've recently read" behavior is tripping him up, then I gotta say I have some sympathy with him.

    Not enough sympathy to read the actual article and risk getting interesting in his problem: I'm smart enough to recognize when my hyperfocus is likely to lead me into behavior I may later regret.

    1. Re:Mail.app's IMAP model pisses me off. by Mononoke · · Score: 1
      If that means he's using an IMAP interface to gmail and Mail.app's damn "I'm not actually going to save your mail, I'm just going to cache what you've recently read" behavior is tripping him up, then I gotta say I have some sympathy with him.
      Isn't that the whole point of IMAP; not relying on keeping everything local? Over the course of a day, I check my mail on three different computers. IMAP is the only reason I can do this and have every email (I keep) available on every computer. Why would Mail.app save my mail locally that's already on IMAP servers?

      Yes, I can and do occasionally download and archive my IMAP mailboxes, but that's for safe storage reasons and has nothing to do with useability.

      --
      NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    2. Re:Mail.app's IMAP model pisses me off. by argent · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the whole point of IMAP; not relying on keeping everything local?

      That's one point to IMAP, yes.

      However "these three computers have a consistent view of the mailbox" is not the same as "these three computers do not retain all copies of all messages from the mailbox".

      Why would Mail.app save my mail locally that's already on IMAP servers?

      For disconnected use. For reliability and redundancy. For archival purposes.

      * I want to use Mail.app to exhaustively search your email on your laptop without having to be online. I have searched for some mechanism to force it to stop expiring the local cache, so that I can depend on this.

      * When a previous employer lost my mailbox my IMAP cache was the only copy of many messages that, in retrospect, turned out to be quite important. Unfortunately it was incomplete and much correspondence has been lost.

      * As a result of these events I have put *all* my mail into local folders and gone back through backups and created a smashing archive of almost all my mail back to the mid '90s and some back to the '80s.It has been a veritable voyage of discovery :). It has been MOST useful having this archive available in Mail.app, but it's inconvenient having to manually ensure that it is in sync: I wish I could maintain this archive using Mail.app and IMAP from my laptop to my home server, but instead I have to keep it in local folders. :(

      Basically, I would like to simplify my relationship with my email, and Mail.app forces me (and, it seems, you) to use multiple tools for the same job.

      And, I hasten to repeat, I realize this is horribly off topic because I have not read the original article to see what Rush's real problem is: I don't want to have ANY incentive to want to help the man, even to try and solve a puzzle.

  68. Vista by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

    At last, someone who really deserves Vista!

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
  69. Limbaugh is entertainment by bigweenie · · Score: 1

    Contrary to the earlier post that those most opposed to Rush get all their info from the media, not by listening, the truth is a very liberarian person like myself listens to Rush to find out what hogwash is being believed by the lemmings who retain citizenship, vote, and otherwise mess up this fantastic country. Rush is a Neanderthal with a gift for gab. Nothing more. Most of his listeners would never admit listening, like the lemmings do. We just need a hardy laugh or the information we need to counteract the Rush Virus.

    Rant over.

  70. Color me shocked... by Jaysyn · · Score: 2

    That the fat hypocritical bag of shit can even operate a computer.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  71. No I won't fix your computer by lisle · · Score: 1

    Aside from the fact that I wouldn't p... down his throat if his guts were on fire, yeah it can probably be fixed somehow...

  72. Mod parent UP by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

    He points out some real insight, has a really sensible view of things, and idiot moderators are trying to mod him down. Mod parent up!

    --
    Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
  73. Alright, alright... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was awesome.

  74. Rush is fond of saying... by ElboRuum · · Score: 2

    "I'll debate you with one hemisphere of my brain tied behind my back."

    Well, Rushie, looks like you can finally put that fallow mass of inert grey matter to some use after all. And who knows, maybe that other half of your brain might actually be smarter than the one you claim to use. That is, of course, not saying a whole lot.

  75. Service it and shut up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When your car breaks down, your tooth hurts, your dishwasher dies what do you do?
    Call a competent service, professional to take care of it.
    I know, that's not really news and there is nothing in it really for the radio... but that's what you do.
    Your Apple computer is not different from that.

  76. OSX Testing by RealGrouchy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Apple does a lot of rigorous testing on all of the platforms and configurations that they expect will be used by their customers.

    Can you really blame them for not bothering to test for compatibility with Republicans?

    - RG>

    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  77. Back to the 60s!! by waden · · Score: 1

    Jobs needs to tell Rush that it isn't a real Time Machine and he won't fit inside it. Problem solved.

  78. It must be contagious by ChePibe · · Score: 1

    Godwin's law already... that was quick. I do love a good non-sequitur in the morning.

    No one's denying that Japanese Internment was wrong, but really - can it actually be compared with the concentration camps?

    How many millions were gassed in those internment camps? How many hundreds of thousands were massacred, slaughtered? The internment camps simply aren't the same thing as concentration camps. They're not a good thing, of course, and no one's denying that, but they're not the same.

    I would be surprised if Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or especially Michael Savage didn't call for violence against Muslims.

    Your conspirational mind isn't the issue here - it's fact. Have they called for such violence? Do you have any evidence of such calls to violence? And let's assume for a moment that there were such calls to violence - then where's the genocide? Limbaugh supposedly has 20 million listeners - where are the mass killings?

    It doesn't matter what you feel, only reality matters. And here's the reality - there is no evidence of such mass violence, and far, far less to attach it to talk radio.

    I understand that, as a "progressive", you feel you must limit speech for the good of the people. Just understand that those of us who value the constitution have another opinion.

    1. Re:It must be contagious by Cederic · · Score: 1

      where are the mass killings? Iraq.
      Afghanistan.
  79. computer advice to Rush: lay off the Oxycontin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your computer will work better when your thinking clears up.

  80. Bugs? by Unit3 · · Score: 1

    Sorry Rush, you may think those are the problems, but in reality, you problem isn't OS X. It's karma.

    --
    -- sudo.ca
  81. somebody watched The Daily Show last night... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at least credit them...

  82. iPhone by ortzinator · · Score: 1

    Rush has an iPhone too, which he is constantly expressing his love for. He says he wants copy/paste, which I thought was a good idea.

    1. Re:iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copy pasting is so 90s! Get with the programme.

  83. bingo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my exact thought after reading his message.

  84. Rush's other request was for... by xactuary · · Score: 0
    Grey Poupon.

    --
    Say hello to my little sig.
  85. Mega DITTO by lag00natic · · Score: 1

    I completely agree. As a moderate liberal I find it frustrating that the vast majority of "liberals" don't see the hypocrisy in their condemnation and virulent tirades to shut down or muzzle Limbaugh. Love him or hate him, he has the same right to free speech as anyone else.

    1. Re:Mega DITTO by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      . As a moderate liberal I find it frustrating that the vast majority of "liberals" don't see the hypocrisy in their condemnation and virulent tirades to shut down or muzzle Limbaugh.

      I don't want to shut down or muzzle Limbaugh. His existance, repugnent as it may be, is useful to me. Anytime someone claims to be a fan/believe he has good ideas, it makes my decision to ignore that person henceforth. And I'm a busy man. I need things like that to help out.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Mega DITTO by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      As a moderate liberal

      Liar.

      As a moderate liberal I find it frustrating that the vast majority of "liberals" don't see the hypocrisy in their condemnation and virulent tirades to shut down or muzzle Limbaugh.

      And I love the hypocrisy of those defending Limbaugh by shouting down his critics with cries of "free speech".

    3. Re:Mega DITTO by lag00natic · · Score: 1
      Liar.

      I realize it may be difficult for radicals on both sides of the aisle to accept that there are individuals in this country who do not share ALL of their party's positions.

      Frankly, I enjoy listening to all the political pundits be it Limbaugh, Franken, Hannity, Rhodes, etc. The fact that they have the ability to speak their mind over the public airwaves is a testament to our freedom. [queue music "Star Spangled Banner"]

  86. Oblig Moxy Fruvous song about Rush Limbaugh by JJRRutgers · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The Greatest Man In America

    Coming from Canada, we love those leaders who personify the US way to be,
    There was JFK, and LBJ, and WKRP.
    But of all of these there is not one to rival the greatest genius of them all
    He's a megalo with a healthy glow
    He's the man called Rush Limbaugh.
    He's a dose of P.T. Barnum
    With a Mussolini twist.
    There in the limosine, parked on the lawn,
    He's a goofy Gengis Khan.

    Not since Jesus Christ has the world seen someone
    With such widely sindicated views
    Hundreds of years from now they'll celebrate Rush-mas
    And Rush-ashana for the Jews.
    'Cause he'll pull the plug on femi-nazis, paranoid minorities and gays.
    He's a burning bush with a network push,
    Sure to start a country-wide blaze.
    He taught me to love and praise Charlton Heston
    Oliver North is quite a nice man too.
    Forget Al and Tipper
    Let's bring back the Gipper
    And Joe McCarthy too!

    I was a troubled soul, consumed by voices advocating special interest groups and vice
    'Till Rush rushed to my sweet rescue
    Now I'll never ever hafta think twice.
    Never ever hafta think twice...

    So we'll sign a check for Limbaugh-ism
    Restore the moral fundamental core
    We'll cut the debt,
    And start a Tet
    Offensive on the poor.
    It's a blitzkrieg in the making,
    It's distinctly upper-class (well, not everybody!)
    Yes sir I'll get the door
    Roll the carpet on the floor
    For a man...
    For a man...
    For a man...
    Such a man...
    For a man....
    With his head up his-

    Ditto!

    Ditto!

    Ditto!

    Ditto!

    Ask us the name the name of the King - It's Rush!

  87. Why do you people always do this? by siesindallerscheisse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "While yes, there are those on the left who say one thing and do another, there are just as many, if not more, folks on the right who are just as hypocritical."

    WHO CARES?

    If you're doing something wrong, it is completely irrelevant that someone else is doing it too and in no way absolves you.

    Saying "he did it too" is the kind of thing that belongs in an elementary school classroom, not in a discussion amongst adults. And yes, that applies just as equally for the people who scream "BILL CLINTON GOT A BLOW JOB!!!!" every time someone says something about Bush.

    STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR LEADERS WHO BEHAVE LIKE CHILDREN.

    "You might want to look in the mirror the next time you think only one side are hypocrites."

    I see no claim of that anywhere. Nowhere in the post is any attempt to claim that it is only liberals that are hypocrites. No other claims were forwarded, or even implied.

    It is not ok if liberals behave hypocritically, even if every single non liberal does behave hypocritically. Sadly, your reaction is all too common, despite the fact that so many Slashdotters profess to be more educated and enlightened.

    Well, I'll step up I guess and do what you didn't. Yes, liberals behave hypocritically. The question is not whether it occurs, but whether it benefits the greater good when it happens. Hypocrisy is not by itself an indicator of anything except a willingness to reconsider one's position if necessary. I would hope my leaders would do that, specifically, if they realize a previous policy decision had failed.

    See how easy that was? I was able to derail the "hypocrisy" argument without resorting to 3rd grade rhetoric. It saddens me that people genuinely think an appropriate response to criticism of their leaders is to denounce the other guys choices.

    "I will not give in to George Bush. I will not become fearful."

    Too late. You're clearly so afraid of him that you'll blindly defend people who don't deserve it. The way to "not give in" is to INSIST that your leaders are better, and answer for what they do, not cover up criticism of them with attacks on the other side.

  88. 'Riced-out' is racist? by spun · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Riced-out comes from 'rice burner.' Implying that Japanese cars burn rice instead of gasoline. Is that racist? I'd love a car that ran on rice.

    Originally, the term referred to a certain subset of Japanese who liked to make their cars look fast without actually spending much money one them. They would add huge 'fart-cannon' tailpipes, park bench sized spoilers (even to front wheel drive cars), VTEC and red R stickers (even to non-Hondas), and outrageously ugly paint and body jobs. Eventually, the term came to refer to anyone that did ridiculous things to their car to make it seem faster than it actually was. The term isn't really racist in practice, it has a meaning similar to 'poser.'

    Reminds me of a post a long time ago when I said, "Gentoo is for ricers." Next I suppose you'll be telling us 'niggardly' is racist...

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:'Riced-out' is racist? by fishb0ne · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      RICE = race inspired cosmetic enhancement Also, this is my very first post on Slashdot after years of lurking. Yay me.

    2. Re:'Riced-out' is racist? by sponglish · · Score: 1

      Next I suppose you'll be telling us 'niggardly' is racist...
      Well, in Liberal Land, it is: Williams Aide Resigns in Language Dispute

      The director of D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams's constituent services office resigned after being accused of using a racial slur, the mayor's office said yesterday.

      David Howard, head of the Office of Public Advocate, said he used the word "niggardly" in a Jan. 15 conversation about funding with two employees.

      "I used the word 'niggardly' in reference to my administration of a fund," Howard said in a written statement yesterday. "Although the word, which is defined as miserly, does not have any racial connotations, I realize that staff members present were offended by the word.

      "I immediately apologized," Howard said. " . . . I would never think of making a racist remark. I regret that the word I did use offended anyone."

      --
      "I improvise. It's my greatest talent. I prefer situations to plans..." --Wintermute, William Gibson's "Neuromancer"
    3. Re:'Riced-out' is racist? by spun · · Score: 1

      What does this incident have to do with liberals?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    4. Re:'Riced-out' is racist? by multisync · · Score: 1

      Next I suppose you'll be telling us 'niggardly' is racist...


      It isn't racist, but it isn't necessary in most instances either. There are other words that mean the same thing and don't cause confusion about the speaker's message or the motives behind his word choices.
      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    5. Re:'Riced-out' is racist? by spun · · Score: 1

      Yeah, why get involved with that tar baby if you don't have to?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    6. Re:'Riced-out' is racist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Backronym == FAIL.

    7. Re:'Riced-out' is racist? by crotherm · · Score: 1

      Next I suppose you'll be telling us 'niggardly' is racist...


      It isn't racist, but it isn't necessary in most instances either. There are other words that mean the same thing and don't cause confusion about the speaker's message or the motives behind his word choices. Great, now I have tailor my words because some people have poor vocabularies. Isn't that why TV news is so dumbed down? Isn't that why Bush speaks like an eight year old.... sheesh The more I hear stuff like this, the more it seems that Idiocracy is our future.
      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
    8. Re:'Riced-out' is racist? by Cederic · · Score: 1


      wtf? where/when/why would 'niggardly' ever be misconstrued?

      Frankly if someone was so stupid they thought my use of 'niggardly' was racist then I'd use it just to piss them off.

      Even if the word had shared etymological roots with the word 'nigger' (which it doesn't) it has very different meaning and is a very different word.

      Stop destroying language.

    9. Re:'Riced-out' is racist? by multisync · · Score: 1
      Show me some examples of modern usage of that word.

      Frankly if someone was so stupid they thought my use of 'niggardly' was racist then I'd use it just to piss them off


      That was pretty much my point. Yes, the word has a completely different root and meaning from another word (which is used as a slur against a certain group of people) but choosing it does nothing to clarify your point further. So why choose that word instead of a different word - such as miserly - that has essentially the same meaning, unless the point you are really trying to get across has more to do with your choice of words than the content of your message. In which case, just tell us straight up what's on your mind and stop beating around the bush with your pedantic word choice.

      Stop destroying language.


      Oh, please. Stop hiding behind it.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    10. Re:'Riced-out' is racist? by Cederic · · Score: 1


      Written uses? I guess I could trawl the main newspaper sites.. hang on, Google News to the rescue:
      http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=uk&q=niggardly&btnG=Search+News

      It's in common use to describe bowlers, at least on Radio 4's Test Match Special.

      I fail to see how I'm hiding behind language. I admit to a childish delight in using unusual words at time, and I get similar delight when someone uses one I haven't seen for a while. Last week I used the word 'countenance' in one of its more obscure forms, I was happy for days.

      Other people have encyclopedic knowledge of rock music, and I let them answer those questions on pub quiz machines, but it's not for me. Are they hiding behind musical knowledge?

    11. Re:'Riced-out' is racist? by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Great, now I have tailor my words because some people have poor vocabularies

      You already had to do that if you meant to communicate with other people. You're not very smart if you didn't realize that.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    12. Re:'Riced-out' is racist? by multisync · · Score: 1

      I enjoy wordplay too, and I'm not trying to take that away from you. But you have to admit, the two words sound a lot alike and - depending on where you use it - there is a pretty good chance that someone could misinterpret its meaning. I'm not advocating banning any words, just care in how we choose them. Some consideration should be given to how those who hear your words are likely to interpret what you are saying.

      If you use a word like niggardly because it describes your thoughts more accurately than any other, and you are confident your listener will take the meaning you intended, fair enough. OTH, if you are choosing that word for the effect it has rather than the message it conveys, you are using words as a blunt instrument, rather than scalpel. I think language deserves more respect than that, and that's why I accused you - wrongly - of hiding behind it.

      You are right. The answer is not to shun words, but rather shine light on their meaning so people can better understand each other. Just remember the power of the word, and wield it wisely.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    13. Re:'Riced-out' is racist? by thejuggler · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      please define when "originally the term was defined", I've heard the term 'Rice Burner' back in the early 80's and it wasn't new then.

    14. Re:'Riced-out' is racist? by Space+cowboy · · Score: 1

      Even *if* you had been correct, and (s)he was hiding behind it, the problem is still in the domain of the listener. There's nothing wrong with using "niggardly", and if someone gets all hot and bothered about it, and is then made to look like an ignorant ass just because (s)he jumped to an unwarranted conclusion, that's the listener's problem; it's a problem that probably won't happen again once discussed, which means the listener learnt something. It's never too late to learn...

      It's not my desire to countenance ignorance, and I don't support the idea of restrictions being placed on the innocent, just to placate the ignorant; that way lies mediocrity in all things.

      Simon.

      --
      Physicists get Hadrons!
    15. Re:'Riced-out' is racist? by crotherm · · Score: 1

      You already had to do that if you meant to communicate with other people. You're not very smart if you didn't realize that. It all depends on who I wish to speak to. If it is another adult, I expect a certain level of intelligence. I don't know about you, but I don't usually like to have conversations with idiots.
      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
    16. Re:'Riced-out' is racist? by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      The average is adult is just average.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
  89. Um... what? by notabaggins · · Score: 1
    At least so far as Time Machine goes, I haven't the slightest what he's talking about. I just restored all the deleted mails in one of my in boxes. So what does he mean "email boxes"? If he's talking about the email boxes you can create and have rules sort your email among them, yeah, those don't show up in Time Machine. Just the in boxes. But how hard is selecting "Apply Rules"?

    And then comes this:

    On one machine, this one here in New York, I have found a way to restore a single message or a multiple list of messages from wherever the Time Machine archive is. Um... what? He's mucking around on the Time Machine volume? Yeah, I can see if you know what you're doing, you could do a restore by nabbing files off the volume, I don't know why you'd want to. Particularly if you don't actually seem to know what's going on. Safer to stick to the GUIfied (and a bit over done) interface.

    (Okay, so it's very pretty zooming through time and space like that, they just need to add the Dr. Who theme music to make it complete, but it's kind of a "show offs!" thing.)

    I also don't see this "whole thread" at the Apple support forums. I don't know what he's talking about there either.

    I begin to suspect a short between the keyboard and the chair.

    Oh and Limbaugh isn't exactly poor. Why is yapping into his microphone instead of, oh, buying a support contract or something?
  90. Proof that Fat Slob Repugnicants are Idiots by bratwiz · · Score: 2


    This is just proof that those sycophantic Repugnicant fat slobs with microphones are just moronic idiots lacking even the meager technical prowess of a used Kleenex.

    Come-on, gimme some Dittos.

  91. It might be relevant... by alispguru · · Score: 1

    ... if anyone had a highly-rated comment actually addressing the problem.

    Other than one guy who said "Time Machine works for me", I see nothing technical as of the posting of this comment.

    Come on, Apple fanbois with current kit! I'd chime in, but my most recent machine is a G4 Mac Mini running 10.4.

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
  92. Please explain how banning gay marriage... by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1
    ...encourages good breeding.

    Do you expect the gays who are also the productive people you want breeding to give up and "go straight" and have kids?

    Do you expect straight people who are the productive people you want breeding to "give up" and not have kids if gays are allowed to marry?

    Please explain how allowing two guys who love each other and live together to formalize their relationship will decrease the number of productive people breeding. Please explain how it can make any difference whatsoever, except with the slight possibility of gay marriage ADVANCING your cause? Because productive gay people might just be more likely to become parents if they are allowed the increased stability and benefits of marriage.

    --
    This space available.
  93. Re:cheering... by clevergeek · · Score: 1

    Riiight. While people like Hilary voted us into that war...and actually maintain a credible reputation running an antiwar campaign. I'm no ditto, but I'll take the cheering over the voting any day...

  94. Is he using Mail.app? Or something ancient? by alispguru · · Score: 1

    From reading TFA, t's not 100% clear what email application he's using. Given Limbaugh's long-time Mac user status, he might be using something like Eudora, which stores email as one file per folder. Mail.app stores each message in a separate file, which works much better with Time Machine.

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
  95. Compassionate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, he sounds more like a compassionate conservative to me. :-)

  96. Well Ron Paul uses ed! by pavon · · Score: 1

    And Hillary is pico user - ugh.

  97. Re:Excuse me by tungstencoil · · Score: 1

    Yup.

  98. Yes by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2, Informative

    Next I suppose you'll be telling us 'niggardly' is racist...

    Niggardly comes from a Scandavian language, and just happens to sound similar a racist term that refers to black people. Other then sounding similar, there is no connection. On the other hand, "ricer" is a derogitory term for Japanese, that then applied to a subset of the Japanese, that then applied to people who were similar to that subset regardless of race. Because the origin of the term is racist, it has racist connotations that niggardly does not.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  99. yeah.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mr. Limbaugh please DIAF.

  100. Re: genetics and intelligence by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    2) Open debates.
    Not really. Go to a left wing meeting and say you think blacks are genetically less intelligent.

    This brings up an interesting point. I can't take credit for it; Stephen Jay Gould was the first person I heard it from.
    Suppose in fact the Negro race is, say one percent less intelligent than the Caucasian race? (ignoring the difficulty of defining intelligent). Is that in any way a justification for abuse, discrimination, or slavery?
    I'd say both left- and right-wingers all too often jump into a strawman argument, failing to see what the real debate should be about.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  101. And some religions need (dis)solution by crovira · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All religion requires a suspension of disbelief.

    Like bridges and monster trucks, the more widely disseminated the religion, the more massive the suspension.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  102. FIXES / WORKAROUNDS / DOPER OS by grolaw · · Score: 1

    Change the mail app to the open source Eudora. Email is stored as plain text and easily recovered.

    Back to my Mac doesn't work unless I'm on the same subnet. Use another program - I use Timbuktu Pro. Version 8.7 works fine with Leopard and I have five Macs and an XP box running Timbuktu and I can access all of them any time FROM ANYWHERE. Timbuktu will even use Bonjour where the machines are close enough.

    As for Mr. Limbaugh's hearing - he did it to himself through his opiate abuse. If I were Apple, I'd revoke his license to use OSX 10.5 (*READ THE EULA - it can be done*) and he can turn his Macs into Windoze boxes. This should be done purely as a preventative step to avoid a lawsuit from the "Excellence In Broadcasting" Network that the Mac is a machine that facilitates dopers and, specifically Rush's dope habits. Rush always has somebody else to blame - better to nip this one in the bud and take his computers' OS away. It is that or dust off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...

    FWIW - I've been using Macs a lot longer than the Big Fat Idiot - I still have a working LISA.

  103. Techies & Trekies Lean by fast+turtle · · Score: 1
    more towards Z axis+2 meters



    instead of Y axis+.5 meters

    --
    Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
  104. Partisan anger is not healthy for America by soren100 · · Score: 1

    Man you're crazy. .... He's been attacked by censors who are linked to powerful political dynasties, and a lot of the "hate radio" label has come from them. They are your enemy, my friend. They wan tto shu Rush up so they gain some miniscule political advantage. Let Rush speak, and feel free to speak against him. That's what democracy looks like. So you are saying that Rush is somehow the victim of a ... "liberal conspiracy"? That sounds pretty crazy, my friend. But seriously, this whole division of "Conservatives" vs. "Liberals" has extremely damaged America, and allowed people like Bush and Cheney to bankrupt our country with continual wars. Thanks to them, we now have wars on two fronts (Iraq and Afghanistan) that don't look like they will end any time soon, and they seem desperate to start a war with Iran as well. (Bush even threatened to start WWIII over Iran's nuclear program, even though he knew it was stopped in 2003).

    They are your enemy, my friend. This is why people like Rush are dangerous to America. Americans are not my enemy, and people who listen to Rush (or Air America) and thinks that any American is an enemy, is a traitor, or "hates America" has been seriously confused. "Liberals" and "Conservervatives" just have differing views on what is best for America, which is a good thing. Anyone who promotes anger toward either side is not helping America at all, and doesn't deserve a personal Slashdot discussion just for doing so.
  105. Rush rush rush by blackjackshellac · · Score: 0

    How many times do we have to go through this? The fix is easy,

    1. select all personal folders
    2. drag to trash
    3. empty trash

    Easy!

    Asshole.

    --
    Salut,

    Jacques

  106. I wouldn't get Rush Limbaugh the tiem of day. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let alone help him config his mac.

  107. Again, no. The term comes from 'rice burner' by spun · · Score: 1

    No, the term ricer comes from 'rice burner,' referring to Japanese cars, not people. If you have any proof to the contrary, please provide a link and I will retract my statement and apologize to any Japanese I may have offended.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Again, no. The term comes from 'rice burner' by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      Even your link refers to the term as pejorative. It's true that it refers to cars, but it's building off an ethnic stereotype. Do you think it would be acceptable to say that an African racing car ran off watermelons? Would it be fundamentally different from referring to a Mexican car as a "beaner car" or say that it was "beaned out"?

      Racist.

      --
      Fnord.
    2. Re:Again, no. The term comes from 'rice burner' by spun · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I'm sorry, but I've never heard any Asian refered to as a ricer, nor anyone joking about how much Asians love rice. Rice is not perjorative to Asians the way beans or watermelons are because it's never been used that way. The term is pejorative to the cars, it stems from American muscle car culture. Don't you think, at an institution like Wikipedia, if the term were pejorative to a group of people, they would complain, at least on the talk page? Yet there's nothing. The only place this is an insult to anyone is in your head. Get off your high horse and admit that not only are you 100% wrong, you are continuing to be a dick about it for no good reason.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:Again, no. The term comes from 'rice burner' by mazarin5 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Holy shit, pal. Did I jump into the middle of a protracted discussion about this or something?

      --
      Fnord.
    4. Re:Again, no. The term comes from 'rice burner' by spun · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, yes, yes you did. Sorry.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  108. Wow... by XanC · · Score: 1

    Methinks the patients are running the asylum 'round these parts... Nice to see such professionalism from /.

    1. Re:Wow... by jamie · · Score: 1

      Happy to oblige :)

  109. you're a libertarian, aren't you? by Scudsucker · · Score: 1
    Remember when Bill Bennett, professional moralizer, was outed as a compulsive gambler? Libertarians were the first ones to rush to his defense, despite the fact that Bennett's entire career has been based around telling other people how to live their lives, the compete antithesis to Libertarian ideals.

    The point they missed out on is that is perfectly fine to have sympathy for Limbaugh and Bennett the compulsive addicts, but Limbaugh and Bennett the gigantic hypocrites deserve nothing but scorn and ridicule. And yes, Limbaugh is the epitome of hypocrisy on drugs:

    "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."
    -- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.
    http://www.takebackthemedia.com/gophotwrush.html

    "What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use, too many whites are getting away with drug sales, too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."
    -- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.
    http://www.takebackthemedia.com/gophotwrush.html

    "It's kind of like sentencing. A lot of people say that we have a heavy sentence for this crime and a light sentence for another crime, and what we ought to do is reduce the heavy sentence so it's more in line with the other. Wrong. In most cases we ought to increase the light sentence and make it compatible with the heavy sentence, and be serious about punishment because we are becoming too tolerant as a society, folks, especially of crime, in too many parts of the country."
    -- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.
    http://www.takebackthemedia.com/gophotwrush.html
    You claim he is wrong 100% of the time.

    No I didn't. I said "anytime he opens his mouth he is very likely to be 100% full of crap."

    You think Republican = bad

    There you go: just like Rush, you make stuff up.

    Democrats routinely do virtually everything the Republicans do.

    No, they don't. There are some corporate tools that need to be primaried out of office, like Feinstein and Rockefeller. Take FISA for example: both those Democrats along with a dozen others voted for telecom immunity, but 31 Democrats voted against it. Whereas ALL the Republicans that showed up voted for it.

    I don't think Al Franken is wrong 100% of the time (I actually lean closer to Al than Rush, but that's beside the point).

    That's the difference between liberals and conservatives: after decades of vicious attacks on them, liberals by and large make sure their shit is on point. Whereas conservatives invariably toe the ideological line, facts be damned. Case in point: single payer health care. It costs far less money and provides better care than that which private insurance provides, period. Yet they continue to scream "socialism" and fight it.
  110. This is a setup! by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Clearly he is going to switch to Vista and is trying to make a big splash.
    It's his type. Probably influence by his Ballmer associations of late.

    Seriously, if in a year he is not touting Vista I will be so shocked I might actually listen to him again.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  111. irony by conureman · · Score: 1

    Apple was evil to CoS?

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  112. tilting at windmills by Scudsucker · · Score: 1
    Dude, give it up. Name me a single thing that comes within a hundred yards of liberals being as full of crap on an issue as much as conservatives have been full of crap on the following issues:
    • The sin of draft dodging when Clinton was running against Herbert Walker Bush, vs when George W. Bush was running against McCain, Gore, and Kerry.
    • The importance of having served in the military when Clinton was running against Herbert Walker Bush, vs when George W. Bush was running against McCain, Gore, and Kerry.
    • How much responsibility the president bears for the actions of law enforcement agencies on Ruby Ridge (when H.W. Bush had been president for three and a half years) and Waco (when Clinton had been in office for 38 days).
    • Whitewater vs Harken Energy.
    • How serious lying under oath is (which Clinton didn't even do) versus Scooter Libby.
    • How Clinton "disgraced the office" by having an affair vs Gengrich and Vitter, just to name two of many Republicans who have had affairs while in office.
    • "Cutting and running" from areas where we've deployed troops on Somalia in 1993 and Haiti in 1994, vs Iraq today.
    • Surveillance: the conservatives that freaked the fuck out over Carnivore and the Clipper Chip (both of which would have required the use of warrants) vs the far larger NSA warrantless wiretapping.
    • Impeachment. Republicans impeached Clinton...because they wanted to impeach him, and settled for a manufactured perjury charge after countless investigations of Whitewater turned up nothing. Whereas the Bush Administration breaks the law (warrantless wiretapping, using federal agencies for partisan gain), subverts the separation of powers (ignores power of the purse, signing statemnts), and has broken four amendments (searches and seizures, due process, cruel and unusual punishment, speedy trials).
    1. Re:tilting at windmills by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Straying blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah well.

      Couldn't come up with a single example. Put up or shut the fuck up, bitch.

    2. Re:tilting at windmills by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      * The sin of draft dodging when Clinton was running against Herbert Walker Bush, vs when George W. Bush was running against McCain, Gore, and Kerry.

      [You're point? GWB did not dodge the draft. Did he going into a safer service...perhaps. But that's not dodging the draft. Big difference...]

      * The importance of having served in the military when Clinton was running against Herbert Walker Bush, vs when George W. Bush was running against McCain, Gore, and Kerry.
      [ Air National Guard Service...hmm...would you dismiss my service because I only served in the U.S. Coast Guard? Do you know how many Coast Guardsmen died in WWII in service to their country escorting freighters and on D-day?]

      * How much responsibility the president bears for the actions of law enforcement agencies on Ruby Ridge (when H.W. Bush had been president for three and a half years) and Waco (when Clinton had been in office for 38 days).
      [ Or 9-11 when President Bush was only in office for several months. More so, his appointments to the intelligent services were held up for many months. Key appointments weren't filled until as late as August 2001. Your point?]

      * Whitewater vs Harken Energy.

      * How serious lying under oath is (which Clinton didn't even do [huppi.com]) versus Scooter Libby.
      [ When it is directly removing a citizens rights to due process. Pretty darn serious. How serious is it when a Democrat Senator is stealing top secret documents and smuggling them out in his pants?]

      * How Clinton "disgraced the office" by having an affair vs Gengrich and Vitter, just to name two of many Republicans who have had affairs while in office.
      [ Oh, see, this is EXACTLY MY POINT, you prove my point about liberals. Gingrich resigned for his action. Clinton, not only didn't resign, but fired a general in the armed services for having an affair. Now that takes some balls. ]

      * "Cutting and running" from areas where we've deployed troops on Somalia [youtube.com] in 1993 and Haiti [youtube.com] in 1994, vs Iraq today.
      [Well, as I recall, we having cut and run from Iraq as of yet. So I'm not sure what your point is on this. Now if you mean 1991, then yes...bad move on our part in listening and conceding to the U.N.]

      * Surveillance: the conservatives that freaked the fuck out over Carnivore and the Clipper Chip (both of which would have required the use of warrants) vs the far larger NSA warrantless wiretapping.
      [Guess what, they're still flipping out over the Patriot Act, etc. And if you haven't noticed yet. The Republican Party really isn't much of a conservative party anymore. It's become much more moderate and liberal - except on a few token political areas, the Republican Party is no longer acting for small government and sound fiscal ideals..sadly. ]

      * Impeachment. Republicans impeached Clinton...because they wanted to impeach him, and settled for a manufactured perjury charge after countless investigations of Whitewater turned up nothing. Whereas the Bush Administration breaks the law (warrantless wiretapping, using federal agencies for partisan gain), subverts the separation of powers (ignores power of the purse, signing statemnts), and has broken four amendments (searches and seizures, due process, cruel and unusual punishment, speedy trials).
      [First off, Clinton was impeached for violating a U.S. citizens rights by lying in a sexual harassment trial. But once again you exemplify my point. Liberals are all up in arms over the questionable legality of the actions of President Bush, with regards to the invasion of privacy in the name of keeping us safe. But they like to brush under all the FBI files the Clintons accessed NOT for any pretense of keeping the nation safe but for mere political use.]

      But you're just talking national....I am talki

  113. Rush to Judgement in the Mac Limbah by itsybitsy · · Score: 0

    So, Rush thinks that his biggest bugs are with his computer, maybe he should take a deeper look when he looks in the mirror the next time or take a good listen to the nonsense he peddles.

    It's a shame to use a Mac for such tripe as his.

    Oh yeah, Steve Jobs, while you're fixing Rush's bugs please, please, please, make the Apple OSX Mach X(e)NU Kernel less like XENU and more like Minix3 - PLEASE put the drivers into their own protected processes so that the darn Mac's don't crash every few days/week. (My Mac has crashed 40+ times in the year that I've had it - sigh).

  114. Re:Karma's a bitch you fat fuck boy diddler bastar by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

    boy diddler Perhaps you're mistaking Rush Limbaugh for Bernie Ward?
    --
    "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
  115. Mod parent up - most insightful. by ObiWonKanblomi · · Score: 1

    Finally someone who speaks the truth! People too often in these slashdot forums say something to the effect of "I can't believe all the right-wing rhetoric I see in here (slashdot discussions)".

    I challenge the grandparent of this thread to identify at least 5 serious posts in this thread which illustrate his claim.

  116. Parent is not flamebait by willy_me · · Score: 1

    While obviously emotionally charged, the parent post is not flamebait and should not be modded as such. In fact, the parent brings up the interesting points of insurance and shared benefits. Bringing up these points makes this a legitimate counter-argument, hence it is not flamebait. May I suggest a mod of "off topic" instead?

  117. I'm so old.. by thegnu · · Score: 1

    I got this UID *last* time existence happened.

    --
    Please stop stalking me, bro.
  118. Next Mac commercial. by Pinback · · Score: 1


    Hi, I'm a Mac...

    And I'm Rush Limbaugh...

  119. Article incorrect! by ModestMotorhead · · Score: 0

    He was actually trying to find the "Time Masheen" but found it was also a bad ride.

    --
    -- "Mathematics is music for the mind, and Music is Mathematics for the Soul. - J.S. Bach"
  120. Rush Limbaugh and free speech by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    This video is a perfect example of Rush Limbaugh defending freedom of speech. Simple put, he's awsome!

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  121. Source please by siesindallerscheisse · · Score: 1

    First you say

    "no one is entitled to their own set of facts"

    Then you say

    "anytime he opens his mouth he is very likely to be 100% full of crap."

    I'd like to see your source for this. What facts did you use to determine it "very likely" that his is 100% full of crap?

    Or are you making up your own set of facts? Or are you going to cop out and pretend that your declaration was just an "opinion", in which case, what makes your inflammatory, factually incorrect opinion any better than his?

  122. Green? by jd · · Score: 1

    Everyone who remembers as far back as A2206411411 knows perfectly well that this was The Swamp, that CmdrTaco has captured the island with the reset switch, and that you boost your rating by removing Fraggles with the Black and Decker chainsaw.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  123. HaHa by PolishPimpin · · Score: 1

    This is great! Jobs has been reduced to being a Help Desk technician... Im lovin it!

  124. Rush asks a Democrat for help??? by 7Prime · · Score: 2, Funny

    HAHAHAHA!

    After attacking democrats for years, he finally gives in to pleading to a prominant corporate democrat for help. Boy, I love the sweet smell of irony in the morning.

    --
    Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
  125. Language by j_w_d · · Score: 1

    ...just because its English doesn't mean we're talking about the same thing... I believe it was George Bernard Shaw that described the UK and the US as two nations separated by a common language. Of course, even within the US, generations may differ as to understood meanings. Language was once upon a time a received cultural tool passed along from generation to generation. However, with modern society change occurs so fast that generations are inventing their own dialects. I encountered this with my daughter who enjoined me not to swear. I explained that the expletive I had use was an obscenity and not an oath, and that in fact I never swore. I pointed out that there are obscenities, oaths, invocations and curses, as well as characterizations that are none of the above (.e.g "twit") and that they are all quite different. It made her so mad she's now getting "A"s in linguistics in college and has apparently found a career.

    --
    ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
  126. Agree - Off topic rather than flame bait by j_w_d · · Score: 1

    Regardless of what the religious lot think, marriage is essentially an economic arrangement. It's achieved via different ceremonies but still does the same thing - establish potential social and economic alliances between families. There have been decades of anthropological work done all over the world and one of the social commonalities is the economic nature of marriage. There is rarely any "love" involved. The parents tell the child who they'll marry. Divorce is frowned upon because of the economic disarrangments it causes. Any valuta exchanged usually has to be returned and because the arrangement is generally between the parents, guess who is really put out? In this society the economic burden of failed marriages tends to be more spread out. And as far as gay marriages are concerned, failure in a gay marriage would actually be far less burdensome socially. So there aren't any real arguments against it. Religion is not an argument.

    What bugs me about the GP is is the "eugenics" view embedded in the idea as expressed. Evolution and "eugenics" antithetical concepts though most people would not know why.

    --
    ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
  127. See GP, genius by ChePibe · · Score: 1

    Also - should we not have invaded Afghanistan, then?

  128. What was really funny by OMNIpotusCOM · · Score: 1

    If you listened to that show he was discussing about how the media is making a big deal that he's not behind McCain and yadda yadda, well he said that the worst thing he could do was to support McCain because then all the liberals and independents would leave McCain because of their aversion to Rush. He said that the best thing he could do for McCain is to openly support Obama. Then this topic comes up and some caller or some tech guy he was talking to said that he should stop saying that he uses Apple and to openly support Microsoft to crush them. I thought that was funny.

  129. If that's what you see you are blind. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Left is about freedom?

    WTF are you talking about?

    What century did you grow up in?

    How many millions does the left have to kill before it's claim on being for the people is no longer credible? Wasn't the twentieth century enough? Even calling National Socialism a draw the left still indisputably owns Communism, Maoism, Stalinism...undoubtedly the highest mega-death total of any political philosophy.

    Face it leftest economics requires control (it's called a command economy for a reason). Control requires power. Power corrupts. There will never be a functional 'real' left wing government anywhere for long (e.g. Venezuela).

    Further you have an incorrect impression about religious political affiliations in the US. Christianity (self claimed) is about evenly split R vs. D. I believe in the last election they went about 60% R. It varies depending on how many polling stations the church busses can hit in on election day ('Vote Early and Often' as they say). Both sides cheat like dogs using churches as bases of operation.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  130. You've got plenty of data points. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Select a group of countries with 'similar enough' backgrounds (e.g. Western Europe, North America, Australia. Alt Asia.)

    Take % of GDP spent by the government, plot it on the X axis.

    Take whatever measure of economic health your want (try to be reasonable) plot it on the Y axis.

    There's your answer.

    If you don't see economic health peaking and dropping at some level of taxation you picked a butt headed economic metric. Try again with GDP growth/year. Try unemployment if you can find real numbers from ANYBODY. Try median wealth (gonna be hard to get good numbers on that). Attempt to find numbers that can't be fudged too much.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:You've got plenty of data points. by giminy · · Score: 1

      Select a group of countries with 'similar enough' backgrounds (e.g. Western Europe, North America, Australia. Alt Asia.)

      Show me two countries with 'similar enough' backgrounds. I dare ya ;-). I would argue that economic prosperity is a bit like chaos theory -- it's not impossible to link taxes and spending with economic success, but it is extraordinarily difficult to decouple that 'success' (whatever metric we're going to use to define economic success) from external factors.

      What's the difference between the US and Canada? Climate is a big one (the climate in the US better supports agriculture). Population is another. So is land area. The US has 300M people roughly, and has 100k fewer square kilometers than Canada with its 30M people. Measuring Canada's overall 'success' has to take into consideration that Canada's infrastructure is way more spread out while their tax base is quite lower.

      What's the difference between Western Europe and North America? Western Europe has had two major (major being kind of an understatement) land wars fought on its soil in the last hundred year for one. A lot of its time lately has been restoring itself to normalcy. It has also been populated for over 1,700 years longer, which gives is a slight infrastructure benefit but a rather sizable natural resource deficiency.

      What's the difference between one Western European nation and another? One was half-communist until 18 years ago. One gave up early on in WW2 and had its infrastructure mostly unharmed. Italy fought a lot, and was invaded by the Allies, and then re-invaded by the Axis. Others have had civil wars in the last 30 years (Italy included, more or less).

      What's the difference between Australia and New Zealand? You mean aside from huge land-mass, climate, and population differences?

      How about Asian or even African nations? Meddling by different European nations, civil wars, climate difficulties, tsunamis, monsoons.

      Well, I think we see where this is going...

      I argue that defining economic health is also nigh on impossible. We could use number of homeless as one metric, I suppose. Another might be some measure of national 'inventiveness' like number of patents, research papers published. Another metric might be life expectancy. Yet another could be a survey asking citizens how happy they are.

      If you'd like, I'll go dig up statistics. Here are some:
      - By most studies (though arguably not all studies), there is a higher percentage of homeless in the United States (3.49 million out of 300 million means > 1%) than in Germany (820,000 out of 83 million, which is 1%). Germany's tax base is quite a bit higher than that in the US. Perhaps the legend of the cowboys are to blame in driving people to the streets?
      - The patent thing I simply can't answer, though I would be interested to see some kind of 'inventiveness versus GDP versus tax base' three-dimensional graph.
      - The average life expectancy in Japan is 17 years longer than in the US, and their tax base is quite a bit higher. Perhaps southern cooking is to blame for our early deaths?
      - More people report being happy in Sweden than in the US. Sweden's tax base is much higher. Perhaps copyright makes us sad?

      --
      The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
    2. Re:You've got plenty of data points. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I'd say the EU voted themselves 'similar enough' to unite monetary policy.

      Further I'd say that for reasonably defined time periods there are many nation groups that are 'similar enough' to be worth looking at. Just because Canada has a different economic makeup from the USA doesn't make them not similar enough. Granted you might want to compare the Canadians to states like the Dakotas, Michigan and Maine (Winter wheat, hunting, fishing, logging and rusting as primary economic activities).

      Suggestions:

      Western Europe sense about 1955. (Post war recovery was still an issue but not primary. Defense cost largely picked up by the USA. Pick a later date if you like.)

      Sub Saharan Africa in the twentieth century (It was all a huge mess).

      South America in the twentieth century.

      North and South Korea after the war.

      Metrics are tough. I'd suggest looking at many and focusing on median numbers, not statistical tails (bums or billionaires).

      I bet the Swedish happyness poll was done in July. Repeat in February and you'll get a different result.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  131. Pro-Socialism is not Pro-Empathy by KKlaus · · Score: 1

    Socialism, I'd like to point out, leads to something called a "deadweight loss." Value isn't transfered from one party to another, it's destroyed.

    Beyond a discussion of "empathy" and how fair it is for me to have more or less money than someone else needs to exist the point that socialism (beyond a certain mild point) makes everyone poorer. That is because taxes - the only pragmatic way of enforcing greater standard of living and wealth equality - lead to underproduction. That statement is a fact. As work becomes more costly and less rewarding, people do less of it (no ideology required).

    So not supporting tax-funded social programs need not in any way imply ambivalence towards your fellow man. At some point, a larger piece of a smaller pie is still a smaller piece. It's hard to argue that promoting policy that recognizes that fact is somehow black-hearted or selfish. And it's also irritating to those of us who do advocate low taxes and domestic spending for reasons other than our own selfishness.

    --
    Relax I just want some peanuts.
    1. Re:Pro-Socialism is not Pro-Empathy by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      At some point, lowering taxes to the point where hospitals, roads and schools are no longer supported also makes everyone poorer.

      In the US you are well aware that median life expectancy is lower than in many other Western countries, and that standards of primary and secondary education are also lower than they should be. Perhaps this is a consequence that the US have such a high proportion of crime and people in prison, also compared to other Western countries. These are all facts as well.

      So I'm not talking about extremes of socialism or free market. Somewhere in the middle there must be a better optimum than either, perhaps in nothern Europe or Australia, or even, God forbid, in Canada.

  132. Piffle by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    *Pfft* I remember all that. You've got to come up with something a little more impressive than all of that for a 3-digit ID.
    I mean, you're like someone in their 60s talking about how they remember when Duran Duran was at the top of the charts and denim jackets were in.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  133. Yes, but USA taxes are -higher-. by tjstork · · Score: 1

    At some point, lowering taxes to the point where hospitals, roads and schools are no longer supported also makes everyone poorer.

    Taxes in the United States are now higher than in the rest of the western world. Per capita, the USA spends more in taxpayer money on hospitals, roads, and schools than any western nation. The problem is that health care is not rationed, we have a huge continent to build roads for, and schools are consistently getting milked by powerful local political groups as a source of patronage jobs.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Yes, but USA taxes are -higher-. by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Are you sure ?

      According to this link, personal taxes are very low in the US. Corporate taxes are somewhat high though.

  134. You also proved his point. by siesindallerscheisse · · Score: 1

    "All he did is prove that Open Debate is not a license to waste time"

    This is why you fail. YOU don't get to decide what is a waste of time at an open debate.

    As I said, you fail totally.