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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Actually I find a mix of liberals and libertarians, few conservatives in the mix.
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.
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.
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.
.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.
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
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,