It is rare that I do not see Barney Frank screaming and yelling at the camera's about something.
Barney Frank doesn't work for a fucking news channel. He's a politician, he's expected to make an ass of himself.
I find it funny that people find Rush extreme but Carville not.
Forgive me for leaving the Gollum/Lizard Baby out of my list.
I believe you are mistaking "emotionally violent" with passion
No, passion is something grounded in reality, presented with concise and logical thinking...unlike political pundits, who throw tantrums and have knee-jerk reactions so bad they can barely walk.
and see "extreme" as something different than what you believe.
I define "extreme" as someone who uses fear to change people's opinion.
And I don't know anybody that finds Matthews conservative. He just had a show on the other night about how the republicans were being taken over by conservatives (gasp!) and went on about how terrible that was along with calling the black conservative repubican on the a sellout and a lapdog sucking up to his masters.
And where did I ever say Matthews was a conservative? I just lumped him in with the rest of the people paid to give us their opinion...they don't freakin' matter, and people shouldn't listen to them.
People need to learn how to form their OWN political opinion without listening to pundits from EITHER side. Period.
Actually I read an opinion piece just yesterday that said lobbyists have simply stopped registering as such. So 'worse' might also make an adequate description.
Don't confuse opinion with fact. That is an all-too-common mistake.
So with a super-majority and the most powerful office that his party can offer, he still failed to accomplish that goal. If not under these, then under what circumstances would it even be possible to accomplish what he promised? And that being said, if we're ruling this impossible, then isn't the most logical conclusion that he simply lied about it? Or was it just a logical failure on his part? What do you attribute it to? And again, how is it even possible to say those words honestly?
It wouldn't be, which goes back to a point I made earlier...he may have thought it possible (being president with a super-majority), but once he got in the White House and reality hit him he found out it wouldn't happen.
Again, I attribute it to ignorance and just not knowing what he was getting himself into. By definition, he lied, but I don't think he did so intentionally (at least not about this particular subject.)
I do disagree with him, and I also see how he failed to match what he promised there as well. We were supposed to stay below eight percent. When that didn't happen, Obama blamed Bush.
He SAID we would stay below eight percent. That doesn't mean that we WOULD. The American people are fickle...they don't want the truth, they want to hear what they want to hear. He was just telling people what they wanted to hear. I agree that it was a stupid thing to do, but I would blame the public on this one.
He never once implied that his plan may not have worked as well as he thought. Why is that?
Seriously? You really have to ask that?
This seems quite unfair to me. He won votes under "Hope" and "Change" and delivered neither. Supporters claim it was okay because it wasn't really possible anyway. You guys are moving the goal posts for him. You would never do that for anyone else.
I would appreciate you not lumping all voters under the same assumption. I voted for Obama, despite knowing that the chances of him accomplishing even a quarter of what he claimed was unlikely.
With all the underlying racial issues at play, I'm somewhat disgusted that he gets an easier time of it than a white male would.
They aren't underlying when you come right out and say them. Was that really necessary, considering the rest of your well-presented arguments?
That's not a fair comparison. Obama promised us something different. "Hope" and "Change". Few others do.
No offense, but if you really believe that, then you are just another fool that trusted everything a politican said. I voted for the guy, but that doesn't mean I believed everything he said.
So you're seeing the leadership failure as ignorance. Some attribute it to plain old fashioned Chicago politics. (i.e. he lied to get what he wanted.)
No, I'm saying he likely thought he really could do the things he said he wanted to. That's not a failure, that's ignorance.
Barring a smoking gun, it is all conjecture at this point.
As is usually the case with these things, unfortunately.
The key thing to focus on, however, is that we cannot support another term from this President. Whether ignorant, a liar, or whatever else, this was probably not the right choice for us to make. Not that McPalin was any better. But we do need to try to correct our mistake as soon as the system allows us to do so.
I put it to you, then...who WOULD be the right choice to make? It doesn't matter who is in the pilot's seat if the cockpit isn't functioning.
We stretched our empire too thin and got too soft. The only way that can be fixed is a complete collapse followed by rebuilding with a different purpose. No politician-made-president is going to help this country.
I just got the feeling that he responds politely while screaming at people in his head. Despite his calm exterior, I could easily see him going nuclear.::shrug:: I could be (and likely am) completely off, but that was the vibe I got from him during election season.
I really wanted to go third party, but I just couldn't. All the third party candidates (ESPECIALLY Ron Paul) were hell-bent on their own agenda and refused outside opinion. I don't care how much I agree with a person, if they aren't open to what others think, then I don't support them.
I considered not voting at all, but at the last minute I decided to give Obama a chance. He seemed like he would, at the very least, listen to what other people have to say. Whether he took their advice is another matter entirely, but just having the open ear accounts for a lot in my book.
Simply counting the number of features on a list isn't an effective way of comparing value. It doesn't matter how many more features something has if it doesn't do the important ones well.
I'm sorry, but spending $500+ on a device that you only have a marginal amount of control over is foolhardy. Again, people can spend their money however they want, but they are getting ripped off. Whether it's because they are Apple loyalists or because they just don't know any better, I don't care. All I know is that a bunch of people are trying to convince me to pay more for less. Geek and tech opinions and experience aside, I don't pay more for less.
I'm surprised so many others are willing to do so.
That's relative. If you value usability and quality components then you're actually getting quite a lot more than most netbooks or laptops (OS tailored to the device, IPS display).
I get what you are saying, but the same people the iPad is designed for (wanting simple, no frills computing) likely don't even know what they are buying. Just like iPods (we all know at least SOMEONE who has had their player wiped because they synched to a different computer without knowing it would happen), I wonder how many people know how locked down this device is.
You're also paying to get all that technology in a small package, which can also count as a feature.
That is very true.
Maybe they will at a later stage, but it's not Apple's style to do everything at once. There are many little niches that they could have developed the iPad more towards, but by only focusing on core functionality to begin with, they build a stronger product to expand upon.
That's what I'm hoping. If this is something of a litmus test for greater things down the road, then fine. Products have to start somewhere.
Directed at Apple: just don't go hailing the device as "magical" and "game changing" if it is essentially a polished prototype, ok?
As you have labeled yourself a Republican, I have a better question:
If your party thinks privatizing social security would work, or private contracters in Iraq would work, etc...why wouldn't your party think privatizing NASA would work? Oh, right...because a Democrat would be gaining rewards due to their corruption. I forgot, it's only ok when the right wingers do it.
See, this is why party loyalty is stupid. When you are loyal to your ideals and not groupthink, you no longer have to point fingers...you finally realize that EVERYONE is at fault.
Taking money from hardworking people and giving it to non-hardworking people is NOT a noble intention.
For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to leave my own opinion out for now.
Hypothetical question: Say spending cuts were made to bloated and/or unecessary programs, allowing social security benefits to rise and allow more families food stamps, but no new taxes were implemented (so long as the cuts equal the spending increase). The amount of money taken from you in taxes would be exactly the same...except instead of the government getting it, other citizens would get it. Would you consider that to be a noble intention? Why or why not?
Many of his claims (such as transparency, fiscal responsibility, no lobbyists) were made to get those who wouldn't vote for him to support him during the election
Well, of course...name one politician that has actually accomplished more than half of what they claim they will?
then he showed that he never cared about any of that and it was just words to get elected.
This is where my opinion kicks in. While, yes, a lot of what he said was just malarky thrown out there to get him elected, I think at one point he really did want to accomplish a lot of what he talked about. He either chose to ignore the fact that this would likely be impossible or truly believed he could do it.
Either way, I don't really see Obama as being a devious, power-hungry individual. In my opinion he really wanted to try to do these things, but was just too ignorant to realize he couldn't.
Whether he became power hungry now that he has a taste is a different discussion entirely. Prior to being elected, however, I think he meant what he said...mostly.
I got the same thing with regards to the iPad because I noted that paying full price for half a device worth of features didn't make sense. Replace "racist" with "anti-apple fanboy", of course.
People seem to shout "fanboy" or "racist" or something similar when they can no longer defend their opinion. It's a very strange attribute shared amongst most people.
But back on topic. Despite his lack of experience and pie-in-the-sky dreams, I still voted for Obama. I would much rather have someone with high aspirations but no knowledge of how to do them than someone who didn't want the job (McCain) wouldn't listen to outside opinion (Paul) or towed the party line too much (everyone else).
Has he been any worse than any of the other choices? Likely not. I think regardless of who won that election, we would still be fucked as a country. Sure, having a great pilot in the seat matters a lot when the plane is going down...but does it matter if the controls are busted?
Ah, my mistake...I thought you meant the space program as a whole. Looking back, you did specify manned space exploration.
I agree with many others on this thread. Aside from actual repair missions (ISS, Hubble, etc.) sending people into space is purely political. For now, things would be much easier (scientifically and fiscally) if we focused on unmanned missions. The main issue holding back manned exploration is propulsion technology...until some major breakthrough is made, it just simply takes too long to get anywhere.
Unless the goal is maintaining what we already have out there or constructing a base on the moon from which we launch things like a manned mission to Mars or beyond, we should stick to unmanned exploration for now.
A gaming computer? How is that useful for someone who wants a small device to comfortably browse the web with? Talk about comparing Apples to oranges. As for laptops and those other tablets, they're big, heavy, and clunky compared to the iPad. Not to mention anything the size of the iPad not running a custom OS isn't going to be very nice to use.
I was merely commenting on price. They are selling something priced as much as a decked out laptop, yet has only 1/3 of the features of one.
People can spend their money however they want, obviously...I'm just suprised that so many people are convincing themselves to spend more money for less product.
You can already buy styluses that work on capacitive touchscreens. Of course, they won't replace a Wacom tablet, as Wacom tablets can have very high resolution (5080 lpi), pressure sensitivity, and tilt sensitivity. That's a lot of technology to build into a product that isn't going to be used by most people. Including such functionality out of the box would be a silly move. It would bump the price up in hope of appealing to a very small market. Of course, I don't see what's stopping someone from adding pressure sensitivity to a Bluetooth stylus and then developing a drawing app, even if it won't be quite the same as a high-end Wacom tablet.
Agreed, doing it out of the box would have been a bit silly given the size of the market...but it is a market willing to spend. Apple should at least offer this as an accessory package. As you said, there will likely be others that will do it anyways.
You're only looking at what it can't do. Most people who buy it will be looking at what it can do. Without needing advanced computer knowledge, without needing constant reboots or reinstalls, without needing regular trips to a computer repair shop, and without needing constant upgrades.
You are not the target audience. Stop assuming everyone else is the same as you.
If by not the target audience you mean I'm not someone who buys a device priced like full-blown computer but only has half the features or functions...then yeah, I guess I'm not the target audience.
I find it funny that so many people are trying to convince me that paying more for less is somehow a good thing...
I honestly believe that Obama intended to do exactly what he said he would...until he actually got elected and realized that he couldn't.
I'll tell you the same thing I told my hyper-liberal sister: the guy's intentions are noble, but he has no idea what he is getting himself into. I see it as a salesman promising to deliver a solution to a client without having ANY idea about the technology or time required to do so.
Who knows, I could be wrong...but I didn't see malice in Obama, just ignorance.
What's funny about it though is I'm convinced that they don't really believe or agree with what they say.
Think about. You can accuse O'Reilly, Hannity, Matthews, etc of many things, but you can't accuse them of being idiots. They know EXACTLY what they are saying. I'm still convinced that they don't believe all of it, they just say what they are told. There is no possible way someone could be that extreme, that emotionally violent, and still be put together well enough to go on TV/Radio every weekday. But with a multi-million dollar contract...
Taking ANY of them seriously is dangerous for a thinking mind... that much I know is true.
While I think the future of space travel will be in the hands of the private sector, NASA are currently the only ones really equipped to do this stuff.
fair warning: this may get a little "everybody just get along"-like, so I apologize in advance for any hippy attitude you take from this
It's hard nowadays to sell a space program to the public, but it can be a unifying thing. Countries are still working seperately (except for the ISS, which is quite an achievement). What really needs to happen is the space programs of the world need to come together and work together. If all the nations with major or developing space programs pooled their knowledge and resources, we could have a moonbase going in the next 10 years and be on Mars shortly thereafter. The problem is that each country has a few super brilliant people. Space travel requires a LOT of brilliant people.
Actually, it's not worth mentioning. You seem to suffer from a common disease here on/. , inverse-fanboyism. Notable features include: insistence that Apple products succeed only due to a logo/marketing/RDF
For this particular product, absolutely.
a lack of awareness that the general public not only doesn't need the latest, greatest technical features, but frequently prefers simple usability
They also don't like being taken advantage of. A device that costs as much as a full computer but only has half the functions or features sounds like a bad deal, geek and tech opinions aside. Sorry.
a nearly solipsistic need to believe that your particular list of desires is the only one that matters
Is Slashdot (or any forum for that matter) not a valid place to voice my opinion? You are entitled to disagree with me, just as I am entitled to present what I think. In your defense, I was out there and flamebait-ish...however you chose to criticize my opinion, not the other way around. Don't forget that.
and an amazing ability to define a fanboy as "someone likes something you don't."
No, my definition of a fanboy is someone who buys a product that obviously takes advantage of their wallet but ignores that because they like the company. I urged people to not buy a 360 when they were crapping out just from being turned on, and I urged people not to buy Firestone tires for their Ford Explorer when the tread was separating.
In this case, I'm telling people not to buy a product that costs as much as a computer but offers half the functionality. If they say "I don't care, this is what I want", then that's fine.
If they accuse me of hating Apple based off a single discussion around a single product, they're a fanboy.
Slashdot Mirror
It is rare that I do not see Barney Frank screaming and yelling at the camera's about something.
Barney Frank doesn't work for a fucking news channel. He's a politician, he's expected to make an ass of himself.
I find it funny that people find Rush extreme but Carville not.
Forgive me for leaving the Gollum/Lizard Baby out of my list.
I believe you are mistaking "emotionally violent" with passion
No, passion is something grounded in reality, presented with concise and logical thinking...unlike political pundits, who throw tantrums and have knee-jerk reactions so bad they can barely walk.
and see "extreme" as something different than what you believe.
I define "extreme" as someone who uses fear to change people's opinion.
This is extreme.
And I don't know anybody that finds Matthews conservative. He just had a show on the other night about how the republicans were being taken over by conservatives (gasp!) and went on about how terrible that was along with calling the black conservative repubican on the a sellout and a lapdog sucking up to his masters.
And where did I ever say Matthews was a conservative? I just lumped him in with the rest of the people paid to give us their opinion...they don't freakin' matter, and people shouldn't listen to them.
People need to learn how to form their OWN political opinion without listening to pundits from EITHER side. Period.
Actually I read an opinion piece just yesterday that said lobbyists have simply stopped registering as such. So 'worse' might also make an adequate description.
Don't confuse opinion with fact. That is an all-too-common mistake.
So with a super-majority and the most powerful office that his party can offer, he still failed to accomplish that goal. If not under these, then under what circumstances would it even be possible to accomplish what he promised? And that being said, if we're ruling this impossible, then isn't the most logical conclusion that he simply lied about it? Or was it just a logical failure on his part? What do you attribute it to? And again, how is it even possible to say those words honestly?
It wouldn't be, which goes back to a point I made earlier...he may have thought it possible (being president with a super-majority), but once he got in the White House and reality hit him he found out it wouldn't happen.
Again, I attribute it to ignorance and just not knowing what he was getting himself into. By definition, he lied, but I don't think he did so intentionally (at least not about this particular subject.)
I do disagree with him, and I also see how he failed to match what he promised there as well. We were supposed to stay below eight percent. When that didn't happen, Obama blamed Bush.
He SAID we would stay below eight percent. That doesn't mean that we WOULD. The American people are fickle...they don't want the truth, they want to hear what they want to hear. He was just telling people what they wanted to hear. I agree that it was a stupid thing to do, but I would blame the public on this one.
He never once implied that his plan may not have worked as well as he thought. Why is that?
Seriously? You really have to ask that?
This seems quite unfair to me. He won votes under "Hope" and "Change" and delivered neither. Supporters claim it was okay because it wasn't really possible anyway. You guys are moving the goal posts for him. You would never do that for anyone else.
I would appreciate you not lumping all voters under the same assumption. I voted for Obama, despite knowing that the chances of him accomplishing even a quarter of what he claimed was unlikely.
With all the underlying racial issues at play, I'm somewhat disgusted that he gets an easier time of it than a white male would.
They aren't underlying when you come right out and say them. Was that really necessary, considering the rest of your well-presented arguments?
That's not a fair comparison. Obama promised us something different. "Hope" and "Change". Few others do.
No offense, but if you really believe that, then you are just another fool that trusted everything a politican said. I voted for the guy, but that doesn't mean I believed everything he said.
So you're seeing the leadership failure as ignorance. Some attribute it to plain old fashioned Chicago politics. (i.e. he lied to get what he wanted.)
No, I'm saying he likely thought he really could do the things he said he wanted to. That's not a failure, that's ignorance.
Barring a smoking gun, it is all conjecture at this point.
As is usually the case with these things, unfortunately.
The key thing to focus on, however, is that we cannot support another term from this President. Whether ignorant, a liar, or whatever else, this was probably not the right choice for us to make. Not that McPalin was any better. But we do need to try to correct our mistake as soon as the system allows us to do so.
I put it to you, then...who WOULD be the right choice to make? It doesn't matter who is in the pilot's seat if the cockpit isn't functioning.
We stretched our empire too thin and got too soft. The only way that can be fixed is a complete collapse followed by rebuilding with a different purpose. No politician-made-president is going to help this country.
I just got the feeling that he responds politely while screaming at people in his head. Despite his calm exterior, I could easily see him going nuclear. ::shrug:: I could be (and likely am) completely off, but that was the vibe I got from him during election season.
I really wanted to go third party, but I just couldn't. All the third party candidates (ESPECIALLY Ron Paul) were hell-bent on their own agenda and refused outside opinion. I don't care how much I agree with a person, if they aren't open to what others think, then I don't support them.
I considered not voting at all, but at the last minute I decided to give Obama a chance. He seemed like he would, at the very least, listen to what other people have to say. Whether he took their advice is another matter entirely, but just having the open ear accounts for a lot in my book.
Now quit smokin' pot, pull up your pants and put a belt on and get back to class.
Right. 'Cause no one smokes pot in the south. ::eye roll::
Simply counting the number of features on a list isn't an effective way of comparing value. It doesn't matter how many more features something has if it doesn't do the important ones well.
I'm sorry, but spending $500+ on a device that you only have a marginal amount of control over is foolhardy. Again, people can spend their money however they want, but they are getting ripped off. Whether it's because they are Apple loyalists or because they just don't know any better, I don't care. All I know is that a bunch of people are trying to convince me to pay more for less. Geek and tech opinions and experience aside, I don't pay more for less.
I'm surprised so many others are willing to do so.
That's relative. If you value usability and quality components then you're actually getting quite a lot more than most netbooks or laptops (OS tailored to the device, IPS display).
I get what you are saying, but the same people the iPad is designed for (wanting simple, no frills computing) likely don't even know what they are buying. Just like iPods (we all know at least SOMEONE who has had their player wiped because they synched to a different computer without knowing it would happen), I wonder how many people know how locked down this device is.
You're also paying to get all that technology in a small package, which can also count as a feature.
That is very true.
Maybe they will at a later stage, but it's not Apple's style to do everything at once. There are many little niches that they could have developed the iPad more towards, but by only focusing on core functionality to begin with, they build a stronger product to expand upon.
That's what I'm hoping. If this is something of a litmus test for greater things down the road, then fine. Products have to start somewhere.
Directed at Apple: just don't go hailing the device as "magical" and "game changing" if it is essentially a polished prototype, ok?
People tend to apply labels based on appearance rather than reality. ::shrug::
As you have labeled yourself a Republican, I have a better question:
If your party thinks privatizing social security would work, or private contracters in Iraq would work, etc...why wouldn't your party think privatizing NASA would work? Oh, right...because a Democrat would be gaining rewards due to their corruption. I forgot, it's only ok when the right wingers do it.
See, this is why party loyalty is stupid. When you are loyal to your ideals and not groupthink, you no longer have to point fingers...you finally realize that EVERYONE is at fault.
Taking money from hardworking people and giving it to non-hardworking people is NOT a noble intention.
For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to leave my own opinion out for now.
Hypothetical question: Say spending cuts were made to bloated and/or unecessary programs, allowing social security benefits to rise and allow more families food stamps, but no new taxes were implemented (so long as the cuts equal the spending increase). The amount of money taken from you in taxes would be exactly the same...except instead of the government getting it, other citizens would get it. Would you consider that to be a noble intention? Why or why not?
Many of his claims (such as transparency, fiscal responsibility, no lobbyists) were made to get those who wouldn't vote for him to support him during the election
Well, of course...name one politician that has actually accomplished more than half of what they claim they will?
then he showed that he never cared about any of that and it was just words to get elected.
This is where my opinion kicks in. While, yes, a lot of what he said was just malarky thrown out there to get him elected, I think at one point he really did want to accomplish a lot of what he talked about. He either chose to ignore the fact that this would likely be impossible or truly believed he could do it.
Either way, I don't really see Obama as being a devious, power-hungry individual. In my opinion he really wanted to try to do these things, but was just too ignorant to realize he couldn't.
Whether he became power hungry now that he has a taste is a different discussion entirely. Prior to being elected, however, I think he meant what he said...mostly.
It wasn't intended to...I was just stating my opinion, not trying to persuade anyone.
I got the same thing with regards to the iPad because I noted that paying full price for half a device worth of features didn't make sense. Replace "racist" with "anti-apple fanboy", of course.
People seem to shout "fanboy" or "racist" or something similar when they can no longer defend their opinion. It's a very strange attribute shared amongst most people.
But back on topic. Despite his lack of experience and pie-in-the-sky dreams, I still voted for Obama. I would much rather have someone with high aspirations but no knowledge of how to do them than someone who didn't want the job (McCain) wouldn't listen to outside opinion (Paul) or towed the party line too much (everyone else).
Has he been any worse than any of the other choices? Likely not. I think regardless of who won that election, we would still be fucked as a country. Sure, having a great pilot in the seat matters a lot when the plane is going down...but does it matter if the controls are busted?
Ah, my mistake...I thought you meant the space program as a whole. Looking back, you did specify manned space exploration.
I agree with many others on this thread. Aside from actual repair missions (ISS, Hubble, etc.) sending people into space is purely political. For now, things would be much easier (scientifically and fiscally) if we focused on unmanned missions. The main issue holding back manned exploration is propulsion technology...until some major breakthrough is made, it just simply takes too long to get anywhere.
Unless the goal is maintaining what we already have out there or constructing a base on the moon from which we launch things like a manned mission to Mars or beyond, we should stick to unmanned exploration for now.
It isn't any different.
People, however, have mostly treated Obama one of two ways: the second coming of Christ or the harbinger of the Apocalypse.
He is neither; he's just a guy who had big ambitions with no realistic idea of how he would carry out those ambitions.
A gaming computer? How is that useful for someone who wants a small device to comfortably browse the web with? Talk about comparing Apples to oranges. As for laptops and those other tablets, they're big, heavy, and clunky compared to the iPad. Not to mention anything the size of the iPad not running a custom OS isn't going to be very nice to use.
I was merely commenting on price. They are selling something priced as much as a decked out laptop, yet has only 1/3 of the features of one.
People can spend their money however they want, obviously...I'm just suprised that so many people are convincing themselves to spend more money for less product.
You can already buy styluses that work on capacitive touchscreens. Of course, they won't replace a Wacom tablet, as Wacom tablets can have very high resolution (5080 lpi), pressure sensitivity, and tilt sensitivity. That's a lot of technology to build into a product that isn't going to be used by most people. Including such functionality out of the box would be a silly move. It would bump the price up in hope of appealing to a very small market. Of course, I don't see what's stopping someone from adding pressure sensitivity to a Bluetooth stylus and then developing a drawing app, even if it won't be quite the same as a high-end Wacom tablet.
Agreed, doing it out of the box would have been a bit silly given the size of the market...but it is a market willing to spend. Apple should at least offer this as an accessory package. As you said, there will likely be others that will do it anyways.
You're only looking at what it can't do. Most people who buy it will be looking at what it can do. Without needing advanced computer knowledge, without needing constant reboots or reinstalls, without needing regular trips to a computer repair shop, and without needing constant upgrades.
You are not the target audience. Stop assuming everyone else is the same as you.
If by not the target audience you mean I'm not someone who buys a device priced like full-blown computer but only has half the features or functions...then yeah, I guess I'm not the target audience.
I find it funny that so many people are trying to convince me that paying more for less is somehow a good thing...
Aside from repairing the Hubble, what has putting people in space ever accomplished other than stealing resources from legitimate science?
A hell of a lot, apparently.
Hide the women and children and the number 0, they're coming!
BURNANATED
I honestly believe that Obama intended to do exactly what he said he would...until he actually got elected and realized that he couldn't.
I'll tell you the same thing I told my hyper-liberal sister: the guy's intentions are noble, but he has no idea what he is getting himself into. I see it as a salesman promising to deliver a solution to a client without having ANY idea about the technology or time required to do so.
Who knows, I could be wrong...but I didn't see malice in Obama, just ignorance.
What's funny about it though is I'm convinced that they don't really believe or agree with what they say.
Think about. You can accuse O'Reilly, Hannity, Matthews, etc of many things, but you can't accuse them of being idiots. They know EXACTLY what they are saying. I'm still convinced that they don't believe all of it, they just say what they are told. There is no possible way someone could be that extreme, that emotionally violent, and still be put together well enough to go on TV/Radio every weekday. But with a multi-million dollar contract...
Taking ANY of them seriously is dangerous for a thinking mind... that much I know is true.
...reminded of the little box hidden in an answering machine in that movie Sneakers? lulz
While I think the future of space travel will be in the hands of the private sector, NASA are currently the only ones really equipped to do this stuff.
fair warning: this may get a little "everybody just get along"-like, so I apologize in advance for any hippy attitude you take from this
It's hard nowadays to sell a space program to the public, but it can be a unifying thing. Countries are still working seperately (except for the ISS, which is quite an achievement). What really needs to happen is the space programs of the world need to come together and work together. If all the nations with major or developing space programs pooled their knowledge and resources, we could have a moonbase going in the next 10 years and be on Mars shortly thereafter. The problem is that each country has a few super brilliant people. Space travel requires a LOT of brilliant people.
People that take paid political "opinion givers" seriously scare the hell out of me.
By the way, OP, you left out O'Reilly and Maddow :-) (is O'Reilly even relevant anymore? Or has Glenn Beck taken his place?)
Actually, it's not worth mentioning. You seem to suffer from a common disease here on /. , inverse-fanboyism. Notable features include: insistence that Apple products succeed only due to a logo/marketing/RDF
For this particular product, absolutely.
a lack of awareness that the general public not only doesn't need the latest, greatest technical features, but frequently prefers simple usability
They also don't like being taken advantage of. A device that costs as much as a full computer but only has half the functions or features sounds like a bad deal, geek and tech opinions aside. Sorry.
a nearly solipsistic need to believe that your particular list of desires is the only one that matters
Is Slashdot (or any forum for that matter) not a valid place to voice my opinion? You are entitled to disagree with me, just as I am entitled to present what I think. In your defense, I was out there and flamebait-ish...however you chose to criticize my opinion, not the other way around. Don't forget that.
and an amazing ability to define a fanboy as "someone likes something you don't."
No, my definition of a fanboy is someone who buys a product that obviously takes advantage of their wallet but ignores that because they like the company. I urged people to not buy a 360 when they were crapping out just from being turned on, and I urged people not to buy Firestone tires for their Ford Explorer when the tread was separating.
In this case, I'm telling people not to buy a product that costs as much as a computer but offers half the functionality. If they say "I don't care, this is what I want", then that's fine.
If they accuse me of hating Apple based off a single discussion around a single product, they're a fanboy.