I didn't say they would stop driving altogether. I did infer that they would stop driving stupidly large trucks and SUVs, because they can't afford to. If they would all trade in their big trucks for small trucks, I'd be happy. If every giant SUV would trade in for a small SUV, I'd be happy. So yes, traffic volume WOULD decrease, if people started driving SMALLER vehicles.
Evidently I'm not the only one with the same world view, so please don't credit me for it. Trying to get everyone to conform to the US-way is no less short-sighted.
Own a home and loading garden supplies into your civic isn't going to cut it. Want to pull a boat or trailer (we are allowed to go on vacations aren't we???) and your little car won't cut it.
It works for the rest of the world. I used to pull a 16-foot ski-boat with a 1986 Volkswagen GTI. I'm not convinced Americans (I being an American too) really need half of the vehicle they think they need. "Bigger-is-better" is truly an American phenomena (because we have the space, doesn't mean we have to use it all).
The main problem with SUVs is they don't live up to their promises of more internal space. Consider that a Scion Xb has more internal capacity than a Chevy Suburban, even though the Suburban is irresponsibly large and the Xb is about the size of most sub-compact vehicles. Trucks aren't used as trucks which is fine I suppose, to each his own, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't love to see less of them on the road.
Well, I drive a sports car that gets 18 miles to the gallon, so you have obviously mislabeled me. Perhaps you missed my entire point: quit griping about high gas prices if you drive an irresponsible vehicle, like stupid oversized trucks that serve no purpose. I drive an irresponsible sports car, but at the same time, I don't bitch about prices. Mabye I'm insensitive to the plight of the poor, but if higher toilet prices would cause just 1000 rancher-wives in Texas to stop driving full sized pickups to the grocery store, then I'm all for higher prices on everything. I'd give tax subsidies to poor people who drive sensible cars, and tax the living sh$t out of cars like my own. You see, I'm anti big-truck-for-no-reason, and other than taxing the sh$t out of big trucks, what else can I do?
Although I understand your sentiment, you are in a very small percentage of knowledgeable users. Most people have no idea what DRM is, what its purpose is, or what lossless formats are. They jump on iTunes, see a song they like, and buy it. Beats going out to Walmart to pick up a $20 CD to just listen to one song over and over, doesn't it?
I love how this is listed under "Your Rights Online", as If I have the right to shop with an illegal download company, because it is online? How is shopping with a company who has been shut down so many times for illegal business practices suddenly my "right"?
I'm I the only American on the planet rooting for higher gas prices in the US? Higher gas equals less SUVs and trucks which equals less congestion. I live in England now, and $7.50 gallon gas is the norm. Get over yourselves already America.
I disagree about "burns fast" and "resilient" medium. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised it took as long as it did to come up with new media to replace crappy disks that scratch and break and lose data far too easily. I can't wait for the day where digital storage is cheap and ubiquitous, and all my disk data can be stored on flash memory (or something similar).
And I will argue people on here are confusing legality and morals. Everyone is screaming about how corrupt and illegal this is, when it is neither. My morality is different than your morality, and as long as our morality isn't illegal, well then, it isn't illegal. Who's morality is to say something is wrong or not? I happen to think Bush is very wrong, but I'm not going out of my way to say so, because my moral opinion matters not. If something is illegal, then yes, by the rules of society, it is wrong, and that I have to support (or change it, or leave that society). In otherwords, illegal is the agreed-upon morality of any society. If you don't like that, you either have to change to rules, or move to a new society, or live like an anarchist, ignoring the rules of your society. Or you can just come on slashdot and bitch about it:-)
If this were abuse and conflict of interest, it wouldn't be allowed by law. But it is allowed, so it isn't illegal. Well, let's hope that it doesn't go to the Supreme Court, because we know they'd back Busch too;-)
It took Little Billy Carter 25+ years to figure out how lucky he is that his brother was President? Anyone remember Billygate and the Carter ties to Libya? Kind of ironic, if you ask me. It pays to have powerful friends, I suppose.
Hey, I'm a rich white guy, and I've never been to jail. Thanks to the system, because, yeah, I enver EARNED anything and only got it because I'm white...or not. And good thing I've never been caught doing all those illegal things I've never done in my life, because the system would let me go, and I could continue being rich and white....whatever. Power and corruption are to blame, not being white.
This is a right afforded to EVERY president, not just president Bush. All presidents do it (show me one who hasn't). I don't like it any more than you do, but I also don't go around calling people stupid fucks because they acknowledge the current laws of this country. Maybe I failed Civics, but you obviously have failed History.
Why is this tagged with "corruption" when the President has exercized the legal powers afforded him? If you don't like the system, change it. It is not like he's the first President ever to pardon a scum bag. For recent history, just look at Clinton's presidential pardon. Hell, his own FAMILY is on there, and a good-ol'-boy NASCAR buddy (with fake cancer). Let's not foget the best worst all-time pardon ever of Nixon. Come on people, this is nothing new. Let's get back to griping about all the iPhone stories already.
Its the sarcasm, stupid! Or maybe you are new here and don't see all the insulting, insecure anti-mac comments after insulting insecure anti-mac comment: drinking the kool-aid being one of their fave (and most lame, one step above fabnoi).
Arrogant is a stupid adjective to put on an entire organization, especially when it is unfounded in your post. Examples, please? Just because Apple has the corporate identity of demanding really good products, and not selling out with cheapie crap, doesn't make them arrogant. It isn't that Apple (or Apple customers) think they are better than anbody else, they are just comfortable in knowing they have a good product, REGARDLESS of everyone else's beliefs about technology. See, we Apple fanbois really don't care what you think, but it is kind of fun seeing the masses of people "see the light" and start drinking the kool-aid with us. The more the merrier, and more demand means more product, which only makes life as a Mac-using, iPod toting nerd that much better. Maybe I'll get more good games other than World of Warcraft now.
Have you not noticed the entire industry of third party iPod accessories? What makes you think the iPhone will be any different? Also, where are you going to be that you won't be charging an iPhone after 8 hours of use? I know my car and nearly every room in my house has some sort of iPod charging device. Planes have them now too. I just don't understand why I'd need more than 8 hours at a stint.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. I bet you think iPods suck to, eh? Millions of us iPod and Mac users have grown accustom to products that are generally far better than, let's say Microsoft, since you brought it up. So what if the iPhone has a few shortcomings? Those who will be saying, "see, Apple is a great company", will be saying so out of years of experience with Apple. Why should I expect Apple NOT to refine the iPhone as it goes along, given my 20+ year history of using their (generally) great products? If the iPhone is a rare stinker, then oh well, on to the next product. But I'm pretty sure anyone who thinks the iPhone is going to be a failure will be eating their hat.
I'm one of those people who won't point out something wasn't there in the first place, ESPECIALLY when it is something that is insignificant to me (MMS, for example). If Apple lacked the major features I needed...and this is a big surprise...I WOULDN'T BUY IT!!! I think your contention that Apple users will just buy it (i.e. drink the kool-aid) regardless of how well it works, is both insulting and disengenious.
Why do Apple programs "break" the usual look and feel of Windows programs?
Because there IS no general look and feel of Windows programs.
I've often wondered why iTunes is such crap on my PCs but great on my Macs as well. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Apple is a small hardware company with not a lot of Windows programmers? Also, I believe the stoutness of OS X allows it to do things with iTunes (and the tight integration of all the bits) that WinXP chokes on. For example, if my wife runs iTunes on her account in XP, and I switch over to my account and try to open iTunes, I get the error that iTunes is already in use by another user. On our Macs, not only can we have iTunes open simultaneously on both logins, we can do it on both computers, share the libraries and access both of our own or shared libraries from any of the four running instances of iTunes, regardless of who is logged in where. I don't blame Windows, because I'm not a programmer and don't know any better, but you can't blame Apple programmers on the Apple side, because it is a sweet app. It irks me that iTunes, and Safari blow so badly on the PC, because PC people will just think Apple stuff sucks. Not until you show somebody Windows on an Intel Mac, do they start to feign general interest. The stark contrast between beautiful (OS X) and hideous (XP) is never so apparent as running Parallels in convergence mode.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say they would stop driving altogether. I did infer that they would stop driving stupidly large trucks and SUVs, because they can't afford to. If they would all trade in their big trucks for small trucks, I'd be happy. If every giant SUV would trade in for a small SUV, I'd be happy. So yes, traffic volume WOULD decrease, if people started driving SMALLER vehicles.
Evidently I'm not the only one with the same world view, so please don't credit me for it. Trying to get everyone to conform to the US-way is no less short-sighted.
The main problem with SUVs is they don't live up to their promises of more internal space. Consider that a Scion Xb has more internal capacity than a Chevy Suburban, even though the Suburban is irresponsibly large and the Xb is about the size of most sub-compact vehicles. Trucks aren't used as trucks which is fine I suppose, to each his own, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't love to see less of them on the road.
I got over myself years ago, but nice try anyway.
Although I understand your sentiment, you are in a very small percentage of knowledgeable users. Most people have no idea what DRM is, what its purpose is, or what lossless formats are. They jump on iTunes, see a song they like, and buy it. Beats going out to Walmart to pick up a $20 CD to just listen to one song over and over, doesn't it?
I love how this is listed under "Your Rights Online", as If I have the right to shop with an illegal download company, because it is online? How is shopping with a company who has been shut down so many times for illegal business practices suddenly my "right"?
I'm I the only American on the planet rooting for higher gas prices in the US? Higher gas equals less SUVs and trucks which equals less congestion. I live in England now, and $7.50 gallon gas is the norm. Get over yourselves already America.
I disagree about "burns fast" and "resilient" medium. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised it took as long as it did to come up with new media to replace crappy disks that scratch and break and lose data far too easily. I can't wait for the day where digital storage is cheap and ubiquitous, and all my disk data can be stored on flash memory (or something similar).
And I will argue people on here are confusing legality and morals. Everyone is screaming about how corrupt and illegal this is, when it is neither. My morality is different than your morality, and as long as our morality isn't illegal, well then, it isn't illegal. Who's morality is to say something is wrong or not? I happen to think Bush is very wrong, but I'm not going out of my way to say so, because my moral opinion matters not. If something is illegal, then yes, by the rules of society, it is wrong, and that I have to support (or change it, or leave that society). In otherwords, illegal is the agreed-upon morality of any society. If you don't like that, you either have to change to rules, or move to a new society, or live like an anarchist, ignoring the rules of your society. Or you can just come on slashdot and bitch about it :-)
Mother-fucking snakes on the mother-fucking plane treason!
Except for the fact that he demonstrated equally bad judgement in all things Presidential Pardoning. Why stop at Clinton though?
damn...nice list. Too bad we don't actually put to death anyone who trafficks large quantities of drugs (18USC3591b). Vote for me, and it will happen!
If this were abuse and conflict of interest, it wouldn't be allowed by law. But it is allowed, so it isn't illegal. Well, let's hope that it doesn't go to the Supreme Court, because we know they'd back Busch too ;-)
It took Little Billy Carter 25+ years to figure out how lucky he is that his brother was President? Anyone remember Billygate and the Carter ties to Libya? Kind of ironic, if you ask me. It pays to have powerful friends, I suppose.
Hey, I'm a rich white guy, and I've never been to jail. Thanks to the system, because, yeah, I enver EARNED anything and only got it because I'm white...or not. And good thing I've never been caught doing all those illegal things I've never done in my life, because the system would let me go, and I could continue being rich and white....whatever. Power and corruption are to blame, not being white.
I wish he'd flip-flop on his Iraq stance.
This is a right afforded to EVERY president, not just president Bush. All presidents do it (show me one who hasn't). I don't like it any more than you do, but I also don't go around calling people stupid fucks because they acknowledge the current laws of this country. Maybe I failed Civics, but you obviously have failed History.
The government doesn't endorse Intelligent Design, but a small, ignorant sub-set of society does. Hardly the fall of American Society.
Why is this tagged with "corruption" when the President has exercized the legal powers afforded him? If you don't like the system, change it. It is not like he's the first President ever to pardon a scum bag. For recent history, just look at Clinton's presidential pardon. Hell, his own FAMILY is on there, and a good-ol'-boy NASCAR buddy (with fake cancer). Let's not foget the best worst all-time pardon ever of Nixon. Come on people, this is nothing new. Let's get back to griping about all the iPhone stories already.
Its the sarcasm, stupid! Or maybe you are new here and don't see all the insulting, insecure anti-mac comments after insulting insecure anti-mac comment: drinking the kool-aid being one of their fave (and most lame, one step above fabnoi).
Arrogant is a stupid adjective to put on an entire organization, especially when it is unfounded in your post. Examples, please? Just because Apple has the corporate identity of demanding really good products, and not selling out with cheapie crap, doesn't make them arrogant. It isn't that Apple (or Apple customers) think they are better than anbody else, they are just comfortable in knowing they have a good product, REGARDLESS of everyone else's beliefs about technology. See, we Apple fanbois really don't care what you think, but it is kind of fun seeing the masses of people "see the light" and start drinking the kool-aid with us. The more the merrier, and more demand means more product, which only makes life as a Mac-using, iPod toting nerd that much better. Maybe I'll get more good games other than World of Warcraft now.
Have you not noticed the entire industry of third party iPod accessories? What makes you think the iPhone will be any different? Also, where are you going to be that you won't be charging an iPhone after 8 hours of use? I know my car and nearly every room in my house has some sort of iPod charging device. Planes have them now too. I just don't understand why I'd need more than 8 hours at a stint.
I'm one of those people who won't point out something wasn't there in the first place, ESPECIALLY when it is something that is insignificant to me (MMS, for example). If Apple lacked the major features I needed...and this is a big surprise...I WOULDN'T BUY IT!!! I think your contention that Apple users will just buy it (i.e. drink the kool-aid) regardless of how well it works, is both insulting and disengenious.
I've often wondered why iTunes is such crap on my PCs but great on my Macs as well. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Apple is a small hardware company with not a lot of Windows programmers? Also, I believe the stoutness of OS X allows it to do things with iTunes (and the tight integration of all the bits) that WinXP chokes on. For example, if my wife runs iTunes on her account in XP, and I switch over to my account and try to open iTunes, I get the error that iTunes is already in use by another user. On our Macs, not only can we have iTunes open simultaneously on both logins, we can do it on both computers, share the libraries and access both of our own or shared libraries from any of the four running instances of iTunes, regardless of who is logged in where. I don't blame Windows, because I'm not a programmer and don't know any better, but you can't blame Apple programmers on the Apple side, because it is a sweet app. It irks me that iTunes, and Safari blow so badly on the PC, because PC people will just think Apple stuff sucks. Not until you show somebody Windows on an Intel Mac, do they start to feign general interest. The stark contrast between beautiful (OS X) and hideous (XP) is never so apparent as running Parallels in convergence mode.