Close your eyes and go back to me, if you will, to January, 2003. The talk then was that we need to muscle Saddam into letting us inspect his nuclear sites, etc. Bush and his talking heads went on all the Sunday shows and said over and over that they had no credibility. That unless Saddam knew that Bush could, at his will, make war with Iraq, he would never capitulate. We were told that we need to give the President the "big stick" he needed to conduct international diplomacy.
So the Democrats cooperated in giving him the big stick.
But when you give the Sheriff a gun, you're not giving him the authority to barge right into a crime scene and start shooting-up the place, guns blazing like the wild west. In fact, you expect the sheriff to treat his gun and the deadly force it represents with utmost respect. And if any Sheriff had taken as little care with his 'big stick' as Bush did, we'd have him indicted, arrested, and on trial in a federal court.
So please, lets stop with this revisionist history.
Once again, you show a complete lack of understanding about the way our Government works.
It's like your speaking about the US Government 2000 years in the future, having only read about it in history books. I've said this before, but it's remarkable to me that you actually believe the things you say.
Your problem is that you understand only GOVERNMENT and not POLITICS. If governing were separate from politics, then what you write would be mostly true. But it's not. Politics overlays government, it wraps it, it permeates it.
And there is no bigger political figure than the US President. Especially the modern US president.
And for this reason, the President has a lot more control over legislation than you'd like to believe. We have a government where Congressmen--US Congressmen, a VERY elite group of people--sit for TWELVE HOURS on the floor the House the day of the State of the Union Address. They sit for TWELVE HOURS just to get an aisle seat, so that they can be photographed and videotaped talking with and shaking the hand of the President. And this is when the President is at 35% in the approval polls!
This happens every single year, in case they didn't cover it in your history book. When the power of a single photo-op with the President is so high that a congressman would sit quietly in his chair for 12 hours, what else do you think they would do for one? How about for a one-on-one sit-down at the White House?
*THAT* is the power of the Presidency.
And if you really think that the Constitution "is" the US Government, well, you've got a lot to learn. Mountains.
It's as if you're talking about the US Government after reading the constitution in your History book. In truth, the Imperial President sets the Agenda in American politics. The power of a single congressmen varies from congressmen to congressmen because the power of a congressmen is not his vote. His power is his ability to persuade the votes of others. The president has this same ability, in both the house and the Senate. And he has the trump card of the American people.
In truth, the president of the United States is the single most powerful "legislator" in Washington, and the fact that he cannot introduce or vote on bills is entirely incidental.
I've always been surprised by how many people don't realize the iPod can play MP3s. It seems like a failure of marketing. I've had to share the good news with 3 or 4 people in the few months alone.
His point is "whhahahhahahahah how dare you criticize Apple!!!! Whaaaaa"
I've been on/. for many years but I still don't understand the love for Apple as a company.
I own an iPod. I own two, actually, because I recently bought a Nano for when I'm working out. I have an intense affection for my iPod. It's beautiful and usable and blah blah you've heard it before.
But my love does not extend to the billion dollar corporation that produced it. And it certainly doesn't make me think that the Corporation can do no wrong.
But around here, if you dare speak bad about the Cupertino kids you get seriously chastised by both being flamed and modded down.
Let's talk honestly: Apple dropped the ball with Vista. Maybe, just maybe, this is done on purpose. In fact, I don't see how it _WASN'T_ done on purpose. As others have said, they had ample time to make sure that their killer-device worked on what will be the worlds most widely installed OS. I'm left thinking that someone there thought that a user thinking 'vista broke my iPod' isn't a bad thing.
As a software developer, I (and others), realize that in this case, the blame falls on Apple, not Microsoft.
I butter my bread writing Windows software but I'm also sure that in many ways Apple beats Windows. Not in every way, not even close. In some way Microsoft beats apple, in most things, they're about the same. Accepting this is like accepting that in most ways, a Honda is the same as a Toyota. Each has certain areas of excellence, but neither is glaringly deficient.
I'm probably singing karma just saying these things outloud, but I believe that we should talk about things on the merits. Instead of an unorganized censorship system, which is what happens here when people speak good of Microsoft or ill of Apple/Linux, why not welcome the debate as a chance to match wits and prove that your chosen platform is actually superior.
The kind of censorship that's done using the Moderation system here just smacks of type of thing that some people hate Microsoft for.
His point is "whhahahhahahahah how dare you criticize Apple!!!! Whaaaaa"
I've been on/. for many years but I still don't understand the love for Apple as a company.
I own an iPod. I own two, actually, because I recently bought a Nano for when I'm working out. I have an intense affection for my iPod. It's beautiful and usable and blah blah you've heard it before.
But my love does not extend to the billion dollar corporation that produced it. And it certainly doesn't make me think that the Corporation can do no wrong.
But around here, if you dare speak bad about the Cupertino kids you get seriously chastised by both being flamed and modded down.
Let's talk honestly: Apple dropped the ball with Vista. Maybe, just maybe, this is done on purpose. In fact, I don't see how it _WASN'T_ done on purpose. As others have said, they had ample time to make sure that their killer-device worked on what will be the worlds most widely installed OS. I'm left thinking that someone there thought that a user thinking 'vista broke my iPod' isn't a bad thing.
As a software developer, I (and others), realize that in this case, the blame falls on Apple, not Microsoft.
I butter my bread writing Windows software but I'm also sure that in many ways Apple beats Windows. Not in every way, not even close. In some way Microsoft beats apple, in most things, they're about the same. Accepting this is like accepting that in most ways, a Honda is the same as a Toyota. Each has certain areas of excellence, but neither is glaringly deficient.
I'm probably singing karma just saying these things outloud, but I believe that we should talk about things on the merits. Instead of an unorganized censorship system, which is what happens here when people speak good of Microsoft or ill of Apple/Linux, why not welcome the debate as a chance to match wits and prove that your chosen platform is actually superior.
The kind of censorship that's done using the Moderation system here just smacks of type of thing that some people hate Microsoft for.
No, they purchased Google Earth from Keyhole.
And you may be right that Google "could" take share from Redmond, but my point is that, just like Apple, (and to borrow some famous words), the reports of Microsoft's death have been greatly exaggerated.
"If anyone's going to topple Microsoft's power base -- whose applications really aren't that great in many cases, remember -- it's going to be a heavy-hitter like Google"
I personally guarantee that you can find--ironically with Google itself--at least 20 different respected people saying the exact same thing.
Except it wasn't 2007, it was 1997, and it wasn't Google. It was Netscape.
Google has serious, entrenched competitors that are working on the SAME problems that Google is. Microsoft had none of that same competition when they were as young as Google.
And one other thing, basically everything that Google is known for--sans Search and Mail--is a PURCHASED technology. Why is it that when Microsoft "innovates by osmosis" they get slammed, but with google it's "revolutionary?"
Can you please explain to me why you think a person shouldn't be allowed to post basically whatever they want so long as it's truthful?
Obviously things like the definition of "botched" are subjective and a matter of opinion, but if it can be said that her opinion is reasonable--and it certainly seems as though it is--why should ANYONE be barred from saying so?
The self-parking cars DO save space. You can get out of the car and use your remote to press "park." Thus, you don't need any door space. When you need to get back into the car, you just press the park button again and it backs out of the space.
The new BMW 7 has this. The Lexus has auto-park, too, but i'm not sure if it's remote-controlled like the 7-series is.
Slashdot Mirror
"Democrats voted for the war as well"
Uhh... No...
Close your eyes and go back to me, if you will, to January, 2003. The talk then was that we need to muscle Saddam into letting us inspect his nuclear sites, etc. Bush and his talking heads went on all the Sunday shows and said over and over that they had no credibility. That unless Saddam knew that Bush could, at his will, make war with Iraq, he would never capitulate. We were told that we need to give the President the "big stick" he needed to conduct international diplomacy.
So the Democrats cooperated in giving him the big stick.
But when you give the Sheriff a gun, you're not giving him the authority to barge right into a crime scene and start shooting-up the place, guns blazing like the wild west. In fact, you expect the sheriff to treat his gun and the deadly force it represents with utmost respect. And if any Sheriff had taken as little care with his 'big stick' as Bush did, we'd have him indicted, arrested, and on trial in a federal court.
So please, lets stop with this revisionist history.
Once again, you show a complete lack of understanding about the way our Government works.
It's like your speaking about the US Government 2000 years in the future, having only read about it in history books. I've said this before, but it's remarkable to me that you actually believe the things you say.
Your problem is that you understand only GOVERNMENT and not POLITICS. If governing were separate from politics, then what you write would be mostly true. But it's not. Politics overlays government, it wraps it, it permeates it.
And there is no bigger political figure than the US President. Especially the modern US president.
And for this reason, the President has a lot more control over legislation than you'd like to believe. We have a government where Congressmen--US Congressmen, a VERY elite group of people--sit for TWELVE HOURS on the floor the House the day of the State of the Union Address. They sit for TWELVE HOURS just to get an aisle seat, so that they can be photographed and videotaped talking with and shaking the hand of the President. And this is when the President is at 35% in the approval polls!
This happens every single year, in case they didn't cover it in your history book. When the power of a single photo-op with the President is so high that a congressman would sit quietly in his chair for 12 hours, what else do you think they would do for one? How about for a one-on-one sit-down at the White House?
*THAT* is the power of the Presidency.
And if you really think that the Constitution "is" the US Government, well, you've got a lot to learn. Mountains.
It's as if you're talking about the US Government after reading the constitution in your History book. In truth, the Imperial President sets the Agenda in American politics. The power of a single congressmen varies from congressmen to congressmen because the power of a congressmen is not his vote. His power is his ability to persuade the votes of others. The president has this same ability, in both the house and the Senate. And he has the trump card of the American people.
In truth, the president of the United States is the single most powerful "legislator" in Washington, and the fact that he cannot introduce or vote on bills is entirely incidental.
"That's my point exactly."
.... you don't...... i'm confused.
Good, because I was beginning to think you didn't have one.
Oh, wait....
They really are similar, though.
Much like FairPlay Video, I haven't figured out how to disable the DRM on the wife yet.
You should see how she acts when I try to share her with a friend.
But yes, you saw through my ruse. I would never buy my wife a Sybian. Talk about planned obsolescence.
My wife has a symbian. She can't get off the fucking thing. Some days she takes meals on it.
You should see her. Sometimes she's moaning so loud I expect her head to start spinning 360*.
But phone?
It's got attachments, and I admit I'm a bit confused by it sometimes, but I'm pretty sure it DOESNT have a mouthpiece.
"i like mp3 and ogg playback"
I've always been surprised by how many people don't realize the iPod can play MP3s. It seems like a failure of marketing. I've had to share the good news with 3 or 4 people in the few months alone.
His point is "whhahahhahahahah how dare you criticize Apple!!!! Whaaaaa"
/. for many years but I still don't understand the love for Apple as a company.
I've been on
I own an iPod. I own two, actually, because I recently bought a Nano for when I'm working out. I have an intense affection for my iPod. It's beautiful and usable and blah blah you've heard it before.
But my love does not extend to the billion dollar corporation that produced it. And it certainly doesn't make me think that the Corporation can do no wrong.
But around here, if you dare speak bad about the Cupertino kids you get seriously chastised by both being flamed and modded down.
Let's talk honestly: Apple dropped the ball with Vista. Maybe, just maybe, this is done on purpose. In fact, I don't see how it _WASN'T_ done on purpose. As others have said, they had ample time to make sure that their killer-device worked on what will be the worlds most widely installed OS. I'm left thinking that someone there thought that a user thinking 'vista broke my iPod' isn't a bad thing.
As a software developer, I (and others), realize that in this case, the blame falls on Apple, not Microsoft.
I butter my bread writing Windows software but I'm also sure that in many ways Apple beats Windows. Not in every way, not even close. In some way Microsoft beats apple, in most things, they're about the same. Accepting this is like accepting that in most ways, a Honda is the same as a Toyota. Each has certain areas of excellence, but neither is glaringly deficient.
I'm probably singing karma just saying these things outloud, but I believe that we should talk about things on the merits. Instead of an unorganized censorship system, which is what happens here when people speak good of Microsoft or ill of Apple/Linux, why not welcome the debate as a chance to match wits and prove that your chosen platform is actually superior.
The kind of censorship that's done using the Moderation system here just smacks of type of thing that some people hate Microsoft for.
His point is "whhahahhahahahah how dare you criticize Apple!!!! Whaaaaa" I've been on /. for many years but I still don't understand the love for Apple as a company.
I own an iPod. I own two, actually, because I recently bought a Nano for when I'm working out. I have an intense affection for my iPod. It's beautiful and usable and blah blah you've heard it before.
But my love does not extend to the billion dollar corporation that produced it. And it certainly doesn't make me think that the Corporation can do no wrong.
But around here, if you dare speak bad about the Cupertino kids you get seriously chastised by both being flamed and modded down.
Let's talk honestly: Apple dropped the ball with Vista. Maybe, just maybe, this is done on purpose. In fact, I don't see how it _WASN'T_ done on purpose. As others have said, they had ample time to make sure that their killer-device worked on what will be the worlds most widely installed OS. I'm left thinking that someone there thought that a user thinking 'vista broke my iPod' isn't a bad thing.
As a software developer, I (and others), realize that in this case, the blame falls on Apple, not Microsoft.
I butter my bread writing Windows software but I'm also sure that in many ways Apple beats Windows. Not in every way, not even close. In some way Microsoft beats apple, in most things, they're about the same. Accepting this is like accepting that in most ways, a Honda is the same as a Toyota. Each has certain areas of excellence, but neither is glaringly deficient.
I'm probably singing karma just saying these things outloud, but I believe that we should talk about things on the merits. Instead of an unorganized censorship system, which is what happens here when people speak good of Microsoft or ill of Apple/Linux, why not welcome the debate as a chance to match wits and prove that your chosen platform is actually superior.
The kind of censorship that's done using the Moderation system here just smacks of type of thing that some people hate Microsoft for.
No, they purchased Google Earth from Keyhole. And you may be right that Google "could" take share from Redmond, but my point is that, just like Apple, (and to borrow some famous words), the reports of Microsoft's death have been greatly exaggerated.
"If anyone's going to topple Microsoft's power base -- whose applications really aren't that great in many cases, remember -- it's going to be a heavy-hitter like Google"
I personally guarantee that you can find--ironically with Google itself--at least 20 different respected people saying the exact same thing.
Except it wasn't 2007, it was 1997, and it wasn't Google. It was Netscape.
Google has serious, entrenched competitors that are working on the SAME problems that Google is. Microsoft had none of that same competition when they were as young as Google.
And one other thing, basically everything that Google is known for--sans Search and Mail--is a PURCHASED technology. Why is it that when Microsoft "innovates by osmosis" they get slammed, but with google it's "revolutionary?"
Just curious.
Can you please explain to me why you think a person shouldn't be allowed to post basically whatever they want so long as it's truthful? Obviously things like the definition of "botched" are subjective and a matter of opinion, but if it can be said that her opinion is reasonable--and it certainly seems as though it is--why should ANYONE be barred from saying so?
"Today, www.google.com is the most visited site on the web" I read just two days ago on time.com that Yahoo had a LOT more pageviews than Google, 500mm to 380mm per month. See: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1 584788-2,00.html
Price fixing? Come on man, don't be ludicrous... ...This isn't ExxonMobil that we're talking about here...
The self-parking cars DO save space. You can get out of the car and use your remote to press "park." Thus, you don't need any door space. When you need to get back into the car, you just press the park button again and it backs out of the space. The new BMW 7 has this. The Lexus has auto-park, too, but i'm not sure if it's remote-controlled like the 7-series is.