I have the same bias and I prefer the MS purchase. Facebook could successfully tie Skype in with their website -- have to have a Facebook account as your Skype account. MS can't get away with limiting Skype to Windows without killing the product. My friends understand "I don't have Windows." They don't understand "I don't have Facebook."
My guess is that it's the users they're after. Microsoft always seems to prefer customers to money. Maybe it's because they have more than enough money. But look how hard they fought to keep IE #1, even now that they can't use it to force people into Windows anymore. Look how much money they spent on XBox/Bing. Will they ever make all that back through those products?
I don't think they care. They seem to have a corporate philosophy that values market-share, control, and number of customers above anything else (like stock value, for instance). Buying Skype put a Microsoft product on my computer where one previously didn't exist (of course, now I'm just going to delete it -- I've been using Google's service more often than Skype anyway. When talking with friends in Europe Google's video chat runs much smoother).
Anyway, like you, I can't imagine a potentially profitable strategy behind the purchase. It's not like there are any good patents in the purchase. I think it's more just MS doesn't like any other tech company to have a massive user-base. They want technology and Microsoft to be synonymous, that's always been the goal. To be THE tech company, not A tech company. This is why they hate Google and hated Google even before they directly competed with anything. This is why they got into video games. This is why they've tried to become a big player in the TV industry for 15+ years. If they could buy Facebook, they would. The corporate philosophy doesn't revolve around profits because profits are a given -- Windows and Office guarantee that. The goal is monopoly. So they bought Skype because it was for sale and they didn't want to see another tech company pick it up.
1. Libya -- if we aren't careful the future of Libya could be eerily similar to what happened to Afghanistan after the Soviet war and Iran after the revolution. Fortunately, it seems the U.N. won't allow that to happen, but I'm not entirely optimistic. I'm not exactly pro-democracy for the sake of democracy. We can threaten a dictator's security and life, so I prefer these Islamic countries to be run by dictators. We can thank God that Bin Laden wasn't smart enough to realize that democracy could have been a much more powerful weapon than passenger airplanes.
2. We're much more than a non-fighting ally of Israel.
3. Considering the retaliation as justification for invading Afghanistan: it was just a waste of money and more American lives. We should have let bin Laden feel safe in Afghanistan and then assassinated him and then assassinated everyone else involved in al Qaeda. It's better to have Afghanistan run by the Taliban and not cost us any money and lives than to have it run by its current sham democracy that will always be corrupt.
4. "As of 31 March 2008, U.S. Armed Forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries.[22] Some of the largest contingents are the 50,000 military personnel deployed in Iraq, the 71,000 in Afghanistan, the 52,440 in Germany (see list), the 35,688 in Japan (USFJ), the 28,500 in Republic of Korea (USFK), and the 9,660 in Italy and the 9,015 in the United Kingdom respectively. These numbers change frequently due to the regular recall and deployment of units. Altogether, 77,917 military personnel are located in Europe, 141 in the former Soviet Union, 47,236 in East Asia and the Pacific, 3,362 in North Africa, the Near East, and South Asia, 1,355 are in sub-Saharan Africa with 1,941 in the Western Hemisphere excepting the United States itself." -- Wikipedia article on U.S. armed forces. I don't think any country should have a military base on foreign soil. The 'cultural imperialism' . ..that's a huge issue, too, but I don't have time to get into that.
5. It doesn't matter to me that Bush was less wrong than bin Laden was. Does 'less wrong' even exist? Also, it's an exaggeration to say that bin Laden wanted to turn the world back a thousand years. Sure, he was against cultural reform in the middle east and westernization, but I don't believe he was a luddite (if so, that was a hypocritical position). To play the devil's advocate, think of western values as bittersweet. Just look at Vegas: whores everywhere, constant crime, an economy based on gambling, and shotgun weddings. It's called Sin City! Then look at Dubai, the Vegas of the Middle East. 'Freedom isn't free' can be interpreted in different ways. There's no such thing as a free country anyway. Some countries just have more restrictive laws than others. Despite all the things one is free to do in Vegas, there are still things one is not free to do.
Overall, the U.S. has shit that stinks, too. I firmly believe that if we concentrated on cleaning up our own shit rather than worrying about others, then both the U.S. and the rest of the world would be a lot better off. And maybe Islamic radicals wouldn't care about us if we stopped trying to export our economic, political, social, and religious values. They don't have a jihad against China and China as a state is opposed to organized religion. As far as Islam goes, how is that any less blasphemous than our secular Christian nation? China's also right by Afghanistan and Pakistan. But China's not trying to export their values -- socially, economically, religiously, or otherwise. If we did the same it would dissolve many of the anti-American sentiments around the globe.
Osama bin Laden was just a suspect until he publicly took credit for the attack. I believe it was on the same day.
He died in a firefight in which there were no American casualties. Would you have preferred American casualties and a living Osama so we could give him a trial?
Anyway, just because you give a person a trial doesn't mean it's fair. Look at what we did to Saddam Hussein. We might as well have shot him dead upon initially finding him.
Perhaps your youth plays a role in that opinion. I'm not too much older than you, I was in high school at the time, but there's a big difference between a fifth grader and a high schooler. On 9/11/2001 I blamed America for what happened. I blamed America for supporting Israel no matter what they did. I blamed America for building military bases in every country we could force our way into. I blamed America for getting involved in the Soviet Union/Afghanistan conflict. I blamed America for having a bloated military.
We acted like an imperialist bully and still do.
Osama bin Laden deserved to be brought to justice for what he did, but he didn't kill for the sake of killing. He killed because he believed it was the right thing to do. Undiluted evil is a serial killer like Jeffrey Dahmer. The way I look at it, Osama bin Laden is no more evil than George W. Bush. They both cost the world untold destruction, death, and insecurity because of their ideological stubbornness. They both declared each other to be the devil and believed it. That's worse than undiluted evil, it's diluted evil. It's diluted by the silly conviction that the battle is being fought for a good cause.
Maybe, if it was this time next year, I'd say yes. There's a lot of time between now and the election though.
That's a lot of time for boasting.
I think this issue is enough for him to win in 2012. Most 'independents' are just the uninformed and unintelligent: why else would attractive candidates have an advantage (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7080729/Voters-prefer-attractive-politicians.html -- first source I found for the skeptics, but this study has been done numerous times -- I first learned of it while taking a psychology class) and my home state of Ohio single handedly give W. a second term b/c of a single issue (gay marriage) that didn't affect national security, the economy, quality of life, or numerous other more important issues? All those 'independents' (i.e. too stupid to understand the ideological differences between the parties) will hear this news and suddenly love Obama.
These are the same people who blindly supported the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq. People who understand politics and keep informed on political matters already know which side they'll vote for in 2012. The ideological divide between the parties is just too great for one to seriously consider both sides. Even if a Democrat hates the Democratic candidate, it's a better option for them than the Republican candidate or an independent (look how Ross Perot helped Clinton get in office by syphoning away conservative votes and how Ralph Nader helped Bush get elected by syphoning liberal votes -- vote independent in a presidential election and you throw your vote away).
Basically, the swing voters are swing voters b/c they're idiots and "Obama killed Osama" is enough to win their vote. The movie "Swing Vote" is a great example of why these idiots are the prime reason our political system is so broken.
Yeah, he was lying about being American. That makes a whole lot of sense. That's why he wrote in American English, knows about American economics and politics, and has a deep passion for American policy. He was lying because. ..well, who knows? But you know it's true because. ..he didn't fit a stereotype? Sure, there may be more Americans than any other nationality on Slashdot, but it's not exactly where you go to find stereotypical Americans. If you want an American stereotype go to a truck stop or a Wal-Mart.
Part of the whole 'land of the free' thing is that one is free to have their own opinion. Even if it's self-depricating and wishes ill on the country as a whole.
Side note: Almost all Americans want it to get worse. The Republicans want things to get worse so they have an excuse to shrink the government by way of massive cuts (Bush burned all that cash for a reason). That's their goal and the only way to achieve it is for the government to be in a financial crisis. It worked! The Democrats want it to get worse. Quality of life, even for the poorest Americans, is good enough so that most don't complain and don't see the need for a big education or health care overhaul. Until things get worse socialized medicine is a dream. Until it gets worse, no one will see the value of education and therefore no one will want their tax money to fund it. Independents want it to get worse. Until the Democrats and Republicans screw things up much worse than they already have, the old Simpsons line of, "Go ahead, vote independent, throw your vote away!" will ring true.
Everyone wants things to get worse because no one has a solution for our current problems without making it worse. The majority is far too complacent to care and will continue to be so until things get worse. Until the economic problems, the government spending, the piss-poor education and health care, and lobbyist-centric government interfere with the average American's life in a way they understand (the hard part: it's one thing to understand that you can't find a job, understanding why is difficult -- especially with the talking heads on TV all making sensationalist claims and that's where people turn for their 'information'), then nothing will change.
The foundation isn't solid. The house has to be taken down to repair it. But it will never happen as long as 'socialist' is a dirty word in this country.
I guess this is one of those 'reality has a liberal bias' incidents. It's a statistic. Better educated individuals tend to be more liberal. As an educator, you should be well aware of this. How many of your peers share your political views?
No, not really. Try another analogy, I'm sure you can figure one out that paints Sony as evil.
With the local stores analogy: it's more like the local stores banding together to fight the mafia. Just because some in the group of local stores have morally questionable motives doesn't mean they're part of the mafia. Sony partakes in some shady business practices, but I don't believe extortion is one of them. Funneling money into satellite companies to sue your competitors on bogus claims to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt within the marketplace is extortion. That deserves a mafia analogy. Kind of like bribing government officials and interfering with standards boards is akin to how the mafia bribes government officials and tampers juries.
Everything Sony's done, even the rootkit, seems to be things where the executive behind the decision actually thought the action was justifiable. That's a lot different than doing something inexcusable while aware of the fact that it's inexcusable and potentially illegal. Sony's like that shop owner that won't let kids in the store after some kid broke something and then ends up confused when their sales plummet. They don't have a top-down evil policy like some companies (MS, Facebook, Oracle). They just seem to make a lot of inept decisions and end up back-pedaling as a result. That's my perspective, at least.
If you see that someone is getting ready to shoot you, do you just sit there and let them shoot you?
Ahhh, the good old 'preemptive attack' strategy. Tell me again, when did that ever work out for the better and how exactly is it morally justifiable? Also, your analogy is flawed. It's more like: 'If you're pretty sure someone has a gun and MIGHT be getting ready to shoot you, do you MURDER them to POTENTIALLY save your own life?'
My neighbors have guns. Maybe they're planning on shooting me. I better do something about that. . .
Why do you need 64-bit for browsing the web and word processing?
Car analogy: Upon buying a new car, would you insist on a v8 over a 4-cyl b/c it's a higher number? For a go to work car, the 4-cyl will probably be more practical, and if it weighs less, it very well could be faster anyway. 4-cyl trucks aren't practical if you're doing heavy lifting, you'll need a bigger engine with more torque. So the 64-bit system would be comparable to a v8 engine: it's useful if you're doing heavy lifting, it's wasteful if not. Why drive a truck to work everyday when you could drive a 4-cyl coupe and do the same thing much more efficiently?
If this guy's wife needed 64-bit for anything, she probably wouldn't be asking her husband to pick out a laptop for her, she would know what she wants/needs (and since she would be tech-savvy, she wouldn't want Windows:P)
I note that opinions expressed in support of the charge are marked as trolls, while opinions expressed in opposition to the charge are modded up.
Good.
Perhaps if there were actually some good arguments for punishing Manning, they wouldn't be marked as troll. "Hang the bastard" and "he got what he deserves" aren't arguments, they're ignorant and inflammatory claims.
The 'bad guys' would need a time machine to make any use of it. None of the data details future military operations. Your argument is like saying a non-fiction book about the Bay of Pigs published today, detailing the tactical errors of the operation, is treason for providing sensitive information to Castro. Just because information is embarrassing doesn't mean that it aids the enemy.
It might be the right thing to not follow order sometimes, at least when you're asked to do something morally wrong such as killing innocent citizens. Was this the nature of Manning's refusal to follow orders? In any case, if you don't follow orders, you should be prepared to suffer the consequences, even if not following orders was the right thing to do.
Manning is suffering consequences.
Furthermore, where do you draw the distinction between murder, killing, and letting others die? The leaked information, especially the helicopter video, has led to increased scrutiny concerning how the U.S. is conducting itself in these military operations. I would argue that this has saved innocent lives. If one has the opportunity to save innocent lives and does not, how is that different from killing? If someone is drowning and you, a capable swimmer, doesn't attempt to rescue them because you don't want to get wet, have you not just killed them? Or, worse, have you not just murdered them?
Another example: If you're driving drunk (and to keep you, in this example, on morally safe ground, you're only a tad bit over the legal limit after consuming three beers) on a lone country road and come across a car wrecked into a pole. The driver is seriously injured and dying. Staying will result in a drunk driving charge, fleeing will result in the other driver's death. You could just call 911 and leave, but the victim needs immediate first aid services which you can provide. Sometimes doing the right thing has consequences.
As a person, when morality conflicts with legality, morality always wins. The severity of the legal/moral issue doesn't matter. You can't just say, "Well, legality trumps morality until they tell you to start rounding up Jews and systematically killing them." When you say legality trumps morality up to a certain point at which morality takes precedence, then you open the door for that certain point to be arbitrary, debatable, and ultimately meaningless. Ethics always trump the legal system.
I think Manning was ready to face the consequences and is facing them now. But just because he should be ready to face the consequences doesn't mean he should actually be punished. Is China right in their punishment of Liu Xiaobo? He broke the law, after all. Or does he deserve his punishment because he knew the risks he was taking by voicing dissent?
It's just sad that Obama hasn't pardoned Manning. I give Obama a free pass on that one until he gets reelected. It could be political suicide. But once the second term comes around he will have no excuse.
I'll tell you who deserves to be punished: that filthy rat Adrian Lamo. Why Anonymous hasn't gone after his head is beyond me.
A big complaint about the first iPad was that it was uncomfortable to use as an eBook reader for long periods of time, the weight reduction and thinning while removing sharp edges out should help against that problem.
I don't think spending more engineering dollars is the solution to dollars spent for kindle astroturfers. I'd rather have it cheaper or longer battery life than thinner.
You can! Since the new iPad is being released at the same price as the old one, the price of a used iPad 1 must plummet. Check out eBay when it's released. There will be plenty available from people who are upgrading. There's also the clearance section on Apple's online store, but I bet eBay/Craig's List will have the real deals.
No-one uses.odt in the real world, except for perhaps a newer company who uses Open/LibreOffice and can use the format for internal documents which aren't designed to be sent to MS Office users.
Yeah, that little upstart IBM is a nobody that exists in the fake-world.
This is such a silly argument. You make is sound like most Mac users actually care about a large video game library.
With the exception of Blizzard, PC gaming is dead anyway. That's what my Playstation is for. Why would I want to play a FPS on my laptop? I use my laptop for work.
I've used a RZR for years. I've destroyed one with water damage, lost a couple, and I always replace it with the same thing. My monthly plan costs $28. I only have to charge it once every couple of days and it has more features than I want (camera, texting).
Would an iPhone or Android be neat to have? I guess. But I really don't need one and the costs associated with an upgrade just aren't worth it. Plus, everyone I know with 'smart phones' are constantly in need of an outlet to recharge their power-sucking monstrosities.
If my phone breaks or I lose it, it costs me less than a month of data on a smartphone to replace.
On paper or in a simulation, the Packers definitely had what was needed to win a Super Bowl. The NFC competition was pretty shallow and the Packers have great players on both defense and offense. What made last night's victory so unlikely was all the injuries they dealt with. To have that final defensive stand without Charles Woodson on the field was amazing, to still pass the ball 60%+ of the time without Donald Driver was equally impressive. And they had many more injuries. The Packers were complete underdogs but managed to pull through. Take a Madden simulation with their injured players pulled from the game and it's very doubtful they would beat the Steelers.
So this is a case where the simulation picked the right team but it's more of a coincidence than a super-accurate prediction.
That attitude is why women and pussies have a hard time succeeding. It doesn't matter how the issue makes you feel, it matters whether it's right or wrong. It has nothing to do with elitism. That word is so commonly abused. It doesn't mean, "people I disagree with but don't have a good counter argument for." This "anti-elitism" is the fuel that fires the Tea-party movement, the anti-science movement, and anti-intellectualism in general.
And if you don't like the esoteric then you're on the wrong website. NEWS FOR NERDS. Does it get more esoteric than that?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, Hotmail isn't half bad. . .
It isn't half good either. Turn in your fucking nerd card. wtf
I have the same bias and I prefer the MS purchase. Facebook could successfully tie Skype in with their website -- have to have a Facebook account as your Skype account. MS can't get away with limiting Skype to Windows without killing the product. My friends understand "I don't have Windows." They don't understand "I don't have Facebook."
My guess is that it's the users they're after. Microsoft always seems to prefer customers to money. Maybe it's because they have more than enough money. But look how hard they fought to keep IE #1, even now that they can't use it to force people into Windows anymore. Look how much money they spent on XBox/Bing. Will they ever make all that back through those products?
I don't think they care. They seem to have a corporate philosophy that values market-share, control, and number of customers above anything else (like stock value, for instance). Buying Skype put a Microsoft product on my computer where one previously didn't exist (of course, now I'm just going to delete it -- I've been using Google's service more often than Skype anyway. When talking with friends in Europe Google's video chat runs much smoother).
Anyway, like you, I can't imagine a potentially profitable strategy behind the purchase. It's not like there are any good patents in the purchase. I think it's more just MS doesn't like any other tech company to have a massive user-base. They want technology and Microsoft to be synonymous, that's always been the goal. To be THE tech company, not A tech company. This is why they hate Google and hated Google even before they directly competed with anything. This is why they got into video games. This is why they've tried to become a big player in the TV industry for 15+ years. If they could buy Facebook, they would. The corporate philosophy doesn't revolve around profits because profits are a given -- Windows and Office guarantee that. The goal is monopoly. So they bought Skype because it was for sale and they didn't want to see another tech company pick it up.
1. Libya -- if we aren't careful the future of Libya could be eerily similar to what happened to Afghanistan after the Soviet war and Iran after the revolution. Fortunately, it seems the U.N. won't allow that to happen, but I'm not entirely optimistic. I'm not exactly pro-democracy for the sake of democracy. We can threaten a dictator's security and life, so I prefer these Islamic countries to be run by dictators. We can thank God that Bin Laden wasn't smart enough to realize that democracy could have been a much more powerful weapon than passenger airplanes.
2. We're much more than a non-fighting ally of Israel.
3. Considering the retaliation as justification for invading Afghanistan: it was just a waste of money and more American lives. We should have let bin Laden feel safe in Afghanistan and then assassinated him and then assassinated everyone else involved in al Qaeda. It's better to have Afghanistan run by the Taliban and not cost us any money and lives than to have it run by its current sham democracy that will always be corrupt.
4. "As of 31 March 2008, U.S. Armed Forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries.[22] Some of the largest contingents are the 50,000 military personnel deployed in Iraq, the 71,000 in Afghanistan, the 52,440 in Germany (see list), the 35,688 in Japan (USFJ), the 28,500 in Republic of Korea (USFK), and the 9,660 in Italy and the 9,015 in the United Kingdom respectively. These numbers change frequently due to the regular recall and deployment of units. Altogether, 77,917 military personnel are located in Europe, 141 in the former Soviet Union, 47,236 in East Asia and the Pacific, 3,362 in North Africa, the Near East, and South Asia, 1,355 are in sub-Saharan Africa with 1,941 in the Western Hemisphere excepting the United States itself." -- Wikipedia article on U.S. armed forces. I don't think any country should have a military base on foreign soil. The 'cultural imperialism' . . .that's a huge issue, too, but I don't have time to get into that.
5. It doesn't matter to me that Bush was less wrong than bin Laden was. Does 'less wrong' even exist? Also, it's an exaggeration to say that bin Laden wanted to turn the world back a thousand years. Sure, he was against cultural reform in the middle east and westernization, but I don't believe he was a luddite (if so, that was a hypocritical position). To play the devil's advocate, think of western values as bittersweet. Just look at Vegas: whores everywhere, constant crime, an economy based on gambling, and shotgun weddings. It's called Sin City! Then look at Dubai, the Vegas of the Middle East. 'Freedom isn't free' can be interpreted in different ways. There's no such thing as a free country anyway. Some countries just have more restrictive laws than others. Despite all the things one is free to do in Vegas, there are still things one is not free to do.
The United States has a higher percentage of the population incarcerated than any other country in the world. Is that freedom? Look how few Middle Easterners are imprisoned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prisoner_population_rate_UN_HDR_2007_2008.PNG
Overall, the U.S. has shit that stinks, too. I firmly believe that if we concentrated on cleaning up our own shit rather than worrying about others, then both the U.S. and the rest of the world would be a lot better off. And maybe Islamic radicals wouldn't care about us if we stopped trying to export our economic, political, social, and religious values. They don't have a jihad against China and China as a state is opposed to organized religion. As far as Islam goes, how is that any less blasphemous than our secular Christian nation? China's also right by Afghanistan and Pakistan. But China's not trying to export their values -- socially, economically, religiously, or otherwise. If we did the same it would dissolve many of the anti-American sentiments around the globe.
Osama bin Laden was just a suspect until he publicly took credit for the attack. I believe it was on the same day.
He died in a firefight in which there were no American casualties. Would you have preferred American casualties and a living Osama so we could give him a trial?
Anyway, just because you give a person a trial doesn't mean it's fair. Look at what we did to Saddam Hussein. We might as well have shot him dead upon initially finding him.
Undiluted evil?
Perhaps your youth plays a role in that opinion. I'm not too much older than you, I was in high school at the time, but there's a big difference between a fifth grader and a high schooler. On 9/11/2001 I blamed America for what happened. I blamed America for supporting Israel no matter what they did. I blamed America for building military bases in every country we could force our way into. I blamed America for getting involved in the Soviet Union/Afghanistan conflict. I blamed America for having a bloated military.
We acted like an imperialist bully and still do.
Osama bin Laden deserved to be brought to justice for what he did, but he didn't kill for the sake of killing. He killed because he believed it was the right thing to do. Undiluted evil is a serial killer like Jeffrey Dahmer. The way I look at it, Osama bin Laden is no more evil than George W. Bush. They both cost the world untold destruction, death, and insecurity because of their ideological stubbornness. They both declared each other to be the devil and believed it. That's worse than undiluted evil, it's diluted evil. It's diluted by the silly conviction that the battle is being fought for a good cause.
Maybe, if it was this time next year, I'd say yes. There's a lot of time between now and the election though.
That's a lot of time for boasting.
I think this issue is enough for him to win in 2012. Most 'independents' are just the uninformed and unintelligent: why else would attractive candidates have an advantage (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7080729/Voters-prefer-attractive-politicians.html -- first source I found for the skeptics, but this study has been done numerous times -- I first learned of it while taking a psychology class) and my home state of Ohio single handedly give W. a second term b/c of a single issue (gay marriage) that didn't affect national security, the economy, quality of life, or numerous other more important issues? All those 'independents' (i.e. too stupid to understand the ideological differences between the parties) will hear this news and suddenly love Obama.
These are the same people who blindly supported the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq. People who understand politics and keep informed on political matters already know which side they'll vote for in 2012. The ideological divide between the parties is just too great for one to seriously consider both sides. Even if a Democrat hates the Democratic candidate, it's a better option for them than the Republican candidate or an independent (look how Ross Perot helped Clinton get in office by syphoning away conservative votes and how Ralph Nader helped Bush get elected by syphoning liberal votes -- vote independent in a presidential election and you throw your vote away).
Basically, the swing voters are swing voters b/c they're idiots and "Obama killed Osama" is enough to win their vote. The movie "Swing Vote" is a great example of why these idiots are the prime reason our political system is so broken.
Yeah, he was lying about being American. That makes a whole lot of sense. That's why he wrote in American English, knows about American economics and politics, and has a deep passion for American policy. He was lying because. . .well, who knows? But you know it's true because. . .he didn't fit a stereotype? Sure, there may be more Americans than any other nationality on Slashdot, but it's not exactly where you go to find stereotypical Americans. If you want an American stereotype go to a truck stop or a Wal-Mart.
Part of the whole 'land of the free' thing is that one is free to have their own opinion. Even if it's self-depricating and wishes ill on the country as a whole.
Side note: Almost all Americans want it to get worse. The Republicans want things to get worse so they have an excuse to shrink the government by way of massive cuts (Bush burned all that cash for a reason). That's their goal and the only way to achieve it is for the government to be in a financial crisis. It worked! The Democrats want it to get worse. Quality of life, even for the poorest Americans, is good enough so that most don't complain and don't see the need for a big education or health care overhaul. Until things get worse socialized medicine is a dream. Until it gets worse, no one will see the value of education and therefore no one will want their tax money to fund it. Independents want it to get worse. Until the Democrats and Republicans screw things up much worse than they already have, the old Simpsons line of, "Go ahead, vote independent, throw your vote away!" will ring true.
Everyone wants things to get worse because no one has a solution for our current problems without making it worse. The majority is far too complacent to care and will continue to be so until things get worse. Until the economic problems, the government spending, the piss-poor education and health care, and lobbyist-centric government interfere with the average American's life in a way they understand (the hard part: it's one thing to understand that you can't find a job, understanding why is difficult -- especially with the talking heads on TV all making sensationalist claims and that's where people turn for their 'information'), then nothing will change.
The foundation isn't solid. The house has to be taken down to repair it. But it will never happen as long as 'socialist' is a dirty word in this country.
I guess this is one of those 'reality has a liberal bias' incidents. It's a statistic. Better educated individuals tend to be more liberal. As an educator, you should be well aware of this. How many of your peers share your political views?
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/october/are-liberals-smarter-than-conservatives -- here's one of the first things Google brought up. But this study has been done over and over with the same results: more people with college degrees are liberal than not. How can the truth be offensive?
No, not really. Try another analogy, I'm sure you can figure one out that paints Sony as evil.
With the local stores analogy: it's more like the local stores banding together to fight the mafia. Just because some in the group of local stores have morally questionable motives doesn't mean they're part of the mafia. Sony partakes in some shady business practices, but I don't believe extortion is one of them. Funneling money into satellite companies to sue your competitors on bogus claims to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt within the marketplace is extortion. That deserves a mafia analogy. Kind of like bribing government officials and interfering with standards boards is akin to how the mafia bribes government officials and tampers juries.
Everything Sony's done, even the rootkit, seems to be things where the executive behind the decision actually thought the action was justifiable. That's a lot different than doing something inexcusable while aware of the fact that it's inexcusable and potentially illegal. Sony's like that shop owner that won't let kids in the store after some kid broke something and then ends up confused when their sales plummet. They don't have a top-down evil policy like some companies (MS, Facebook, Oracle). They just seem to make a lot of inept decisions and end up back-pedaling as a result. That's my perspective, at least.
If you see that someone is getting ready to shoot you, do you just sit there and let them shoot you?
Ahhh, the good old 'preemptive attack' strategy. Tell me again, when did that ever work out for the better and how exactly is it morally justifiable? Also, your analogy is flawed. It's more like: 'If you're pretty sure someone has a gun and MIGHT be getting ready to shoot you, do you MURDER them to POTENTIALLY save your own life?'
My neighbors have guns. Maybe they're planning on shooting me. I better do something about that. . .
Why do you need 64-bit for browsing the web and word processing?
Car analogy: Upon buying a new car, would you insist on a v8 over a 4-cyl b/c it's a higher number? For a go to work car, the 4-cyl will probably be more practical, and if it weighs less, it very well could be faster anyway. 4-cyl trucks aren't practical if you're doing heavy lifting, you'll need a bigger engine with more torque. So the 64-bit system would be comparable to a v8 engine: it's useful if you're doing heavy lifting, it's wasteful if not. Why drive a truck to work everyday when you could drive a 4-cyl coupe and do the same thing much more efficiently?
If this guy's wife needed 64-bit for anything, she probably wouldn't be asking her husband to pick out a laptop for her, she would know what she wants/needs (and since she would be tech-savvy, she wouldn't want Windows :P)
The methodology behind the research makes no sense, but look at the great headline they got out of it.
I note that opinions expressed in support of the charge are marked as trolls, while opinions expressed in opposition to the charge are modded up.
Good.
Perhaps if there were actually some good arguments for punishing Manning, they wouldn't be marked as troll. "Hang the bastard" and "he got what he deserves" aren't arguments, they're ignorant and inflammatory claims.
The 'bad guys' would need a time machine to make any use of it. None of the data details future military operations. Your argument is like saying a non-fiction book about the Bay of Pigs published today, detailing the tactical errors of the operation, is treason for providing sensitive information to Castro. Just because information is embarrassing doesn't mean that it aids the enemy.
It might be the right thing to not follow order sometimes, at least when you're asked to do something morally wrong such as killing innocent citizens. Was this the nature of Manning's refusal to follow orders? In any case, if you don't follow orders, you should be prepared to suffer the consequences, even if not following orders was the right thing to do.
Manning is suffering consequences.
Furthermore, where do you draw the distinction between murder, killing, and letting others die? The leaked information, especially the helicopter video, has led to increased scrutiny concerning how the U.S. is conducting itself in these military operations. I would argue that this has saved innocent lives. If one has the opportunity to save innocent lives and does not, how is that different from killing? If someone is drowning and you, a capable swimmer, doesn't attempt to rescue them because you don't want to get wet, have you not just killed them? Or, worse, have you not just murdered them?
Another example: If you're driving drunk (and to keep you, in this example, on morally safe ground, you're only a tad bit over the legal limit after consuming three beers) on a lone country road and come across a car wrecked into a pole. The driver is seriously injured and dying. Staying will result in a drunk driving charge, fleeing will result in the other driver's death. You could just call 911 and leave, but the victim needs immediate first aid services which you can provide. Sometimes doing the right thing has consequences.
As a person, when morality conflicts with legality, morality always wins. The severity of the legal/moral issue doesn't matter. You can't just say, "Well, legality trumps morality until they tell you to start rounding up Jews and systematically killing them." When you say legality trumps morality up to a certain point at which morality takes precedence, then you open the door for that certain point to be arbitrary, debatable, and ultimately meaningless. Ethics always trump the legal system.
I think Manning was ready to face the consequences and is facing them now. But just because he should be ready to face the consequences doesn't mean he should actually be punished. Is China right in their punishment of Liu Xiaobo? He broke the law, after all. Or does he deserve his punishment because he knew the risks he was taking by voicing dissent?
It's just sad that Obama hasn't pardoned Manning. I give Obama a free pass on that one until he gets reelected. It could be political suicide. But once the second term comes around he will have no excuse.
I'll tell you who deserves to be punished: that filthy rat Adrian Lamo. Why Anonymous hasn't gone after his head is beyond me.
A big complaint about the first iPad was that it was uncomfortable to use as an eBook reader for long periods of time, the weight reduction and thinning while removing sharp edges out should help against that problem.
I don't think spending more engineering dollars is the solution to dollars spent for kindle astroturfers. I'd rather have it cheaper or longer battery life than thinner.
You can! Since the new iPad is being released at the same price as the old one, the price of a used iPad 1 must plummet. Check out eBay when it's released. There will be plenty available from people who are upgrading. There's also the clearance section on Apple's online store, but I bet eBay/Craig's List will have the real deals.
http://comics.com/pearls_before_swine/2010-09-01/
No-one uses .odt in the real world, except for perhaps a newer company who uses Open/LibreOffice and can use the format for internal documents which aren't designed to be sent to MS Office users.
Yeah, that little upstart IBM is a nobody that exists in the fake-world.
Obviously this is the reason for all of Apple's hardship as of late.
Sure, just install Windows on a partition.
This is such a silly argument. You make is sound like most Mac users actually care about a large video game library.
With the exception of Blizzard, PC gaming is dead anyway. That's what my Playstation is for. Why would I want to play a FPS on my laptop? I use my laptop for work.
I've used a RZR for years. I've destroyed one with water damage, lost a couple, and I always replace it with the same thing. My monthly plan costs $28. I only have to charge it once every couple of days and it has more features than I want (camera, texting).
Would an iPhone or Android be neat to have? I guess. But I really don't need one and the costs associated with an upgrade just aren't worth it. Plus, everyone I know with 'smart phones' are constantly in need of an outlet to recharge their power-sucking monstrosities.
If my phone breaks or I lose it, it costs me less than a month of data on a smartphone to replace.
On paper or in a simulation, the Packers definitely had what was needed to win a Super Bowl. The NFC competition was pretty shallow and the Packers have great players on both defense and offense. What made last night's victory so unlikely was all the injuries they dealt with. To have that final defensive stand without Charles Woodson on the field was amazing, to still pass the ball 60%+ of the time without Donald Driver was equally impressive. And they had many more injuries. The Packers were complete underdogs but managed to pull through. Take a Madden simulation with their injured players pulled from the game and it's very doubtful they would beat the Steelers.
So this is a case where the simulation picked the right team but it's more of a coincidence than a super-accurate prediction.
One other thing - If I could get paid $30,000 for sleeping with Charlie Sheen, I wouldn't be interested in contributing to Wikipedia either.
You never know, he might swing both ways. I say go for it.
That attitude is why women and pussies have a hard time succeeding. It doesn't matter how the issue makes you feel, it matters whether it's right or wrong. It has nothing to do with elitism. That word is so commonly abused. It doesn't mean, "people I disagree with but don't have a good counter argument for." This "anti-elitism" is the fuel that fires the Tea-party movement, the anti-science movement, and anti-intellectualism in general.
And if you don't like the esoteric then you're on the wrong website. NEWS FOR NERDS. Does it get more esoteric than that?