You don't have be a willing participant to end up in a fight... or a beating. This isn't tic tac toe.
They would point out our willingness to bomb economic targets, our blank-check support of Israel, and a century of western meddling in their politics as evidence that the U.S. definetly is a "willing participant".
No, I'm afraid he's right. The majority of the population doesn't give a damn about civil liberties, they just don't want to be safe. It's a sad state affairs.
Only because the spinless Democrats don't challenge it, so the spineless media just parrots the GOP line. Imagine the reaction if, oh we'll say, Clinton had done the exact same thing with the exact same justifications.
Ya, the nerve of some people, trying to make an international incident out of a case where clearly one of two people is in the US. And lets not get into the phone company with their "you call overseas and you pay international rates" thing.
Again, more irrelevant word games. There are no exemptions in the Constitution for searches of an American citizen on American soil if the other party is in another country.
One of the most telling moments is when Debra Burlingame points out that prior to the September 11 attacks, the NSA was surveilling an al Qaeda member in Yemen who placed or received more than a dozen phone calls to and from a number in San Diego. Because these calls involved someone in the United States, the NSA didn't listen to them.
I predict red herring will become extinct by the end of the year at the rate the GOP keeps using them. Listening in on those calls was PERFECTLY LEGAL under the existing FISA statute at the time, and getting a warrant would have been more easliy done than said. So this line of reasoning is, in a word, bullshit.
My favorite was a swear filter for a Counter-Strike mod, which wouldn't let you say things like "I had good competition earlier from Japan" because "tit", "lier" and "jap" were filtered.
John Dvorak continues to be the biggest idiot in the tech commentator business.
I doubt he's an idiot. In fact I think he's very smart. What he is, however, is a shameless troll that posts outrageous ideas like this one that's gauranteed to ring up a few hundered thousand hits. And in that respect, he's probably the most "valuable" tech "journalist" out there.
You can't be serious. Apple owns around 85-90% of the PMP market, and you don't think it's anti-competitive of them to use legal threates to prevent other companies from interoperating with their devices? If that's not anti-competitive, what would be?
What would be anti-compeditive? Maybe if Apple was forcing up the cost of songs bought online, but they aren't. In fact, Apple has resisted RIAA attempts to raise prices. Or maybe if Apple forced labels into signing exclusive contracts, but they haven't - just about any song on the iTMS can be found on another online store, or on regular CD. Or if Apple had advertized the iPod as an open music platform, or if they were renegging on a prior deal with Real.
Not handing out freebies to competing companies is just being plain compeditive, nothing "anti" about it. If Real want's to get on mp3 players so badly, they are perfectly free to sell unemcumbered formats, or use WMP like the rest of the industry.
So the moral of the story is: all this hand waving about Apple's "anti-compeditiveness" is nothing more than stupid, pointless bitching.
Supporting Real's products is not Apple's perogative nor does blocking it make them "anti-comeditive". If Apple starts signing big labels to exlusive contracts, then we can talk.
And IBM was VERY unhappy dealing with Steve Job's demands for special features
Like what.
small orders placed for new chips
As Apple has been starved for new, fast processors for oh...about a decade now, I'm sceptical.
Apple failed to forecast demand properly.
How so.
Not to mention Jobs trying to score the rest of the chips in the production run at fire sale prices
Right, because Michael Dell never wants a price break from Intel. And considering that the 970 has been stagnant, why should Apple not get a reduction when the chips have barely changed over 3 years?
The big "I" has already pissed off their biggest customer (Dell) by letting Apple announce Core Duo notebooks first.
Considering how Dell likes to flirt with AMD every time they want a discount from Intel, they shouldn't whine too much.
What nobody deserves are 32-bit Core Duo Apples in a 64-bit world!
Uh huh. And just how many laptops and consumer machines right now are capable of supporting 4 gigs of memory, much less more?
They'd have to take a relatively successful server chip, staple on AltiVec, figure out how to overcommit and lose money, and then get raked over the coals by Steve Jobs. I doubt they're looking to repeat that charade.
If they couldn't do it, they shouldn't have promised Apple the chips. Any "charade" was IBM's fault, not Apple's.
So we shouldn't talk about it until it's a viable product, but how does it become a viable product without any sort of discussion or planning? Good thing our ancestors had a different mindset, or we'd still be living in caves.
In the Jones deposition, he responded to the definition of sexual relations
Not quite, Sparky, you are only telling half the story. Clinton complained, rightfully so, that the prosecution's definition of "sexual relations" was overly broad. Then the judge agreed, and said sexual relations==sexual intercourse. Since blow jobs are not intercourse, Clinton did not lie. End of story. As far as your "sexual harrassment law" angle goes, the judge ruled that even if Clinton was lying, it wasn't sexual harrassment anyway.
You most certainly are. The current problems in the middle east stem from the screw ups of the British "empire" and their failure to clean up after themselves.
You are more wrong than the PP. British shenanigans certainally set the stage, but it was the creation of Israel and America's blank check support for the Israelies that is the #1 source of tension.
So a libpng buffer overflow, allowing a png image rendered in mozilla to execute code can't be harmfull? Sorry pal, but this is not a problem with the OS, but the applications and libraries.
Wouldn't Mozilla be considered an executable? Thus reinforcing the parent's point and making you look like a boob for jumping on him?
By whom? Who lied? Was it Bush? Cheney? The CIA? Clinton? Kerry? Daschle? Gore? Any of them lie about it? Was it the British, French, Russian, Israeli intelligence agencies? Were they all lying? How about the Iraqis themselves, were they lying? Those with an anti-Bush agenda seem to forget that from the late 90's up until the war literally every single one of those I mentioned were in 100% agreement over Iraq's pursuit, aquisition and stockpiling of chemical, biological and nuclear materials with the ulitmate goal of manufacturing WMD's.
As someone else pointed out, you help spread the lie. Yes, everyone thought that Saddam had some hidden stockpiles of WMD's, but that's not the point. Bush argued that Saddam was engaged in a massive program to produce new WMD's and that he was such a threat that he had to be taken out immediatly. And in both these points Bush was pretty much alone.
Draw blasphemous cartoons of Muhammad, and you get a number of Muslim countries boycotting your entire country, and widespread rioting. Say pretty much anything you want to about Christians (haha, homophobic, superstitious, clinically retarded crusaders) and... nothing happens. On occasion you might have a Christian complain about you, but nobody cares about them.
This is of course all nonsense. Some of the drawings in question showed Allah to be a bomb toting terrorist. Imagine for a second, the right wing reaction to a similar depiction, of oh we'll say Jesus, by the New York Times. And you want to talk about irrational reactions to other countries? Remember "freedom fries" and "freedom dressing"? And it's not as if Christian groups haven't conducted boycotts here in the U.S. for far less offensive reasons. Remember the Southern Baptists boycotted Disney for years, and Fox News was airing lists of retailers who dared advertize "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas".
So this "nobody cares about Christians" hogwash is nothing more than a part of the sad persecution complex that grips some in the U.S. I'd like to get some of these people together and introduce them to a couple of guys I know from Sudan, where Christians and others are slaughtered by the thousands, so they can explain how "opressed" they are when they walk into Wal-Mart and see a "Happy Holidays" sign. I'm sure they'll be very impressed.
Well, they sure can't do it without the help of a) labs or b) heterosexual surrogates.
Adoption. When these arguments are used against homosexual but not heterosexual couples in similar situations (infertility), they are just rationalized homophobia.
I already have no problem with gay "marriage," but it did start off as a religious concept
Not really. Throughout history, marriage was as much a business transaction between two families as it was a religious institution, which just goes to show how full of crap the right wing is on the subject. That, and the fact that they are supposedly doing this to "protect the sacred institution of marriage" while their amendments do nothing to try and reduce the divorce rate. Which, incidentally, is highest in the reddest of states and lowest in the bluest states.
No, I'm fully convinced that a large percentage of the "leaks" from Apple are intentional marketing tactics to pique people's interest. They happen way too frequently and are way too easily prevented for them to all be accidents.
Except that the rumors frequently exceed the finished product, which is not something Apple wants. Look at the rumors that were floating around before the iPod Mini came out, for example.
You're joking, right? The conservative versus liberal meaning desire for change is a useless dictionary definition.
If by "useless" you mean "spot on", then yes. Generally, fiscal conservatives want to roll back taxes and regulation while religious conservatives want to roll back restrictions on the separation of church and state.
For example, all the liberals here in California are resisting any and all reform (change) despite that fact that business as usual is going to destroy this state's economy and drive everyone with even a modicom of productivity away.
Ahnold? Is that you?
And go look at who really makes up the bulk of voters for liberals- people too broken or stupid to even live their lives without constant nannying and handouts from the State.
Right, that would explain why the bluest state pay the most in taxes and the reddest states use the most in taxes. And why blue states have the best divorce rates and red states the worst. The funny part is, after all the GOP babbling about banning gay marriage to "protect the institution of marriage", the state with the best divorce rate is Massachusetts, the first to legalize gay marriage.
It depends if the sequel is written because the makers have a story they want to tell (in addition to making money) or if they want to wring some more bucks out of a popular story. Two good Disney examples: the movie Aladdin and it's two sequels. Return of Jafar was an out and out crapfest. Aladdin and the King of Thieves had an actuall plot, a bunch of back story and better voice acting.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have be a willing participant to end up in a fight... or a beating. This isn't tic tac toe.
They would point out our willingness to bomb economic targets, our blank-check support of Israel, and a century of western meddling in their politics as evidence that the U.S. definetly is a "willing participant".
No, I'm afraid he's right. The majority of the population doesn't give a damn about civil liberties, they just don't want to be safe. It's a sad state affairs.
Only because the spinless Democrats don't challenge it, so the spineless media just parrots the GOP line. Imagine the reaction if, oh we'll say, Clinton had done the exact same thing with the exact same justifications.
Ya, the nerve of some people, trying to make an international incident out of a case where clearly one of two people is in the US. And lets not get into the phone company with their "you call overseas and you pay international rates" thing.
Again, more irrelevant word games. There are no exemptions in the Constitution for searches of an American citizen on American soil if the other party is in another country.
One of the most telling moments is when Debra Burlingame points out that prior to the September 11 attacks, the NSA was surveilling an al Qaeda member in Yemen who placed or received more than a dozen phone calls to and from a number in San Diego. Because these calls involved someone in the United States, the NSA didn't listen to them.
I predict red herring will become extinct by the end of the year at the rate the GOP keeps using them. Listening in on those calls was PERFECTLY LEGAL under the existing FISA statute at the time, and getting a warrant would have been more easliy done than said. So this line of reasoning is, in a word, bullshit.
My favorite was a swear filter for a Counter-Strike mod, which wouldn't let you say things like "I had good competition earlier from Japan" because "tit", "lier" and "jap" were filtered.
John Dvorak continues to be the biggest idiot in the tech commentator business.
I doubt he's an idiot. In fact I think he's very smart. What he is, however, is a shameless troll that posts outrageous ideas like this one that's gauranteed to ring up a few hundered thousand hits. And in that respect, he's probably the most "valuable" tech "journalist" out there.
Except they haven't done anything of the kind. The only thing worse than an Apple fanboy is an anti-fanboy.
You can't be serious. Apple owns around 85-90% of the PMP market, and you don't think it's anti-competitive of them to use legal threates to prevent other companies from interoperating with their devices? If that's not anti-competitive, what would be?
What would be anti-compeditive? Maybe if Apple was forcing up the cost of songs bought online, but they aren't. In fact, Apple has resisted RIAA attempts to raise prices. Or maybe if Apple forced labels into signing exclusive contracts, but they haven't - just about any song on the iTMS can be found on another online store, or on regular CD. Or if Apple had advertized the iPod as an open music platform, or if they were renegging on a prior deal with Real.
Not handing out freebies to competing companies is just being plain compeditive, nothing "anti" about it. If Real want's to get on mp3 players so badly, they are perfectly free to sell unemcumbered formats, or use WMP like the rest of the industry.
So the moral of the story is: all this hand waving about Apple's "anti-compeditiveness" is nothing more than stupid, pointless bitching.
That seems pretty damn anti-competitive to me.
Supporting Real's products is not Apple's perogative nor does blocking it make them "anti-comeditive". If Apple starts signing big labels to exlusive contracts, then we can talk.
Your source for all this?
And IBM was VERY unhappy dealing with Steve Job's demands for special features
Like what.
small orders placed for new chips
As Apple has been starved for new, fast processors for oh...about a decade now, I'm sceptical.
Apple failed to forecast demand properly.
How so.
Not to mention Jobs trying to score the rest of the chips in the production run at fire sale prices
Right, because Michael Dell never wants a price break from Intel. And considering that the 970 has been stagnant, why should Apple not get a reduction when the chips have barely changed over 3 years?
The big "I" has already pissed off their biggest customer (Dell) by letting Apple announce Core Duo notebooks first.
Considering how Dell likes to flirt with AMD every time they want a discount from Intel, they shouldn't whine too much.
What nobody deserves are 32-bit Core Duo Apples in a 64-bit world!
Uh huh. And just how many laptops and consumer machines right now are capable of supporting 4 gigs of memory, much less more?
the fact that a majority of people are actually using the incorrect definition should not make it correct.
Of course it does. Languages and definitions evolve. Good thing too, or we'd still be grunting to eachother in caves.
I applaud the grandparent and all other pedantic pricks that which try to preserve the English language.
Considering that English is merely a messy combination of other languages in the first place, your stance is very funny, in a sad, sad way.
They'd have to take a relatively successful server chip, staple on AltiVec, figure out how to overcommit and lose money, and then get raked over the coals by Steve Jobs. I doubt they're looking to repeat that charade.
If they couldn't do it, they shouldn't have promised Apple the chips. Any "charade" was IBM's fault, not Apple's.
So we shouldn't talk about it until it's a viable product, but how does it become a viable product without any sort of discussion or planning? Good thing our ancestors had a different mindset, or we'd still be living in caves.
In the Jones deposition, he responded to the definition of sexual relations
Not quite, Sparky, you are only telling half the story. Clinton complained, rightfully so, that the prosecution's definition of "sexual relations" was overly broad. Then the judge agreed, and said sexual relations==sexual intercourse. Since blow jobs are not intercourse, Clinton did not lie. End of story. As far as your "sexual harrassment law" angle goes, the judge ruled that even if Clinton was lying, it wasn't sexual harrassment anyway.
Democrats, or courts nominated by Democrats, did most of the things mentioned in my previous post.
If by "Democrats" you mean "GOP", then you are right.
Turkey won't allow an independent Kurdistan because they worry about separatists Kurds in their nation breaking away.
So they say, but I don't see what they could do about it and still want to join the EU.
You most certainly are. The current problems in the middle east stem from the screw ups of the British "empire" and their failure to clean up after themselves.
You are more wrong than the PP. British shenanigans certainally set the stage, but it was the creation of Israel and America's blank check support for the Israelies that is the #1 source of tension.
So a libpng buffer overflow, allowing a png image rendered in mozilla to execute code can't be harmfull? Sorry pal, but this is not a problem with the OS, but the applications and libraries.
Wouldn't Mozilla be considered an executable? Thus reinforcing the parent's point and making you look like a boob for jumping on him?
By whom? Who lied? Was it Bush? Cheney? The CIA? Clinton? Kerry? Daschle? Gore? Any of them lie about it? Was it the British, French, Russian, Israeli intelligence agencies? Were they all lying? How about the Iraqis themselves, were they lying? Those with an anti-Bush agenda seem to forget that from the late 90's up until the war literally every single one of those I mentioned were in 100% agreement over Iraq's pursuit, aquisition and stockpiling of chemical, biological and nuclear materials with the ulitmate goal of manufacturing WMD's.
As someone else pointed out, you help spread the lie. Yes, everyone thought that Saddam had some hidden stockpiles of WMD's, but that's not the point. Bush argued that Saddam was engaged in a massive program to produce new WMD's and that he was such a threat that he had to be taken out immediatly. And in both these points Bush was pretty much alone.
Draw blasphemous cartoons of Muhammad, and you get a number of Muslim countries boycotting your entire country, and widespread rioting. Say pretty much anything you want to about Christians (haha, homophobic, superstitious, clinically retarded crusaders) and... nothing happens. On occasion you might have a Christian complain about you, but nobody cares about them.
This is of course all nonsense. Some of the drawings in question showed Allah to be a bomb toting terrorist. Imagine for a second, the right wing reaction to a similar depiction, of oh we'll say Jesus, by the New York Times. And you want to talk about irrational reactions to other countries? Remember "freedom fries" and "freedom dressing"? And it's not as if Christian groups haven't conducted boycotts here in the U.S. for far less offensive reasons. Remember the Southern Baptists boycotted Disney for years, and Fox News was airing lists of retailers who dared advertize "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas".
So this "nobody cares about Christians" hogwash is nothing more than a part of the sad persecution complex that grips some in the U.S. I'd like to get some of these people together and introduce them to a couple of guys I know from Sudan, where Christians and others are slaughtered by the thousands, so they can explain how "opressed" they are when they walk into Wal-Mart and see a "Happy Holidays" sign. I'm sure they'll be very impressed.
Well, they sure can't do it without the help of a) labs or b) heterosexual surrogates.
Adoption. When these arguments are used against homosexual but not heterosexual couples in similar situations (infertility), they are just rationalized homophobia.
I already have no problem with gay "marriage," but it did start off as a religious concept
Not really. Throughout history, marriage was as much a business transaction between two families as it was a religious institution, which just goes to show how full of crap the right wing is on the subject. That, and the fact that they are supposedly doing this to "protect the sacred institution of marriage" while their amendments do nothing to try and reduce the divorce rate. Which, incidentally, is highest in the reddest of states and lowest in the bluest states.
The main reason for their applause, is that they want SS reform to be passed when they are in the limelight.
You're assuming they want to pass reform. They don't. And that the system needs reforming. It doesn't.
Damn democrats are fucking the future retirement of us all, just for a little fame and glory. It's bull, to me.
No, the "bull" is that the shortfall would nearly or completely dissapear if Bush's tax cuts were merely recinded.
No, I'm fully convinced that a large percentage of the "leaks" from Apple are intentional marketing tactics to pique people's interest. They happen way too frequently and are way too easily prevented for them to all be accidents.
Except that the rumors frequently exceed the finished product, which is not something Apple wants. Look at the rumors that were floating around before the iPod Mini came out, for example.
You're joking, right? The conservative versus liberal meaning desire for change is a useless dictionary definition.
If by "useless" you mean "spot on", then yes. Generally, fiscal conservatives want to roll back taxes and regulation while religious conservatives want to roll back restrictions on the separation of church and state.
For example, all the liberals here in California are resisting any and all reform (change) despite that fact that business as usual is going to destroy this state's economy and drive everyone with even a modicom of productivity away.
Ahnold? Is that you?
And go look at who really makes up the bulk of voters for liberals- people too broken or stupid to even live their lives without constant nannying and handouts from the State.
Right, that would explain why the bluest state pay the most in taxes and the reddest states use the most in taxes. And why blue states have the best divorce rates and red states the worst. The funny part is, after all the GOP babbling about banning gay marriage to "protect the institution of marriage", the state with the best divorce rate is Massachusetts, the first to legalize gay marriage.
Oh, and don't forget the electoral IQ map from 2004.
It depends if the sequel is written because the makers have a story they want to tell (in addition to making money) or if they want to wring some more bucks out of a popular story. Two good Disney examples: the movie Aladdin and it's two sequels. Return of Jafar was an out and out crapfest. Aladdin and the King of Thieves had an actuall plot, a bunch of back story and better voice acting.