Too bad the facts don't meet your storyline. Macs have consistently been at the top in terms of owner satisfaction and (with the exception of iBook logic boards) at the top in terms of quality and the number of repairs.
They constantly stick up for and make excuses for any problems that Apple or its products might genuinely have.
Case in point of anti-Apple fanboys having their own RDF field.
Your points consist of bitching about the mouse...and whining about the mouse. Newsflash: they built the GUI so you don't need a two button mouse, but gave you right click functions anyway with the control key or a third party mouse. Stop drinking the Hatorade.
Oh, but they do. Those under the sway of the old "Reality Distortion Field" Steve Jobs is famous for having, think Apple can do no wrong, and that they are all flowers and sunshine.
What do the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, and delusional Apple Fanboy's have in common? Creatures that are talked about, but ever actually seen.
Got anything that isn't 30 years old? And is relevant to the point - that Jobs is generally opposed to crap products, whereas when Microsoft releases something good, it's almost by accident?
...the GPL gives you more rights than what's normally allowed by copyright law. Which means that if the GPL is invalid, you have to ask each and every person who submitted code for their permission to redistribute said code. And the GPL is straight and up front, as opposed to EULA's, which you only see once you've paid for the software and opened the box...at which point most stores wont accept it back as a return.
They, by their own public admission, modified a copyright-protected work, then redistributed these modifications without a license to do so. And they did it for commercial purposes, no less.
IANAL either...but if they are buying a copy of OS X to go with each machine, does Apple have grounds to sue? Say I want to sell alterations to a print from some recent painting. If I'm making copies, my ass is definitely grass. But if I bought prints at a store, made my alterations and resold them, I don't see how this would be against the law. OTH, didn't that Mormon group that edited sex and swearing out of DVD's lose a case just like this?
I brought up domestic violence because there is an attitude that DV is something men do to women, which is simply not the case. The fact of the matter is that men suffer more from violence overall then women, yet women get the laws, the sympathy, the outreach and support. When was the last time you saw a billboard with a picture of a beaten man, encouraging him to get help from his violent girlfriend. When was the last time you saw months of coverage of a male high school student who went missing in Aruba. Where is the made-for-TV-movie about Phil Hartman, who was murdered by his wife. Where was the outrage when Ann Richards, former governor of Texas, cracked the following joke about a man run over by his wife three times, with his daughter in the front seat: "Down in Texas, the gas prices have gotten so bad, wives have to form carpools to run over their husbands." Imagine the response if, say, Mike Huckabee made a similar crack about Laci Peterson.
First wavers were the ones who originally advocated for women to be able to vote.
But notice they didn't advocate for women to be able to be drafted. Highly selective equality, as opposed to equal equality, has always been a trademark of feminism.
If universities are forced to ensure that the gender of athletes is proportional to the rates of enrollment, regardless of actual interest, then I don't see why they shouldn't have Men's Studies programs to mirror Women's Studies, regardless of actual interest.
This is because feminism was never actually about equality, but improving the social status of women. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself - I don't see why the NAACP should take it upon itself to stick up for Latinos, for example. Whereas the goal of feminism is gender equality, but is really only about improving things for women.
Take the suffragist movement, for example. It was started at a convention in 1848, finally succeeding on a national scale with the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920. Know what else happened in that time? The Civil War and World War I. Note that suffragists didn't demand the right to be drafted with the right to vote. Ditto that for WWII, the Korean War, and Vietnam. Hmm.
Today, breast cancer research receives far more money than prostate cancer research, even though prostate cancer kills about as many men as breast cancer kills women. Many states have an Office of Women's Health, but only New Hampshire has an Office of Men's Health - and it had to start without any funding.
Men are far and away the #1 victim of assaults and murders and make up at least 40% of domestic violence victims, yet Congress passes a Violence Against Women Act.
But back to school - yes, the vast majority of PhD's are men - but men also round out the bottom of the scale with the most mental disabilities. And if these people were really concerned about equity, they'd be doing something about the 60/40 female/male disparity in overall enrollment.
Which isn't to say that women haven't gotten a raw deal, the point is that men have too. Feminism needs to go away, and be replaced with straight up egalitarianism.
Are you really that surprised? Do you think he would have gotten as far as he did if he wasn't the type to play ball in the end?
Sure, but we were expecting a cave on health care or the capital gains tax, not a cave on the 4th Amendment that makes no damned sense. The Republicans will still demonize him as being weak on national security, only now they can also call him a flip flopper while they're doing it.
No, he's not. He's held elected office for 12 years now, far more than Bush in 2000. He taught Constitutional Law for ten years, which you would think would be an ideal qualification. As and as far as comparing him to McCain goes, it doesn't matter how much experience you have if your judgment is piss poor. In 2002, McCain, Rumsfeld and Cheney were some of the most experienced men in Washington, and they got everything wrong on Iraq.
but his plans for spending will bankrupt us quickly
Faster than making Bush's tax cuts permanent, faster than cutting corporate tax rates even further, faster than continuing to spend $200+ million in Iraq every single day?
AND he will appoint Justices who pay more attention to International law than to the letter and intent of the Constitution
If we've signed treaties on said International Law, then it's also American Law.
That's the process, not haveing a bunch of lawyers in black robes twist it around.
Tell it to Conservative Activist Judges like Scalia then.
Hey, both HRC and Obama voted "yes" on the Dodd Amendment -- the critical piece which would have bagged retroactive immunity entirely.
Except of course that the Dodd amendment was used as a sham by Harry Reid, who did his usual bullshit of requiring 60 votes for anything the Republicans don't like but legislation that Republicans want only requires 50 votes. So the Dodd amendment required 60 votes, and was merely a tool for tools like Obama to make a show of opposing immunity but then voting for the FISA bill with immunity in it. Sort of like the Democrats who voted for cloture on the Alito nomination and then voted against his confirmation.
And yes, Obama voted for cloture on the issue of immunity. And then he voted to send the bill to Bush with immunity in it. Hillary voted against cloture and against immunity, but that's because she's out of the race for the nomination. Her entire national security record has been to vote with the right wing (see: Kyl-Lieberman), and there isn't a doubt in my mind that she would have sold out were she the nominee.
Yes the new FISA is an abomination, but he could have done nothing to prevent its passage and, had he tried, would have been promptly sandbagged by the fear-mongers on the right.
They'll do that anyway, only now they can also call him a flip flopper at the same time. Democrats like Tom Dashle bent over backwards to accommodate every right wing demand "to take the issue off the table", yet were driven from office anyway. Obama seems to have slept through the 2006 elections, where Democrats regained Congress by finally opposing the Iraq war, and has gone back to the losing playbook from 2002.
No way, I'd argue. Look, 2/3 of America thinks he's still "exotic", a stranger, "not one of us". He just has to increase peoples' comfort level with him first, and since most of the population still think that FISA is essential to thwarting terrorists, fighting this (losing) FISA battle right now just works against the perception problem
You're rationalizing. There isn't a single voter constituency that's been pushing for immunity. Not one. There is, however, a great deal of disgust directed at Congress for not standing up to the Bush administration. Obama could have easily made the argument he should have made, that 'those that trade liberty for security lose both.' He could have also pointed out the work he's done to secure loose nukes in the former U.S.S.R. But nope, he decided to do some pointless triangulating that his only going to backfire on him, by costing him support and opening himself up to (true) charges of flip flopping.
Keep November in mind, please!
Keep the Constitution in mind, please. We've had great violations before, like Lincoln's suspending of habeas corpus; we were in a time of rebellion but suspending the writ is up to Congress, not the Executive. Or Executive Order 9066, in which Roosevelt sent Japanese Americans to internment camps. But other than Jim Crow, I can't think of a single example of a gross violation of basic Constitutional rights going on for so long or to be so accepted.
What's important is that BO -- not McCain -- be elected in the fall.
We've lasted over 200 years because we decided to be a nation ruled by law rather than a nation ruled by men. Now that iron clad parts of the Constitution have become optional guidelines, my faith in our ability to endure another 200 years has diminished significantly. Before the 2006 elections, the right wing was speaking openly of imprisoning journalists that published evidence of government lawbreaking, like the original NY Times story breaking the news of the warrantless wiretapping. If government officials are free to spy without warrants and torture people without any consequences, what will happen if we are attacked again?
And McCain winning wouldn't be such a bad thing, so long as Obama l
They want to dismantle most of the federal government in name of rights and freedom, yet have no problem with people getting fucked over by businesses and state governments.
The Constitution isn't a liberal issue, it's an American issue. And there isn't a single voter constituency that has been clamoring for telecom immunity. Not one. The only people demanding it are neocons and idiot pundits, and Obama just made it clear that appealing to those people is more important than the people who made him the nominee in the primary or those who would vote for him in the general.
May I direct your attention to a few recent conflicts of "little guys" versus modern militaries:
Americans in Vietnam Russians in Afghanistan Americans in Iraq
And those are countries where the military was not composed of the friends and relatives of the people it was fighting against.
Chile. Argentina. Tiananmen Square. Mussolini's Italy. Nazi Germany. Soviet Russia. Saddam Hussien in Iraq. Dozens of regimes in Africa.
The record of armed domestic resistance to domestic totalitarianism is actually pretty damned poor. You guys need to watch a little less Red Dawn and a little more Enemy of the State.
Ok, but gun crime IS lower per capita in nations with HIGHER per capita gun ownership then ours.
Correlation does not equal causation. Of course more guns in a country with an already low crime rate is going to have a different effect than more guns in a country with a higher crime rate.
I would very much like to walk down the street or through the mall with a tiger stone on my hip in plain site.
There, fixed that for you. A mugger isn't going to announce in advance that he's going to mug you, he's going to do it as a surprise. Going for a gun, concealed or not, is thus a good way to get shot yourself.
Besides, look at all the mistakes police make with firearms, and they have a great deal more training and experience than civilians will. Take the Virginia Tech shootings for example - gun nuts were saying it could have been prevented if students were allowed to carry weapons on campus. Say word got out that there was an Asian looking kid with a backpack shooting people. How many asian looking kids with backpacks are you going to find at a school of 25,000+ students?
I'm against gun control as they are the best tool for the final option (Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo, the 4 boxes of civilian control of a government).
When has that ever worked though? It didn't work for Gordon Kahl, the Branch Dividians, Randy Weaver or the Black Panthers. Using guns on feds just brings more feds with bigger guns.
Yes, he's vicious, but he's also usually an idiot. Like citing 30 former prisoners that had supposedly taken up arms against the U.S. in the habeas corpus decision. It was a baseless talking point. Or when he said that Bush v Gore was ancient history and people should get over it, yet that doesn't apply to the much older Roe v Wade.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you hear about all of the games that run on OS X? You haven't? Well, neither have I!
That argument disappeared with the release of Boot Camp for Intel Macs.
You won't win an argument by disproving a single point.
If the argument consists of single points, sure you can.
Too bad the facts don't meet your storyline. Macs have consistently been at the top in terms of owner satisfaction and (with the exception of iBook logic boards) at the top in terms of quality and the number of repairs.
They constantly stick up for and make excuses for any problems that Apple or its products might genuinely have.
Case in point of anti-Apple fanboys having their own RDF field.
Your points consist of bitching about the mouse...and whining about the mouse. Newsflash: they built the GUI so you don't need a two button mouse, but gave you right click functions anyway with the control key or a third party mouse. Stop drinking the Hatorade.
Oh, but they do. Those under the sway of the old "Reality Distortion Field" Steve Jobs is famous for having, think Apple can do no wrong, and that they are all flowers and sunshine.
What do the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, and delusional Apple Fanboy's have in common? Creatures that are talked about, but ever actually seen.
Got anything that isn't 30 years old? And is relevant to the point - that Jobs is generally opposed to crap products, whereas when Microsoft releases something good, it's almost by accident?
...the GPL gives you more rights than what's normally allowed by copyright law. Which means that if the GPL is invalid, you have to ask each and every person who submitted code for their permission to redistribute said code. And the GPL is straight and up front, as opposed to EULA's, which you only see once you've paid for the software and opened the box...at which point most stores wont accept it back as a return.
They knew they were intentionally violating the EULA.
Except of course, EULA's are unenforceable pieces of toilet paper.
They, by their own public admission, modified a copyright-protected work, then redistributed these modifications without a license to do so. And they did it for commercial purposes, no less.
IANAL either...but if they are buying a copy of OS X to go with each machine, does Apple have grounds to sue? Say I want to sell alterations to a print from some recent painting. If I'm making copies, my ass is definitely grass. But if I bought prints at a store, made my alterations and resold them, I don't see how this would be against the law. OTH, didn't that Mormon group that edited sex and swearing out of DVD's lose a case just like this?
I brought up domestic violence because there is an attitude that DV is something men do to women, which is simply not the case. The fact of the matter is that men suffer more from violence overall then women, yet women get the laws, the sympathy, the outreach and support. When was the last time you saw a billboard with a picture of a beaten man, encouraging him to get help from his violent girlfriend. When was the last time you saw months of coverage of a male high school student who went missing in Aruba. Where is the made-for-TV-movie about Phil Hartman, who was murdered by his wife. Where was the outrage when Ann Richards, former governor of Texas, cracked the following joke about a man run over by his wife three times, with his daughter in the front seat: "Down in Texas, the gas prices have gotten so bad, wives have to form carpools to run over their husbands." Imagine the response if, say, Mike Huckabee made a similar crack about Laci Peterson.
First wavers were the ones who originally advocated for women to be able to vote.
But notice they didn't advocate for women to be able to be drafted. Highly selective equality, as opposed to equal equality, has always been a trademark of feminism.
If universities are forced to ensure that the gender of athletes is proportional to the rates of enrollment, regardless of actual interest, then I don't see why they shouldn't have Men's Studies programs to mirror Women's Studies, regardless of actual interest.
This is because feminism was never actually about equality, but improving the social status of women. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself - I don't see why the NAACP should take it upon itself to stick up for Latinos, for example. Whereas the goal of feminism is gender equality, but is really only about improving things for women.
Take the suffragist movement, for example. It was started at a convention in 1848, finally succeeding on a national scale with the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920. Know what else happened in that time? The Civil War and World War I. Note that suffragists didn't demand the right to be drafted with the right to vote. Ditto that for WWII, the Korean War, and Vietnam. Hmm.
Today, breast cancer research receives far more money than prostate cancer research, even though prostate cancer kills about as many men as breast cancer kills women. Many states have an Office of Women's Health, but only New Hampshire has an Office of Men's Health - and it had to start without any funding.
Men are far and away the #1 victim of assaults and murders and make up at least 40% of domestic violence victims, yet Congress passes a Violence Against Women Act.
But back to school - yes, the vast majority of PhD's are men - but men also round out the bottom of the scale with the most mental disabilities. And if these people were really concerned about equity, they'd be doing something about the 60/40 female/male disparity in overall enrollment.
Which isn't to say that women haven't gotten a raw deal, the point is that men have too. Feminism needs to go away, and be replaced with straight up egalitarianism.
Take your pick.
Before I pick, I want options that aren't simplistic nonsense.
Are you really that surprised? Do you think he would have gotten as far as he did if he wasn't the type to play ball in the end?
Sure, but we were expecting a cave on health care or the capital gains tax, not a cave on the 4th Amendment that makes no damned sense. The Republicans will still demonize him as being weak on national security, only now they can also call him a flip flopper while they're doing it.
Yes, there are a lot of stupid people in this country.
Not only is Obama woefully inexperienced
No, he's not. He's held elected office for 12 years now, far more than Bush in 2000. He taught Constitutional Law for ten years, which you would think would be an ideal qualification. As and as far as comparing him to McCain goes, it doesn't matter how much experience you have if your judgment is piss poor. In 2002, McCain, Rumsfeld and Cheney were some of the most experienced men in Washington, and they got everything wrong on Iraq.
but his plans for spending will bankrupt us quickly
Faster than making Bush's tax cuts permanent, faster than cutting corporate tax rates even further, faster than continuing to spend $200+ million in Iraq every single day?
AND he will appoint Justices who pay more attention to International law than to the letter and intent of the Constitution
If we've signed treaties on said International Law, then it's also American Law.
That's the process, not haveing a bunch of lawyers in black robes twist it around.
Tell it to Conservative Activist Judges like Scalia then.
Hey, both HRC and Obama voted "yes" on the Dodd Amendment -- the critical piece which would have bagged retroactive immunity entirely.
Except of course that the Dodd amendment was used as a sham by Harry Reid, who did his usual bullshit of requiring 60 votes for anything the Republicans don't like but legislation that Republicans want only requires 50 votes. So the Dodd amendment required 60 votes, and was merely a tool for tools like Obama to make a show of opposing immunity but then voting for the FISA bill with immunity in it. Sort of like the Democrats who voted for cloture on the Alito nomination and then voted against his confirmation.
And yes, Obama voted for cloture on the issue of immunity. And then he voted to send the bill to Bush with immunity in it. Hillary voted against cloture and against immunity, but that's because she's out of the race for the nomination. Her entire national security record has been to vote with the right wing (see: Kyl-Lieberman), and there isn't a doubt in my mind that she would have sold out were she the nominee.
Yes the new FISA is an abomination, but he could have done nothing to prevent its passage and, had he tried, would have been promptly sandbagged by the fear-mongers on the right.
They'll do that anyway, only now they can also call him a flip flopper at the same time. Democrats like Tom Dashle bent over backwards to accommodate every right wing demand "to take the issue off the table", yet were driven from office anyway. Obama seems to have slept through the 2006 elections, where Democrats regained Congress by finally opposing the Iraq war, and has gone back to the losing playbook from 2002.
No way, I'd argue. Look, 2/3 of America thinks he's still "exotic", a stranger, "not one of us". He just has to increase peoples' comfort level with him first, and since most of the population still think that FISA is essential to thwarting terrorists, fighting this (losing) FISA battle right now just works against the perception problem
You're rationalizing. There isn't a single voter constituency that's been pushing for immunity. Not one. There is, however, a great deal of disgust directed at Congress for not standing up to the Bush administration. Obama could have easily made the argument he should have made, that 'those that trade liberty for security lose both.' He could have also pointed out the work he's done to secure loose nukes in the former U.S.S.R. But nope, he decided to do some pointless triangulating that his only going to backfire on him, by costing him support and opening himself up to (true) charges of flip flopping.
Keep November in mind, please!
Keep the Constitution in mind, please. We've had great violations before, like Lincoln's suspending of habeas corpus; we were in a time of rebellion but suspending the writ is up to Congress, not the Executive. Or Executive Order 9066, in which Roosevelt sent Japanese Americans to internment camps. But other than Jim Crow, I can't think of a single example of a gross violation of basic Constitutional rights going on for so long or to be so accepted.
What's important is that BO -- not McCain -- be elected in the fall.
We've lasted over 200 years because we decided to be a nation ruled by law rather than a nation ruled by men. Now that iron clad parts of the Constitution have become optional guidelines, my faith in our ability to endure another 200 years has diminished significantly. Before the 2006 elections, the right wing was speaking openly of imprisoning journalists that published evidence of government lawbreaking, like the original NY Times story breaking the news of the warrantless wiretapping. If government officials are free to spy without warrants and torture people without any consequences, what will happen if we are attacked again?
And McCain winning wouldn't be such a bad thing, so long as Obama l
They want to dismantle most of the federal government in name of rights and freedom, yet have no problem with people getting fucked over by businesses and state governments.
The Constitution isn't a liberal issue, it's an American issue. And there isn't a single voter constituency that has been clamoring for telecom immunity. Not one. The only people demanding it are neocons and idiot pundits, and Obama just made it clear that appealing to those people is more important than the people who made him the nominee in the primary or those who would vote for him in the general.
Too bad the facts directly contradict your storyline.
Got anything newer than 230 years old? Note that it didn't work for the Confederates, and they had an actual frikkin army and some great generals.
May I direct your attention to a few recent conflicts of "little guys" versus modern militaries:
Americans in Vietnam
Russians in Afghanistan
Americans in Iraq
And those are countries where the military was not composed of the friends and relatives of the people it was fighting against.
Chile.
Argentina.
Tiananmen Square.
Mussolini's Italy.
Nazi Germany.
Soviet Russia.
Saddam Hussien in Iraq.
Dozens of regimes in Africa.
The record of armed domestic resistance to domestic totalitarianism is actually pretty damned poor. You guys need to watch a little less Red Dawn and a little more Enemy of the State.
Ok, but gun crime IS lower per capita in nations with HIGHER per capita gun ownership then ours.
Correlation does not equal causation. Of course more guns in a country with an already low crime rate is going to have a different effect than more guns in a country with a higher crime rate.
I would very much like to walk down the street or through the mall with a tiger stone on my hip in plain site.
There, fixed that for you. A mugger isn't going to announce in advance that he's going to mug you, he's going to do it as a surprise. Going for a gun, concealed or not, is thus a good way to get shot yourself.
Besides, look at all the mistakes police make with firearms, and they have a great deal more training and experience than civilians will. Take the Virginia Tech shootings for example - gun nuts were saying it could have been prevented if students were allowed to carry weapons on campus. Say word got out that there was an Asian looking kid with a backpack shooting people. How many asian looking kids with backpacks are you going to find at a school of 25,000+ students?
"Everybody by default" and "well regulated" are contradictions in terms.
I'm against gun control as they are the best tool for the final option (Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo, the 4 boxes of civilian control of a government).
When has that ever worked though? It didn't work for Gordon Kahl, the Branch Dividians, Randy Weaver or the Black Panthers. Using guns on feds just brings more feds with bigger guns.
Yes, he's vicious, but he's also usually an idiot. Like citing 30 former prisoners that had supposedly taken up arms against the U.S. in the habeas corpus decision. It was a baseless talking point. Or when he said that Bush v Gore was ancient history and people should get over it, yet that doesn't apply to the much older Roe v Wade.