Libertarian style government was what the US had for nearly the first 100 years.
Its what we had with the Articles Of Confederation? It sucked beyond all belief, and was scrapped. Why do we have regulation and big government agencies? Because the alternative is worse...get rid of them and we turn back the clock to the Gilded Age, with child labor, Standard Oil, and The Jungle.
The problem with libertarianism is that it would make things far WORSE rather than making anything better.
What, NPR isn't enough of a LEFTwing propoganda machine for you?
Um, its not. Go find me a single media source LESS biased than NPR. I wont hold my breath while I wait.
and most of them were only able to say "he's not Bush"
True, and Kerry needs a good bitchslapping for that. The man had no platform whatsoever, just a lot of talking points. He should have come up with a list of 5 reasons to vote for him and 5 reasons not to vote for Bush, and hammered at them.
All three major network anchors (Brokaw, Jennings and Rather) show strong liberal bias.
Translation: if its not Rush, its liberal.
If that quote isn't glib and inaccurate (and Left), then I don't know what is.
What a surprise, you're completely wrong. One big reason why the poor vote for tax breaks that favor the rich is because they want to be rich themselves. And when that happens, they don't want to be taxed.
I don't wish to cite too many examples, but your argument about a Right Wing cabal controlling American media falls flat.
Its not so much that the GOP controls the media as that they are 30 years ahead of dealing with it than the Democrats are. They have an echo chamber to get the mainstream press to start parroting their stories, and they spend hundereds of millions on think tanks so they can field "experts" on any given subject to talk shows or reporters on a moments notice. The GOP had great success with this in 1994, so why the Democratic party leaders left it all up to George Soros in 2004 is beyond me.
Most of your points about the benefits of unionism and nationalized health-care should be tempered with their drawbacks
Okay, so all unions and government subsidized health care are bad because there have been some problems with them? Okay, lets take your logic and extend it. Because company's like Enron break the law and rip off their employees, investors and customers, we should get rid of businesses. All of them.
Huh? When Bush can't even invade the right country? When Bush is responsible for putting more weapons into the hands of terrorists than Saddam ever did by not guarding 377 tons of explosives in Iraq? When Bush sat around on his ass for over 7 minutes when he knew the country was under attack?
And don't forget Travelgate, The FBI files on the departing Republican administration, the $100,000 in 6 weeks sweetheart deal on cattle futures...all of which were investigated innumerable times at the cost of millions of dollars by various independant prosecutors and Congress. What did these investigations prove? Jack shit. So they decided to entrap Bill by asking him irrelevant questions about his private life until he lied, then charged him with perjury.
and the looting of Whitehouse china on her departure.
Myth.
Okay, now I'll give you a real reason to hate her guts. She made a comment (couldn't find a link) that women suffer the most in war because they have to take care of wounded men and lost husbands, etc. Wow, and us guys are so lucky just to be sent off to die!!! Bitch.
That's because there are a whole fuckton of people out there who don't know, don't care, and refuse to learn even the most basic thing about computers (like copying files or not clicking on random attachments). The revel in their ignorance.
Yes, there a great deal of those people around. One of the reasons why Bush is apprantly about to win re-election.
There is no license involved with purchasing a physical cd. They fall under the First Sale doctrine, which basically means that once you buy a book or a cd, you can do anything you want to it: destroy it, use it as a frisbee, sell it for a billion dollars. The only thing you can't do is make copies and distribute them.
Yes, and the iPod is mirrored to your iTunes, so it is the best backup possible. There is no reason you should have to make a 3d copy somewhere else. Apple should let you recover your songs from your iPod for backup purposes.
Pfft. Recovering a lost collection from an iPod is as simple as opening the iPod as a mass storage device and dragging the iPod control folder to iTunes. You just need to display hidden folders and possibly make sure that iTunes is set to copy imported files into your music folder, and you're set. If this is too much work for you, what business do you have owning a computer in the first place?
If we're talking just your computer here, the songs in question have to already be in iTunes for it to transfer them to your iPod, so you're complaining about nothing. If we're talking about "borrowing" music from your friends, if you are so lazy that you can't use Explorer or the Finder to copy the files over to the iPod while using it as a mass storage device before bringing it home, and then bitch as if it were Apple's fault, you don't deserve to own a computer.
You say that as if the song went straight from the iTMS to your iPod and was never stored on your computer. As that's not the case, and nothing prevents you from burning the file to a cd or copying it to another computer, I don't see what your point is.
(gawd damn the filter is a PITA. just wanted a fuckin ? mark but noooooo)
And here you reinforce my suspicion that you have no clue about how to raise children
And you just proved my suspicion that you are a dick.
At night, a mother will wake at the slightest cry from a newborn. Fathers usually sleep the night through.
Maybe because the typical father works 10 hours more per week than the average woman, and is 19 times more likely to be killed or injured on the job? If I were busting my ass to support my family, I'd want a good nights sleep, too.
So what does that prove?
It proves that you totally missed the point. Its stupid to say to say that gay couples might not be as good as a heterosexual couple, while heterosexual couples have been screwing up in VERY large numbers as long as the human race has existed. Hello? Over 50% of marriages end in divorce. Don't compare a theoretical gay family to an ideal hetro marriage as if it were the norm.
I don't have that much faith in Apple's ability to compete.
With respect to music players....huh?
Introduced a superior product? check Well marketed? check Brand awareness? check Product seen as status symbol? bonus
And the very fact that Apple has survived and thrived in the cutthroat computer industry speaks well for them. Just because they don't get in the race to see who can throw out the cheapest box of spare parts doesn't mean they aren't compeditive. Apple is one of the top 5 computer manufacturers in the world. They're bigger than McDonalds.
So how does my potential sales compare between the two platforms? Apple cannot afford to put ANY roadblocks in the path of potential developers. As you may have noticed, most developers don't even bother with Apple.
So, in other words, you were 100% WRONG so you decided to change the subject by comming up some completely irrelvant statements. But that's okay, I'll just throw it back in your face: wtf would you want to develop for Windows, because if you are successful Microsoft will just copy all of your ideas and put you out of business?
Considering the bigger problem of voter disenfranchisement in the last few elections, I would rather have anal retentive secretary of states enforcing the laws equally. In Ohio the GOP has registered some 3,600 people to challenge people that they think don't have the right to vote. Just how many of those 3,600 do you think are going to be hasseling voters in conservative districts? How many do you think will be stationed in democratic districts?
Or you could have shenanigans like the new felon list in Florida. Thousands of blacks (democratic voters) were listed as felons and placed on the no vote list, compared to a few hundered hispanics (gop voters). Now they claim this was all a big mistake and scrapped the list - but the press found the error in a matter of hours after they sued to get access to it. Either the GOP election officials were deliberatly skewing the list, or they are guilty of gross (and *very* selective) incompetence.
Microsoft has more money and more developers than God. That Apple can outpace them on OS development is pathetic.
Microsoft is a features** company, so they'd have all the more reason to update more often.
Microsoft makes money on only two groups of products: Office and Windows. More versions of Windows means more profits.
Hardware problems? For software that doesn't depend on hardware? I'm SO sure they had to test Instant Messenger to make sure it ran on Dells and Gateways. Also, can you even buy an OEM PC that doesn't have a "designed for Windows XP" sticker on it? The PC universe revolves around Intel and Microsoft. Its why its called Wintel.
**Features Microsoft is just like a home appliance company: rather than trying to make the best product, they just keep adding new features to it to differntiate it from the last years model. Its adding features for the sake of adding features, which is why we have the god awful XP start menu, one reason why they are so many Windows vunerabilities out there (Outlook and Active X. 'Nuf said).
This is what seperates Apple from Microsoft. Apple likes adding new features, but they actually take the time to see if they are useful, as opposed to Microsoft who throws them in so they have more billets on a list of reasons to upgrade. Perfect example: personalized menus. Worst. Gui. Idea. Ever.
Not insightful, -5 Ignorant Boob. Apple's developer tools and most if not all SDK's are a free download. The $$ memberships get you big discounts on hardware and tools and OS updates mailed to you. Then try comparing the price of Apple's professional memberships and software to Microsofts, and then get back to us.
Single Vendor media Lock-in is not a good thing at all, it's a TERRIBLE thing, for both the record companies and the consumers.
Which would be true if the iTMS were the only online store, but its not. And somehow I doubt Microsoft would tell the industry off if the labels wanted to set tracks to whatever price they wanted.
A guy who decides what stories to cover, how to cover them, and what to say: Sounds like a journalist to me.
Miss the point much, or did you just skip over the part about owners telling the managers what to do?
And with the exception of Fox and maybe Clear Channel, none of them seem to care what their news organizations do, as long as they aren't a threat to their primary corporate interest: Making Money.
And by buddying up to Republicans, they stand to make more money if the GOP retains control so they can get more deregulation. And somebody had a nice list, which I unfortunatly couldn't Google in a couple of minutes, of stories that GE told NBC to run/not to run. Most of them weren't directly political, but definetly showed meddling by the owners - like a story going on for 10 minutes about how great this new medical device is but neglecting to mention that said device was made by GE.
All I'm trying to do is square the circle between the conservatives who have reasonable examples of liberal bias and the liberals who have reasonable examples of corporate bias.
Sure you can find examples of both, but there never was a "biased liberal media", that was just a GOP urban legend.
Part of the problem is that the GOP has a 30 year head start on organized relations with the media. The RNC can send out "experts" on the drop of a hat to talk about any subject, from any one of a dozen different think tanks. The Democratic party's PR network is pitiful in comparison, and as a Democrat I think the party leaders need a serious kick in the ass to start catching up.
Since the journalists decide what to cover and what gets said, it biases most news to the liberal side.
Uh, no. The reporter on the camera might be liberal, but who tells him what stories to cover and how to cover them? Managers. Who tells the managers what to do? Owners. What political affiliation are most owners? Overwhelmingly conservative. This is why conservatives tidbit that 90% (or whatever) of all journalists are liberal is irrelevant, because the owners of Clear Channel, CNN, NBC, Fox and so on are all conservative. And reporters that go against owners and management get fired.
And that's even using the GOP formula for counting how "liberal" the media is: ignore everything that is conservative. So in calling the media liberal, they ignore talk radio. When they call the New York Times liberal, they only count Maureen Dowd and Bob Hebert on the editorial page and ignore the conservative David Brooks and the hawk William Safire.
Slashdot Mirror
Libertarian style government was what the US had for nearly the first 100 years.
Its what we had with the Articles Of Confederation? It sucked beyond all belief, and was scrapped. Why do we have regulation and big government agencies? Because the alternative is worse...get rid of them and we turn back the clock to the Gilded Age, with child labor, Standard Oil, and The Jungle.
The problem with libertarianism is that it would make things far WORSE rather than making anything better.
What, NPR isn't enough of a LEFTwing propoganda machine for you?
Um, its not. Go find me a single media source LESS biased than NPR. I wont hold my breath while I wait.
and most of them were only able to say "he's not Bush"
True, and Kerry needs a good bitchslapping for that. The man had no platform whatsoever, just a lot of talking points. He should have come up with a list of 5 reasons to vote for him and 5 reasons not to vote for Bush, and hammered at them.
Left-wing propaganda machine: ...is a myth. Any more gems of wisdom?
All three major network anchors (Brokaw, Jennings and Rather) show strong liberal bias.
Translation: if its not Rush, its liberal.
If that quote isn't glib and inaccurate (and Left), then I don't know what is.
What a surprise, you're completely wrong. One big reason why the poor vote for tax breaks that favor the rich is because they want to be rich themselves. And when that happens, they don't want to be taxed.
I don't wish to cite too many examples, but your argument about a Right Wing cabal controlling American media falls flat.
Its not so much that the GOP controls the media as that they are 30 years ahead of dealing with it than the Democrats are. They have an echo chamber to get the mainstream press to start parroting their stories, and they spend hundereds of millions on think tanks so they can field "experts" on any given subject to talk shows or reporters on a moments notice. The GOP had great success with this in 1994, so why the Democratic party leaders left it all up to George Soros in 2004 is beyond me.
Most of your points about the benefits of unionism and nationalized health-care should be tempered with their drawbacks
Okay, so all unions and government subsidized health care are bad because there have been some problems with them? Okay, lets take your logic and extend it. Because company's like Enron break the law and rip off their employees, investors and customers, we should get rid of businesses. All of them.
but because he's much less dangerous than Kerry
Huh? When Bush can't even invade the right country? When Bush is responsible for putting more weapons into the hands of terrorists than Saddam ever did by not guarding 377 tons of explosives in Iraq? When Bush sat around on his ass for over 7 minutes when he knew the country was under attack?
And don't forget Travelgate, The FBI files on the departing Republican administration, the $100,000 in 6 weeks sweetheart deal on cattle futures ...all of which were investigated innumerable times at the cost of millions of dollars by various independant prosecutors and Congress. What did these investigations prove? Jack shit. So they decided to entrap Bill by asking him irrelevant questions about his private life until he lied, then charged him with perjury.
and the looting of Whitehouse china on her departure.
Myth.
Okay, now I'll give you a real reason to hate her guts. She made a comment (couldn't find a link) that women suffer the most in war because they have to take care of wounded men and lost husbands, etc. Wow, and us guys are so lucky just to be sent off to die!!! Bitch.
That's because there are a whole fuckton of people out there who don't know, don't care, and refuse to learn even the most basic thing about computers (like copying files or not clicking on random attachments). The revel in their ignorance.
Yes, there a great deal of those people around. One of the reasons why Bush is apprantly about to win re-election.
There is no license involved with purchasing a physical cd. They fall under the First Sale doctrine, which basically means that once you buy a book or a cd, you can do anything you want to it: destroy it, use it as a frisbee, sell it for a billion dollars. The only thing you can't do is make copies and distribute them.
I'm suprised someone with that low a UID is that ignorant
As if his was low or something.
Yes, and the iPod is mirrored to your iTunes, so it is the best backup possible. There is no reason you should have to make a 3d copy somewhere else. Apple should let you recover your songs from your iPod for backup purposes.
Pfft. Recovering a lost collection from an iPod is as simple as opening the iPod as a mass storage device and dragging the iPod control folder to iTunes. You just need to display hidden folders and possibly make sure that iTunes is set to copy imported files into your music folder, and you're set. If this is too much work for you, what business do you have owning a computer in the first place?
If we're talking just your computer here, the songs in question have to already be in iTunes for it to transfer them to your iPod, so you're complaining about nothing. If we're talking about "borrowing" music from your friends, if you are so lazy that you can't use Explorer or the Finder to copy the files over to the iPod while using it as a mass storage device before bringing it home, and then bitch as if it were Apple's fault, you don't deserve to own a computer.
You say that as if the song went straight from the iTMS to your iPod and was never stored on your computer. As that's not the case, and nothing prevents you from burning the file to a cd or copying it to another computer, I don't see what your point is.
(gawd damn the filter is a PITA. just wanted a fuckin ? mark but noooooo)
And here you reinforce my suspicion that you have no clue about how to raise children
And you just proved my suspicion that you are a dick.
At night, a mother will wake at the slightest cry from a newborn. Fathers usually sleep the night through.
Maybe because the typical father works 10 hours more per week than the average woman, and is 19 times more likely to be killed or injured on the job? If I were busting my ass to support my family, I'd want a good nights sleep, too.
So what does that prove?
It proves that you totally missed the point. Its stupid to say to say that gay couples might not be as good as a heterosexual couple, while heterosexual couples have been screwing up in VERY large numbers as long as the human race has existed. Hello? Over 50% of marriages end in divorce. Don't compare a theoretical gay family to an ideal hetro marriage as if it were the norm.
I don't have that much faith in Apple's ability to compete.
With respect to music players....huh?
Introduced a superior product? check
Well marketed? check
Brand awareness? check
Product seen as status symbol? bonus
And the very fact that Apple has survived and thrived in the cutthroat computer industry speaks well for them. Just because they don't get in the race to see who can throw out the cheapest box of spare parts doesn't mean they aren't compeditive. Apple is one of the top 5 computer manufacturers in the world. They're bigger than McDonalds.
So how does my potential sales compare between the two platforms? Apple cannot afford to put ANY roadblocks in the path of potential developers. As you may have noticed, most developers don't even bother with Apple.
So, in other words, you were 100% WRONG so you decided to change the subject by comming up some completely irrelvant statements. But that's okay, I'll just throw it back in your face: wtf would you want to develop for Windows, because if you are successful Microsoft will just copy all of your ideas and put you out of business?
Considering the bigger problem of voter disenfranchisement in the last few elections, I would rather have anal retentive secretary of states enforcing the laws equally. In Ohio the GOP has registered some 3,600 people to challenge people that they think don't have the right to vote. Just how many of those 3,600 do you think are going to be hasseling voters in conservative districts? How many do you think will be stationed in democratic districts?
Or you could have shenanigans like the new felon list in Florida. Thousands of blacks (democratic voters) were listed as felons and placed on the no vote list, compared to a few hundered hispanics (gop voters). Now they claim this was all a big mistake and scrapped the list - but the press found the error in a matter of hours after they sued to get access to it. Either the GOP election officials were deliberatly skewing the list, or they are guilty of gross (and *very* selective) incompetence.
**Features
Microsoft is just like a home appliance company: rather than trying to make the best product, they just keep adding new features to it to differntiate it from the last years model. Its adding features for the sake of adding features, which is why we have the god awful XP start menu, one reason why they are so many Windows vunerabilities out there (Outlook and Active X. 'Nuf said).
This is what seperates Apple from Microsoft. Apple likes adding new features, but they actually take the time to see if they are useful, as opposed to Microsoft who throws them in so they have more billets on a list of reasons to upgrade. Perfect example: personalized menus. Worst. Gui. Idea. Ever.
If 10.4 is a service pack, then 2000 was a service pack to NT. And XP is a service pack for 2000.
Well, as an OS X user since 10.0.3 I'd have to say you're comparing apples to oranges.
No, he's not.
10 to 10.1 was primarily bug fixes
What do you think Windows 95 -> 98 was? How about Windows 98 -> ME?
You can't get security patches from Apple for 10.1 which is much younger than Win 2000.
True. A spades a spade in that case.
Not insightful, -5 Ignorant Boob. Apple's developer tools and most if not all SDK's are a free download. The $$ memberships get you big discounts on hardware and tools and OS updates mailed to you. Then try comparing the price of Apple's professional memberships and software to Microsofts, and then get back to us.
Single Vendor media Lock-in is not a good thing at all, it's a TERRIBLE thing, for both the record companies and the consumers.
Which would be true if the iTMS were the only online store, but its not. And somehow I doubt Microsoft would tell the industry off if the labels wanted to set tracks to whatever price they wanted.
A guy who decides what stories to cover, how to cover them, and what to say: Sounds like a journalist to me.
Miss the point much, or did you just skip over the part about owners telling the managers what to do?
And with the exception of Fox and maybe Clear Channel, none of them seem to care what their news organizations do, as long as they aren't a threat to their primary corporate interest: Making Money.
And by buddying up to Republicans, they stand to make more money if the GOP retains control so they can get more deregulation. And somebody had a nice list, which I unfortunatly couldn't Google in a couple of minutes, of stories that GE told NBC to run/not to run. Most of them weren't directly political, but definetly showed meddling by the owners - like a story going on for 10 minutes about how great this new medical device is but neglecting to mention that said device was made by GE.
All I'm trying to do is square the circle between the conservatives who have reasonable examples of liberal bias and the liberals who have reasonable examples of corporate bias.
Sure you can find examples of both, but there never was a "biased liberal media", that was just a GOP urban legend.
Part of the problem is that the GOP has a 30 year head start on organized relations with the media. The RNC can send out "experts" on the drop of a hat to talk about any subject, from any one of a dozen different think tanks. The Democratic party's PR network is pitiful in comparison, and as a Democrat I think the party leaders need a serious kick in the ass to start catching up.
Yeah it would be nice if they'd give you a free pass if you're donating.
That seemed appropriate for a corporation but not for "public" radio.
What, you think "public" radio costs nothing to produce? Selling tracks is one way to get money, and money is what keeps them on the air.
Discuss among yourselves...
Okay.
Since the journalists decide what to cover and what gets said, it biases most news to the liberal side.
Uh, no. The reporter on the camera might be liberal, but who tells him what stories to cover and how to cover them? Managers. Who tells the managers what to do? Owners. What political affiliation are most owners? Overwhelmingly conservative. This is why conservatives tidbit that 90% (or whatever) of all journalists are liberal is irrelevant, because the owners of Clear Channel, CNN, NBC, Fox and so on are all conservative. And reporters that go against owners and management get fired.
And that's even using the GOP formula for counting how "liberal" the media is: ignore everything that is conservative. So in calling the media liberal, they ignore talk radio. When they call the New York Times liberal, they only count Maureen Dowd and Bob Hebert on the editorial page and ignore the conservative David Brooks and the hawk William Safire.