"Global warming is an effect. If CO2 emissions didn't cause global warming, then they wouldn't be as bad"
You are assuming the conclusion. You don't know that CO2 IS causing global warming, you only SUSPECT it is. CO2 is necessary for life, as is O2 is. O2 is a corrosive molecule that causes all sorts of problems, even considered a Poison. O2 is a waste product of Plants, which happen to be useful for animals, just as Manure is a waste product of animals and yet is useful for plants.
Because you believe that CO2 is the primary cause of Global Warming, you have decided what is best for everyone, I get it. You know better than anyone else, and know exactly how to fix it. Lets start by leading by example, mkay? You give up meat, petroleum based transportation, electricity..... first. Then, you can send me a note by carrier pigeon, and I'll join you and Ted Kazinski.
"The Islamic extremists who want to bomb things have primarily been motivated by the whole fucking world trying to fuck with them."
Right. And if Israel wasn't in the middle east, everything else would be perfect, and they would leave us alone. Please explain the muslim outrage in Bali, the plight of the muslims in Darfur? Kosovo, Chechnia, Khashmire, Spain, England, Netherlands.......
While I agree with you that the US has dealt with some unsavory people, (saddam, shaw of Iran, Bin Ladin etc), we can hardly be blamed for the rise of Islam in the world. Actually the whole world is screwed up because of power hungry people and oppression, as that seems part and parcel to the human condition. Sheeple like Tyrants for some reason.
As for the cause / result, those were all based on decisions of previous presidents and administrations going way way back, to the treaty of Tripoli which clearly outlines the problem we have to this day, namely Article 11 which states....
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The US government is not religious, but the treaty was being made by a RELIGIOUS STATE. We therefore even today cannot fight a "religious" war, which is why we fight "terrorist" and not "Islamofacists"
"It's equally hard for me to believe that you don't realize that Fox News is the quintessential "right wing" media."
Right, tell that Alan Colmes and Sheppard Smith. Oh right, when Compared to CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS, Fox is "right wing". Can't have any "right wing" media, that's what this is all about.
Not that I am "right wing", because I'm not. I'm quite libertarian, and wish EVERYONE would stay out of my business, including do-gooders on both the "right" and the "left".
"There's a reason those two stand out in your mind. They're unusual." "The reason there's no news about its mistakes is because they're not news - they're expected."
Uh huh. I can actually think of a few more cases, NBC blows up a truck, NY Times fabricating news, Fake stories in Washington Post. I can think of one from Fox, but it was parroted by all the other media as well, namely the "riots" at the superdome during Katrina.
News is biased. That is a fact. I would rather get my news from a source that has stated its bias rather (pun intended) than from people claiming unbias when I know that is impossible. Which is why I at least respect NPR, they make no bones about hiding their left wing bias.
I do have a question for you, why does the national news on ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN all have the exact same stories being reported, night after night? I mean each night all the networks report exactly the same news. I think it is crazy.
The problem isn't fairness, but who decides what is fair. The likes of most major news outlets think themselves fair, but are not. Who gets to decide what is, and what isn't fair.
When Reuters pasted doctored photos and staged photographs during the recent Israeli incursion into Lebenon, how would the "fairness" doctrine be enacted. If it weren't for people like LGF and other bloggers who countered these biased lies and propaganda, what would have happened????
Not to mention the "unbiased" Dan Rather and the forged documents by a political hack being reported as "fact". How would the "fairness" doctrine handle that? I suspect that Dan Rather would still be reporting from CBS news.
I'm sure that there are equally egregious examples from "right wing" media, but since I can't actually point to any "right wing" media outlets, I'm stumped at actually describing one.
So, who actually benifits from this "Fairness Doctrine", why the only people Truly interested in censorship, who gets to decide what is, and isn't fair? Don't agree? Too bad because you don't get a say.
And how does one actually deal with the "new media", the internet and blogging? Does LGF have to hire a leftwing blogger in order to be "fair"?? How about MoveON.org? Do they have to hire right wing wackos?
The only reason why people are looking for a "fairness doctrine" is because they cannot compete in the world of ideas (AirAmerica???); nobody really wants to listen to Al Franken.
I always found it very interesting that it is the liberal, left wing people were the ones needing "fairness doctrine" to get their ideas out. I wonder though if the would allow a third viewpoint (Libertarianism), or if they would rather just keep it Al Franken vs Rush Bimbo.
"The war for oil is a war for the beast The war on terror is a war on peace"
Some of us actually see the war for what it really is. We are not at war with terrorism or terrorists, because terrorism is a tactic used by those that employ it. IRA bombers, Islamofacists, socialist rebels, drug cartels are all terrorists, who target civilians to get headlines in support of their cause.
There is no peace, and wont be anytime soon. Too many people have agendas.
"I see you as a shill who has some kind of agenda that depends on denying the human influence on global climate, which I'm afraid is likely very real."
I'm nobody's shill. And I don't see your opinion as fact either. I'm afraid I have a much broader view of things than most, not that means anything here.
So let me summarize my view.
1) We may, or may not have anything to do with global warming. 2) We may, or may not be a significant contributor to global warming 3) We can do better in regard to poisoning the well, regardless of the effect on Global Warming.
Defining things as "good" and "not good" for the environment is much more useful than running around saying "global warming", at least with me. Now your average populace might be a different story, since they are generally more interested in Britney's bits than anything really important.
It seems to be the MO of the left to declare everything an "emergency" or a "crisis". "Health Care Crisis", "Homeless Crisis", "Welfare Crisis", "Social Security Emergency", except for the real threats to mankind, such as the Islamofacists in the Middle East, who are hell bent on destroying everything.
I'll worry about global warming just as soon as Jihad with the west is over, thank you very much.
"Even if we didn't CAUSE this problem we have to deal with it. We can be part of the solution, or part of the precipitate (and that means we drop out and are left lying around on the bottom of the flask, just a bit of excess, rejected sludge.)"
So, what you are saying is, even if we aren't actually part of the problem, we can do something about it. Wow, what an incredible leap.
Let us assume for the moment that mankind has had negligible effect on global warming and most of it is indeed cyclic, and or caused by the sun or other major contributors, you are saying the "solution" that is proposed is something mankind can achieve?
I see that kind of reasoning as delusions of grandeur, that man can affect the world more than nature itself.
"The argument NOW is not about whether global warming is occurring (it is) but why, if we can do anything about it, and what to do if we can in fact do anything."
Most of the "global warming" chicken littles are leftwing environmental wackos who have a political agenda against ________ (fill in the blank evil/corporation).
So, while there may be in fact "global warming" it may or may not be related to mankind. It is just as likely to be cyclical (see Wikipedia entry on "Greenland") or due to sun activity, or other long term and non-mankind effects. Or it could be a combination of all sorts of contributing factors (most likely), each part playing a small role in a bigger picture.
Mankind isn't the Star (pun intended) in this movie, no matter what Al Gore believes.
"If digital media was available for sale at a reasonable price, but subject to a DRM scheme that allowed full legitimate usage (format shifting, time shifting, playback on different devices, etc.) and only blocked illicit usage (illegal copying), would you support the usage of such a DRM scheme?"
Okay, that is one long question. But here is my one word answer.... No. Not because of the intent of your question but rather because the basic assumption is false.
"If Pigs could fly would you support their right to fly?"
The answer to your question, is the same as my hypothetical question here. Since pigs cannot fly, then any question about pigs flying is necessarily flawed, and the answer has to be "No".
The DRM scheme you describe is... impossible, and cannot possibly exist.
"Especially if it meant a wealth of readily available compatible devices?"
Again, your premise is flawed. There is no such thing available because it is impossible.
"In other words, if you object to DRM schemes, is your objection based on principled or practical concerns?"
Again, flawed reasoning. Your are asking an XOR question (one or the other, not both), where the answer has the possibility of being "both". In this case, that would be my answer, I object on both prinicple AND practical concerns.
DRM is a smoke screen and an illusion. If I can see it, or hear it, I can record it and duplicate it. Quality may suffer, but that is a different question altogether.
"DRM does not make things easier for you, but easier for Apple."
I doubt very much that DRM on content (which is what we are talking about), makes it easier on Apple, except to the degree it allowed them the content to provide on ITMS.
The iPod is an Apple product. It works. It does everything it is supposed to do, and is conveniently easy. It plays MP3s. It ALSO plays DRMed stuff, but it is NOT restrictive in that it ONLY plays DRMed stuff. It doesn't play OGG, or WMA or whatever else, and I know some people complain about that, but it never said it would. I would like to put diesel fuel in my car, but I can't. Oh well.
As for the EULA, I have never considered them. There is no legal precedent that indicates I am bound by a one way contract I never agreed to before purchase. I usually edit them before I agree to them saying that if they try to sue me, I am entitled to the entire net worth of the company. If they can force me to agree to the EULA, then I have the right to change the contract before I agree.
DivX, Xvid WMV etc are all codecs and formats. They have little to do with DRM itself. So what if they don't play of Video iPod, Apple never claimed that they would. Just as I cannot put desiel fuel in my gas car. Don't blame Ford or Honda because it "only" takes "gas", do you? Or how about a gas car that can run on ethanol, do you complain about cars that can't?
"I hate thinking that there is a superficial reason why something does not work on some hardware that I personally bought and own."
Then don't buy it. Use something else. But then don't complain that it doesn't work with iTunes or ITMS, or that you can't find all the accessories and add-ons that iPod has. In other words... pick your poison.
"Did you have to eat ramen while you 'worked' your way thru college."
Yes, I did. I also put myself through school, debt free, and without taking a single grant. It was hard, and I didn't do all the "cool" things other kids did, I worked, and studied. I worked at a resturant, so I could eat. I worked in the tech lab, so I could use the computers. I worked to earn what I needed. So there is no "poor baby" needed. I wasn't "poor" I had what I wanted and I had what I needed.
Meanwhile the rich babies were complaining about tuition going up $50 a semester. I mean they held PROTESTS in the quad over it, saying how hard it was going to be. I have little sympathy for them. I didn't complain, because the education was worth it. They were complaining because it wasn't worth it to them. THAT is the difference.
"Its alot easier to think of poor people as being lazy"
Actually, I think you got it backwards. Many lazy people are poor, not all poor people are lazy. There are a few people who are lazy and rich (Paris Hilton?).
"There are allot of jobs, Americans don't want, because those jobs no longer pay a decent wage or have any benefits. "
Yup, I know. I've had a few of them. Didn't stop me from working them, to earn enough to eat. But I also didn't let those jobs define who I was, which allowed me to escape.
"Don't blame the kid for "needing" x or y. Blame the marketer for skewing wants into needs."
You sir, are a moron. My kids know the difference between "wants" and "needs". WHY?? Because as a parent, I taught them. They see all the cool stuff on TV, and know that I am not going to buy it for them, and if they want it, they have to earn it.
Ask my kids the same question, you will get a different answer altogether. Probably go like this, "I want graduate high school and start college as a junior". The answers reflect the values their parents have taught them. My kids know that the things they have do not define who they are.
Too many people are too busy to actually raise their kids and let Madison Avenue and Britney Spears do it for them.
"Or in other words, you're well off and don't want to feel guilty about it."
So, when you ASSume something, and are wrong, do you admit it and appologize, or is it your opinion only "well off" people can feel that way? You sir, are a bigot.
I made just over 40k last year, is that "well off" by your standards? It is compared to much of the world, but not here in California where I live. If I compared myself to others it might matter, but since I don't..... it doesn't.
"But jobs I am perfectly capable of doing well are closed to me because I don't have the right social connections."
Excuses. Go make those connections, nobody is stopping you except yourself. Plenty of people have done it before you, how did they manage it?
"But I reserve the right to brood over it occasionally."
I don't make assumption that poor=criminal because I was once "poor" and didn't commit crimes.
What is criminal is people claiming poverty while wearing $150 shoes, and playing on a PSP, regardless of how they acquired them. I feel sorry for people whose self worth is built on what they have, rather than who they are as people.
"All of this happening while the Execs of my corporation are reaping massive bonuses, getting raises without regard to the stagnation of wages in the ranks"
So, get another job. You signed up for that job, in that company. Think you can do better elsewhere, then leave. Not as easy as it sounds? Sounds like you have made a choice then. So quit complaining about the choice you've made.
I don't work for BIGCO, Inc, for precisely this reason. I also don't have to worry about the pension plan being gutted, or the execs making gross salaries. I'm not rich, but neither am I complaining about "unfairness" or "inequity" in the system.
"Yeah for a lifetime of hard work and smart decisions you can make 1/100,000th what one of the people born to extreme wealth and who is a lazy idiot makes from investing all that inheritance in lending firms that lend you the money you need to get started and then collect interest."
That's the problem in a nutshell, isn't it. You want to be someone else, because you think life should be "fair". I hate to break it to you, but "life" is not fair. Some people are born blind. Is that "fair"? Some are born "deaf". Is that fair? Some people are born rich. Is that fair?
You can always compare yourself to others and be either disappointed or grateful. I can see which one you have chosen to be, and it is sad. Here's a lesson I've taught my kids.... Compare yourself to who you CAN BE, and not someone else or by someone else's standards.
Life isn't fair. Stop trying to make it fair, because it is futile, and annoys those of us who realize it.
"If I have goods, or can do work, as good as another who gets paid 10 times as much, because of the way he dresses, his accent, who he went to school with, then because of that I'm "worth" 1/10th as much as him."
Stop comparing yourself to someone else, and then maybe you can achieve what you think you are worth. I think I'm worth 1,000,000 a year, because I believe I am smarter than most people who make that much. Doesn't make me happier, nor does it make me richer to compare myself to others.
My daughters used to complain... "That's not fair", to which I replied "Who told you life is fair".
Some people are born tall, is that "fair" to people who are short? I'm 6'5" tall, is that fair? Should I be able to be a jockey on a race horse? Is it fair that I don't fit into most cars? My daughters can never be something that they might have been good at because they are 6' tall (Ballet). Is that fair?
Simply put, LIFE isn't fair, quit trying to make it fair, because it is FUTILE, you cannot ever make it "fair". You can be, what you are, and be the best "you" you can be. There is ONLY one you, so quit trying to be someone else, and be the best "you" you can be.
"Isn't everyone entitled to one or two 'luxury' items?"
NO
Thank you for making my point so abundantly clear for everyone. They are "entitled" to the "opportunity" to acquire these things, not the things themselves. People like you feed the rationale for the types of crime I mentioned. "Entitled" doesn't mean what you think it means.
"These people are fat because they can't afford nutritious food like fresh fruits & vegetables. I'd highly recommend a visit to the Southeast section of Washington, DC at some point."
I lived in LA, and saw the gettos of South Central. I saw the catch-22 of what you speak of. The problem isn't that they cannot afford it, it is that people cannot afford to sell it in some of those neighborhoods for the prices you find the same thing in the suburbs.
Crime affects everyone, and stealing, murder and destruction raise the prices for everyone. Which according to the article causes people to steal, murder and riot, which raises the cost and therefore the prices....
That is why it is called a vicious circle. In the Rodney King riots, the same community that was "disenfranchised" was the same community that they destroyed. Beverly Hills and Arcadia weren't affected, South Central and Watts were. That is insane, if you ask me.
If people really wanted nice houses, nice neighborhoods nice communities, they would have them, even if poor. I've seen the nice houses in South Central, and the community hates them, and continues to try to destroy them. WHY???
[quote]There are -some- poor folks who live off the charity of others, and there are -some- rich people who live off their connections.[/quote]
Indeed. That doesn't mean a thing. I give my charity to people who deserve it because they are trying to make their life better, like the 17 YO girl at my daughter's school who doesn't get enough to eat, because her parents either cannot or will not buy food. I give to her, rather than the "will (not) work for food" bums on the corner, because she is trying to do better, and isn't afraid to work hard to get a better life. She's a good kid that needs a chance at life.
It makes me feel good knowing that it isn't wasted, and actually is truly appreciated. She doesn't know who gives her the food, all she knows is that the food is waiting for her at school when she gets there.
"there is an extremely large group of hard working middle class folks propping up the economy here, if you really worked hard and came from the background you say you did, you would know that."
Indeed I do. However there is a large underclass of people who believe that life entitles them to 2 tvs, a microwave, nike shoes, xbox and a Nintendo, but don't feel like working for them. I don't own a Wii, or an Xbox or whatever. My shoes are $20 sneekers. My income last year was $40k, and I am debt free (LITERALLY). I don't own a credit card, make payments on cars or anything else. I have money set aside for retirement. I live in California and have my whole life.
I am unique among my peers. I don't have a bunch of stuff, and live a plain life. It is something I wouldn't trade for anything. WHY? Because I am satisfied with what I have, and don't compare myself to the Jones next door.
I love myself I want you to love me When I'm feelin' down I want you above me I search myself I want you to find me I forget myself I want you to remind me
Chorus: I don't want anybody else When I think about you I touch myself I don't want anybody else Oh no, oh no, oh no
You're the one who makes me happy honey You're the sun who makes me shine When you're around I'm always laughing I want to make you mine
I close my eyes And see you before me Think I would die If you were to ignore me A fool could see Just how much I adore you I get down on my knees I'd do anything for you
Chorus
I love myself I want you to love me When I'm feelin' down I want you above me I search myself I want you to find me I forget myself I want you to remind me
Chorus
I want you I don't want anybody else And when I think about you I touch myself Ooh, oooh, oooooh, aaaaaah
"But as long as some people are desperare and feel they are being screwed, and they can find an easy target in a rich person, there will be crime."
PS3, XBox360, Wii, Nike Shoes.....
People have been Killed, robbed, beatened, and otherwise harmed by people's greed to acquire these products. Yet, none of these are items that are within the definition of "basic needs". Nobody "needs" these.
The "poor" Americans are some of the richest people in the world, just look at the obesity levels. Truly "poor" people are literally dying of starvation, worry about their next meal, wonder where they will sleep tonight.
I am SICK of the poverty pimps of America describing the "plight" of the American poor. With very little effort, and one can get a job, find a place to stay, and have a life, as evidenced by the MILLIONS of Latinos streaming across the boarder to take jobs that no American wants.
I know, I've been "poor". I've also know what its like to have to get up off my ass and get a job, and do crappy work for a living. If one works hard, is honest and never stops learning, one can end up in IT, with a decent wage. But it does require SOME effort, and not quitting... EVER.
Americans are a bunch of whiney wimps who would rather get rich quick, while being poor, than work hard.
Apple controls its stuff, so the customer can control his own stuff.
All the freedom in the world is useless if one cannot make use of it. Linux, as great as it is, as much as I like it, as much as I use it, STILL isn't ready for grandma or uncle bob. WHY? Because it takes a guy like me to download (or buy) it, install it, set it all up so that it looks like something they are familiar with.
And between the two consumer OSes out there, I much rather trust Apple to actually get things right, which means allowing the user to do what the user wants without digging for heinous workarounds and without restrictions.
In two years, when the choice is VISTA and Mac OS X Tabby I know which one I'll be forced to buy because it will be the ONLY one that will "just work".
This is why Linux Fanboys didn't get the iPod, why many don't get the iPhone. It is exactly the same thing, people will pay for something if it makes it easier to use, or more convenient. Think McDonalds vs homemade burgers. I can make my family better tasting burgers if I cook them myself, but sometimes Daddy doesn't want to cook and just wants to feed the kids. The phrase, "I can make a better burger for less cost" doesn't really matter.
Slashdot Mirror
"Global warming is an effect. If CO2 emissions didn't cause global warming, then they wouldn't be as bad"
..... first. Then, you can send me a note by carrier pigeon, and I'll join you and Ted Kazinski.
.......
....
You are assuming the conclusion. You don't know that CO2 IS causing global warming, you only SUSPECT it is. CO2 is necessary for life, as is O2 is. O2 is a corrosive molecule that causes all sorts of problems, even considered a Poison. O2 is a waste product of Plants, which happen to be useful for animals, just as Manure is a waste product of animals and yet is useful for plants.
Because you believe that CO2 is the primary cause of Global Warming, you have decided what is best for everyone, I get it. You know better than anyone else, and know exactly how to fix it. Lets start by leading by example, mkay? You give up meat, petroleum based transportation, electricity
"The Islamic extremists who want to bomb things have primarily been motivated by the whole fucking world trying to fuck with them."
Right. And if Israel wasn't in the middle east, everything else would be perfect, and they would leave us alone. Please explain the muslim outrage in Bali, the plight of the muslims in Darfur? Kosovo, Chechnia, Khashmire, Spain, England, Netherlands
While I agree with you that the US has dealt with some unsavory people, (saddam, shaw of Iran, Bin Ladin etc), we can hardly be blamed for the rise of Islam in the world. Actually the whole world is screwed up because of power hungry people and oppression, as that seems part and parcel to the human condition. Sheeple like Tyrants for some reason.
As for the cause / result, those were all based on decisions of previous presidents and administrations going way way back, to the treaty of Tripoli which clearly outlines the problem we have to this day, namely Article 11 which states
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The US government is not religious, but the treaty was being made by a RELIGIOUS STATE. We therefore even today cannot fight a "religious" war, which is why we fight "terrorist" and not "Islamofacists"
"It's equally hard for me to believe that you don't realize that Fox News is the quintessential "right wing" media."
Right, tell that Alan Colmes and Sheppard Smith. Oh right, when Compared to CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS, Fox is "right wing". Can't have any "right wing" media, that's what this is all about.
Not that I am "right wing", because I'm not. I'm quite libertarian, and wish EVERYONE would stay out of my business, including do-gooders on both the "right" and the "left".
"There's a reason those two stand out in your mind. They're unusual."
"The reason there's no news about its mistakes is because they're not news - they're expected."
Uh huh. I can actually think of a few more cases, NBC blows up a truck, NY Times fabricating news, Fake stories in Washington Post. I can think of one from Fox, but it was parroted by all the other media as well, namely the "riots" at the superdome during Katrina.
News is biased. That is a fact. I would rather get my news from a source that has stated its bias rather (pun intended) than from people claiming unbias when I know that is impossible. Which is why I at least respect NPR, they make no bones about hiding their left wing bias.
I do have a question for you, why does the national news on ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN all have the exact same stories being reported, night after night? I mean each night all the networks report exactly the same news. I think it is crazy.
The problem isn't fairness, but who decides what is fair. The likes of most major news outlets think themselves fair, but are not. Who gets to decide what is, and what isn't fair.
When Reuters pasted doctored photos and staged photographs during the recent Israeli incursion into Lebenon, how would the "fairness" doctrine be enacted. If it weren't for people like LGF and other bloggers who countered these biased lies and propaganda, what would have happened????
Not to mention the "unbiased" Dan Rather and the forged documents by a political hack being reported as "fact". How would the "fairness" doctrine handle that? I suspect that Dan Rather would still be reporting from CBS news.
I'm sure that there are equally egregious examples from "right wing" media, but since I can't actually point to any "right wing" media outlets, I'm stumped at actually describing one.
So, who actually benifits from this "Fairness Doctrine", why the only people Truly interested in censorship, who gets to decide what is, and isn't fair? Don't agree? Too bad because you don't get a say.
And how does one actually deal with the "new media", the internet and blogging? Does LGF have to hire a leftwing blogger in order to be "fair"?? How about MoveON.org? Do they have to hire right wing wackos?
The only reason why people are looking for a "fairness doctrine" is because they cannot compete in the world of ideas (AirAmerica???); nobody really wants to listen to Al Franken.
I always found it very interesting that it is the liberal, left wing people were the ones needing "fairness doctrine" to get their ideas out. I wonder though if the would allow a third viewpoint (Libertarianism), or if they would rather just keep it Al Franken vs Rush Bimbo.
"The war for oil is a war for the beast
The war on terror is a war on peace"
Some of us actually see the war for what it really is. We are not at war with terrorism or terrorists, because terrorism is a tactic used by those that employ it. IRA bombers, Islamofacists, socialist rebels, drug cartels are all terrorists, who target civilians to get headlines in support of their cause.
There is no peace, and wont be anytime soon. Too many people have agendas.
"I see you as a shill who has some kind of agenda that depends on denying the human influence on global climate, which I'm afraid is likely very real."
I'm nobody's shill. And I don't see your opinion as fact either. I'm afraid I have a much broader view of things than most, not that means anything here.
So let me summarize my view.
1) We may, or may not have anything to do with global warming.
2) We may, or may not be a significant contributor to global warming
3) We can do better in regard to poisoning the well, regardless of the effect on Global Warming.
Defining things as "good" and "not good" for the environment is much more useful than running around saying "global warming", at least with me. Now your average populace might be a different story, since they are generally more interested in Britney's bits than anything really important.
It seems to be the MO of the left to declare everything an "emergency" or a "crisis". "Health Care Crisis", "Homeless Crisis", "Welfare Crisis", "Social Security Emergency", except for the real threats to mankind, such as the Islamofacists in the Middle East, who are hell bent on destroying everything.
I'll worry about global warming just as soon as Jihad with the west is over, thank you very much.
"Even if we didn't CAUSE this problem we have to deal with it. We can be part of the solution, or part of the precipitate (and that means we drop out and are left lying around on the bottom of the flask, just a bit of excess, rejected sludge.)"
So, what you are saying is, even if we aren't actually part of the problem, we can do something about it. Wow, what an incredible leap.
Let us assume for the moment that mankind has had negligible effect on global warming and most of it is indeed cyclic, and or caused by the sun or other major contributors, you are saying the "solution" that is proposed is something mankind can achieve?
I see that kind of reasoning as delusions of grandeur, that man can affect the world more than nature itself.
.... it is vaporware.
"The argument NOW is not about whether global warming is occurring (it is) but why, if we can do anything about it, and what to do if we can in fact do anything."
Most of the "global warming" chicken littles are leftwing environmental wackos who have a political agenda against ________ (fill in the blank evil/corporation).
So, while there may be in fact "global warming" it may or may not be related to mankind. It is just as likely to be cyclical (see Wikipedia entry on "Greenland") or due to sun activity, or other long term and non-mankind effects. Or it could be a combination of all sorts of contributing factors (most likely), each part playing a small role in a bigger picture.
Mankind isn't the Star (pun intended) in this movie, no matter what Al Gore believes.
"If digital media was available for sale at a reasonable price, but subject to a DRM scheme that allowed full legitimate usage (format shifting, time shifting, playback on different devices, etc.) and only blocked illicit usage (illegal copying), would you support the usage of such a DRM scheme?"
.... No. Not because of the intent of your question but rather because the basic assumption is false.
... impossible, and cannot possibly exist.
Okay, that is one long question. But here is my one word answer
"If Pigs could fly would you support their right to fly?"
The answer to your question, is the same as my hypothetical question here. Since pigs cannot fly, then any question about pigs flying is necessarily flawed, and the answer has to be "No".
The DRM scheme you describe is
"Especially if it meant a wealth of readily available compatible devices?"
Again, your premise is flawed. There is no such thing available because it is impossible.
"In other words, if you object to DRM schemes, is your objection based on principled or practical concerns?"
Again, flawed reasoning. Your are asking an XOR question (one or the other, not both), where the answer has the possibility of being "both". In this case, that would be my answer, I object on both prinicple AND practical concerns.
DRM is a smoke screen and an illusion. If I can see it, or hear it, I can record it and duplicate it. Quality may suffer, but that is a different question altogether.
"DRM does not make things easier for you, but easier for Apple."
... pick your poison.
I doubt very much that DRM on content (which is what we are talking about), makes it easier on Apple, except to the degree it allowed them the content to provide on ITMS.
The iPod is an Apple product. It works. It does everything it is supposed to do, and is conveniently easy. It plays MP3s. It ALSO plays DRMed stuff, but it is NOT restrictive in that it ONLY plays DRMed stuff. It doesn't play OGG, or WMA or whatever else, and I know some people complain about that, but it never said it would. I would like to put diesel fuel in my car, but I can't. Oh well.
As for the EULA, I have never considered them. There is no legal precedent that indicates I am bound by a one way contract I never agreed to before purchase. I usually edit them before I agree to them saying that if they try to sue me, I am entitled to the entire net worth of the company. If they can force me to agree to the EULA, then I have the right to change the contract before I agree.
DivX, Xvid WMV etc are all codecs and formats. They have little to do with DRM itself. So what if they don't play of Video iPod, Apple never claimed that they would. Just as I cannot put desiel fuel in my gas car. Don't blame Ford or Honda because it "only" takes "gas", do you? Or how about a gas car that can run on ethanol, do you complain about cars that can't?
"I hate thinking that there is a superficial reason why something does not work on some hardware that I personally bought and own."
Then don't buy it. Use something else. But then don't complain that it doesn't work with iTunes or ITMS, or that you can't find all the accessories and add-ons that iPod has. In other words
"Did you have to eat ramen while you 'worked' your way thru college."
Yes, I did. I also put myself through school, debt free, and without taking a single grant. It was hard, and I didn't do all the "cool" things other kids did, I worked, and studied. I worked at a resturant, so I could eat. I worked in the tech lab, so I could use the computers. I worked to earn what I needed. So there is no "poor baby" needed. I wasn't "poor" I had what I wanted and I had what I needed.
Meanwhile the rich babies were complaining about tuition going up $50 a semester. I mean they held PROTESTS in the quad over it, saying how hard it was going to be. I have little sympathy for them. I didn't complain, because the education was worth it. They were complaining because it wasn't worth it to them. THAT is the difference.
"Its alot easier to think of poor people as being lazy"
Actually, I think you got it backwards. Many lazy people are poor, not all poor people are lazy. There are a few people who are lazy and rich (Paris Hilton?).
"There are allot of jobs, Americans don't want, because those jobs no longer pay a decent wage or have any benefits. "
Yup, I know. I've had a few of them. Didn't stop me from working them, to earn enough to eat. But I also didn't let those jobs define who I was, which allowed me to escape.
"Don't blame the kid for "needing" x or y. Blame the marketer for skewing wants into needs."
You sir, are a moron. My kids know the difference between "wants" and "needs". WHY?? Because as a parent, I taught them. They see all the cool stuff on TV, and know that I am not going to buy it for them, and if they want it, they have to earn it.
Ask my kids the same question, you will get a different answer altogether. Probably go like this, "I want graduate high school and start college as a junior". The answers reflect the values their parents have taught them. My kids know that the things they have do not define who they are.
Too many people are too busy to actually raise their kids and let Madison Avenue and Britney Spears do it for them.
"Or in other words, you're well off and don't want to feel guilty about it."
..... it doesn't.
So, when you ASSume something, and are wrong, do you admit it and appologize, or is it your opinion only "well off" people can feel that way? You sir, are a bigot.
I made just over 40k last year, is that "well off" by your standards? It is compared to much of the world, but not here in California where I live. If I compared myself to others it might matter, but since I don't
"But jobs I am perfectly capable of doing well are closed to me because I don't have the right social connections."
Excuses. Go make those connections, nobody is stopping you except yourself. Plenty of people have done it before you, how did they manage it?
"But I reserve the right to brood over it occasionally."
You sure do. And how productive is that?
I don't make assumption that poor=criminal because I was once "poor" and didn't commit crimes.
What is criminal is people claiming poverty while wearing $150 shoes, and playing on a PSP, regardless of how they acquired them. I feel sorry for people whose self worth is built on what they have, rather than who they are as people.
"All of this happening while the Execs of my corporation are reaping massive bonuses, getting raises without regard to the stagnation of wages in the ranks"
So, get another job. You signed up for that job, in that company. Think you can do better elsewhere, then leave. Not as easy as it sounds? Sounds like you have made a choice then. So quit complaining about the choice you've made.
I don't work for BIGCO, Inc, for precisely this reason. I also don't have to worry about the pension plan being gutted, or the execs making gross salaries. I'm not rich, but neither am I complaining about "unfairness" or "inequity" in the system.
"Yeah for a lifetime of hard work and smart decisions you can make 1/100,000th what one of the people born to extreme wealth and who is a lazy idiot makes from investing all that inheritance in lending firms that lend you the money you need to get started and then collect interest."
.... Compare yourself to who you CAN BE, and not someone else or by someone else's standards.
That's the problem in a nutshell, isn't it. You want to be someone else, because you think life should be "fair". I hate to break it to you, but "life" is not fair. Some people are born blind. Is that "fair"? Some are born "deaf". Is that fair? Some people are born rich. Is that fair?
You can always compare yourself to others and be either disappointed or grateful. I can see which one you have chosen to be, and it is sad. Here's a lesson I've taught my kids
Life isn't fair. Stop trying to make it fair, because it is futile, and annoys those of us who realize it.
"If I have goods, or can do work, as good as another who gets paid 10 times as much, because of the way he dresses, his accent, who he went to school with, then because of that I'm "worth" 1/10th as much as him."
... "That's not fair", to which I replied "Who told you life is fair".
Stop comparing yourself to someone else, and then maybe you can achieve what you think you are worth. I think I'm worth 1,000,000 a year, because I believe I am smarter than most people who make that much. Doesn't make me happier, nor does it make me richer to compare myself to others.
My daughters used to complain
Some people are born tall, is that "fair" to people who are short? I'm 6'5" tall, is that fair? Should I be able to be a jockey on a race horse? Is it fair that I don't fit into most cars? My daughters can never be something that they might have been good at because they are 6' tall (Ballet). Is that fair?
Simply put, LIFE isn't fair, quit trying to make it fair, because it is FUTILE, you cannot ever make it "fair". You can be, what you are, and be the best "you" you can be. There is ONLY one you, so quit trying to be someone else, and be the best "you" you can be.
"Isn't everyone entitled to one or two 'luxury' items?"
NO
Thank you for making my point so abundantly clear for everyone. They are "entitled" to the "opportunity" to acquire these things, not the things themselves. People like you feed the rationale for the types of crime I mentioned. "Entitled" doesn't mean what you think it means.
"These people are fat because they can't afford nutritious food like fresh fruits & vegetables. I'd highly recommend a visit to the Southeast section of Washington, DC at some point."
....
I lived in LA, and saw the gettos of South Central. I saw the catch-22 of what you speak of. The problem isn't that they cannot afford it, it is that people cannot afford to sell it in some of those neighborhoods for the prices you find the same thing in the suburbs.
Crime affects everyone, and stealing, murder and destruction raise the prices for everyone. Which according to the article causes people to steal, murder and riot, which raises the cost and therefore the prices
That is why it is called a vicious circle. In the Rodney King riots, the same community that was "disenfranchised" was the same community that they destroyed. Beverly Hills and Arcadia weren't affected, South Central and Watts were. That is insane, if you ask me.
If people really wanted nice houses, nice neighborhoods nice communities, they would have them, even if poor. I've seen the nice houses in South Central, and the community hates them, and continues to try to destroy them. WHY???
[quote]There are -some- poor folks who live off the charity of others, and there are -some- rich people who live off their connections.[/quote]
Indeed. That doesn't mean a thing. I give my charity to people who deserve it because they are trying to make their life better, like the 17 YO girl at my daughter's school who doesn't get enough to eat, because her parents either cannot or will not buy food. I give to her, rather than the "will (not) work for food" bums on the corner, because she is trying to do better, and isn't afraid to work hard to get a better life. She's a good kid that needs a chance at life.
It makes me feel good knowing that it isn't wasted, and actually is truly appreciated. She doesn't know who gives her the food, all she knows is that the food is waiting for her at school when she gets there.
"there is an extremely large group of hard working middle class folks propping up the economy here, if you really worked hard and came from the background you say you did, you would know that."
Indeed I do. However there is a large underclass of people who believe that life entitles them to 2 tvs, a microwave, nike shoes, xbox and a Nintendo, but don't feel like working for them. I don't own a Wii, or an Xbox or whatever. My shoes are $20 sneekers. My income last year was $40k, and I am debt free (LITERALLY). I don't own a credit card, make payments on cars or anything else. I have money set aside for retirement. I live in California and have my whole life.
I am unique among my peers. I don't have a bunch of stuff, and live a plain life. It is something I wouldn't trade for anything. WHY? Because I am satisfied with what I have, and don't compare myself to the Jones next door.
I can hear the ads now ....
The Divinyls I Touch Myself Lyrics
I love myself
I want you to love me
When I'm feelin' down
I want you above me
I search myself
I want you to find me
I forget myself
I want you to remind me
Chorus:
I don't want anybody else
When I think about you
I touch myself
I don't want anybody else
Oh no, oh no, oh no
You're the one who makes me happy honey
You're the sun who makes me shine
When you're around I'm always laughing
I want to make you mine
I close my eyes
And see you before me
Think I would die
If you were to ignore me
A fool could see
Just how much I adore you
I get down on my knees
I'd do anything for you
Chorus
I love myself
I want you to love me
When I'm feelin' down
I want you above me
I search myself
I want you to find me
I forget myself
I want you to remind me
Chorus
I want you
I don't want anybody else
And when I think about you
I touch myself
Ooh, oooh, oooooh, aaaaaah
Chorus
"But as long as some people are desperare and feel they are being screwed, and they can find an easy target in a rich person, there will be crime."
.....
... EVER.
PS3, XBox360, Wii, Nike Shoes
People have been Killed, robbed, beatened, and otherwise harmed by people's greed to acquire these products. Yet, none of these are items that are within the definition of "basic needs". Nobody "needs" these.
The "poor" Americans are some of the richest people in the world, just look at the obesity levels. Truly "poor" people are literally dying of starvation, worry about their next meal, wonder where they will sleep tonight.
I am SICK of the poverty pimps of America describing the "plight" of the American poor. With very little effort, and one can get a job, find a place to stay, and have a life, as evidenced by the MILLIONS of Latinos streaming across the boarder to take jobs that no American wants.
I know, I've been "poor". I've also know what its like to have to get up off my ass and get a job, and do crappy work for a living. If one works hard, is honest and never stops learning, one can end up in IT, with a decent wage. But it does require SOME effort, and not quitting
Americans are a bunch of whiney wimps who would rather get rich quick, while being poor, than work hard.
Apple controls its stuff, so the customer can control his own stuff.
All the freedom in the world is useless if one cannot make use of it. Linux, as great as it is, as much as I like it, as much as I use it, STILL isn't ready for grandma or uncle bob. WHY? Because it takes a guy like me to download (or buy) it, install it, set it all up so that it looks like something they are familiar with.
And between the two consumer OSes out there, I much rather trust Apple to actually get things right, which means allowing the user to do what the user wants without digging for heinous workarounds and without restrictions.
In two years, when the choice is VISTA and Mac OS X Tabby I know which one I'll be forced to buy because it will be the ONLY one that will "just work".
This is why Linux Fanboys didn't get the iPod, why many don't get the iPhone. It is exactly the same thing, people will pay for something if it makes it easier to use, or more convenient. Think McDonalds vs homemade burgers. I can make my family better tasting burgers if I cook them myself, but sometimes Daddy doesn't want to cook and just wants to feed the kids. The phrase, "I can make a better burger for less cost" doesn't really matter.
Fixing it for you
"HD-DVD" will win over "Blu-Ray" because of the name of the tech anyway...
Average consumer: "WTF is Blue Ray?"
Answer: "It lets you watch high-definition DVDs."
Average consumer: "Is there a Red Ray?"
Average consumer: "WTF is HD-DVD?"
Answer: "It lets you watch high-definition porn DVDs."
Average consumer: "Sorry I was such a dumbass."
Nope, wrong reference ....
iKHAAAAAAAAAAAAN