hate to you to task on this but we Brits have quite a good grasp of terrorism. You might have heard of a little group called the IRA?
You're right -- and I did not mean to downplay the rampant terrorism in the UK over the past 30 years.
I don't want to downplay 9/11 in terms of its impact on people and property, but its not the kind of thing to bring down a strong nation, and despite all of Osama bin-ladens rhetoric about ever more shocking actions, nothing has yet emerged after 3 years.
Not trrying to be argumentative, but 3 years isn't really a good metric. Here's the thing. These Islamic terrorists have a very different sense of time than we have in the west. They feel that if they do not get us, their grandchildren will. Remember, all they have to do is break our spirit and strike fear into our hearts. We can go fifteen years between major attacks and they will still have the same affect on our attitudes and spirit. It remind me of the Terry Gilliam film Brazil.
Christianity is about knowing that we are all fundamentally bad people, selfish, greedy, petty and small minded, but that God loves us so much that he sent Jesus to be the scapegoat for all that, so we can be at one with God.
I don't believe that we're all fundamentally bad. I think that humans have fundamentally bad qualities, but I think that we're all capable of using logic and reasoning to make fair decisions. We're certianly not incapable of visualizing how our decisions will affect others. But fundamental differences in beliefs about human nature are absolutely common, and I think that this is where many differences in attitudes stem from. Anyway, I should get back to work.
It seems a strange position to say you that don't believe in God because of the way some of the people who do claim to believe in him behave.
Oh -- nono. I must have mis-spoke. Before September, 2001, I was agnostic. I did not believe in God, but also did not see organized religion as harmful. My views on this changed fater September, 2001. However, I haven't believed in God since I was very young.
The philosophy is pretty similar to that of the Marquis de Sade who was an atheist who decided that because there was no God then there is no absolute moral code and you are free to indulge any desire, limited only by the force you can exert.
Hmm...I think that the last part of that sentence has much to do with one of the reasons why I have such a problem with organized religion. Absolute hypocracy. The belief in absolute moral code seems extremely hypocritical to me. Only taxes and death are absolute. Judeo-Christianity (which I am more famailiar with than most other religions) shows this hypocracy in application consistently. If we go through the Ten Commandments, which are supposed to be the framework for their absolute moral code, we will find that there is nothing absolute about those rules. The fist commandment was (very weakly arguably) broken by Christians by accepting Jesus as another God. The fourth commandment is broken every week by 99% of Christians, who moved the day of the sabbath to Sunday by committee. If God's word is absolute, why then, is it OK for mortal men to move the sabbath day to Sunday by committee? This seems absolutely sinful. The sixth commandment, thou shalt not kill, I have a huge problem with. If it is so absolute, why then was the first act of monotheism mass murder (I'm talking about the golden golden goat that was forged while Moses made the trek up Mt. Siani for the Ten Commandments...he returned to find the Jews warshipping the golden goat. He explained his anger and divided the Jews up into the group worshipping the goat, and those who chose to worship his God. Then, the Jews slaughtered the goat-worshippers). How many people have been killed in the name of God? How many lost their lives in the crusades? Of course, the Bible is filled with exceptions to this rule (for example stoning our disobediant children to death). The tenth commandment, another absolute, requires us not to covet our neighbor's house. But in a capitalist society (well, here anyway), this coveting is the backbone of our economy...the coveting of goods. Furthermore, I've heard some interesting arguments about how Calvinism and Capitalism are quite compatible with each other (but this is for another day).
Finally, I have a pretty huge problem with how the church is used in my country in order to discriminate against homosexuals...and ingeneral, it is applied where convenient, and ignored when it's not convenient. If God's word is so absolute that we must pick a few verses out of the Bible to justify our discrimination, how come slavery is not justifyable? The Bible says it is, as long as those slaves are from another nation, and remember, that moral code is absolute. Why can't we stone our disobedient children to death to strike fear into the hearts of the Isrealites? Again, the Bible says that we can. Becuase the only absolute about the Bible's moral code is that it's absolutely relative in it's application. If this is the case, is there really any argument for requiring organized religion for a culture to have an ethical and/or moral code? Would we benefit if we could move beyond dogmatic morals and use some practical logic, possibly accounting for modern issues?
It's this convenient application of the rules that bothers me so much. That, and the use of these conveniently applied rules to declare someone "evil". I do not necessarily beleive in good and evil in the Biblical sense, but I do have a pretty good sense of right and wrong. Can this be attributed
It is the furthest thing from marxism. Liberty needs defending from time to time.
I agree that Liberty needs defending from time to time. But you say you are a Libertarian, and I know quite a bit about Libertarianism...I have a slight tendancy to lean in that direction.
The traffic laws are a perfect example of overregulation, and this was my introduction to Libertarian ideals. Traffic is overregulated. Why put up a stoplight and regulate everything to a crawl, when a 4-way stop sign will allow people to effectively regulate themselves better than the government can in many situations?
Bring it back to broadcast medium. You're not talking about a small amount of regulation -- you're talking about turning every radio and TV into the equivalent of a traffic light, where the government ultimately decides what serves the public interest and what doesn't. That is a frightening amount of control over what we see and hear. A small amount of regulation would be leasing out different chunks of the spectrum to different organizations and enforcing use of only the licensed portion of the spectrum. Otherwise, the regulation of content, and as you suggest, removing the free market system from radio is more control than I'm comfortable with...and contrary to what you say, it is Marxist. You are talking about the federal government determining what is in the public's interest instead of the free market deciding for itself. This is the anthesis of a Libertarian ideal. You are entrusting the content of all our broadcasts into the control of the federal government...not protecting freedom, but withholding it.
I've been following your thread and have responded to another of your similar posts and you keep pushing this public interest stuff. Broadcast media is not about public interest. It never was. In the United States, it is generally an expression of the free market enterprise. It is about making money. Some people use it to serve the public interest (NPR) and they are welcome to share in the pool too. There is an entrenched industry attached to this ideal that isn't going away any time soon. To take away their ability to broadcast a message is still prior restraint, which is despicable in a free society.
If the FCC can be granted regulatory powers over certain frequencies, why not satellite radio or cable TV? It is all fed by satellites that broadcast on readily accessible airwaves that manage to beam through all of our bodies and homes. Frankly, your ideals in this arena sound outright Marxist.
I still prefer a free market solution...we can decide what we want for ourselves. Are you suggesting that we're not smart enough to decide what we want for ourselves? If not, are you smarter than the rest of us?
The easiest solution is to get this stuff off the public airwaves completely, and instead reserve this national natural resouce for public affairs progamming, emergency communications, and not-for-profit programming. Everyone else can get out to the internet, sat radio, or other medium.
Then I can assume that you're for censoring all comercial music from the radio waves (since Britney Spears does not serve the public interests)? If so, wow...that's an interesting position.
What if the airwaves used by satellite radio were deemed public? The point is that satellite and terrestrial radio are pretty much the same thing. The public airwaves vs private brodacast are a government construct. In the end, they are all our airwaves. If you are offended, turn it off and stop complaining.
The constitution is very clear about our right to free speech. It is not, however, clear about your right to not hear my speech. This is not a case of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Besides, what is so offensive and dangerous about talking about human sexuality (specifically the humor of human sexuality) in a frank manner? What is the danger in talking about human bodily functions in a humorous way? I think it's funny, other people think it's funny -- so what's wrong with it?
Finally, 18-35 year olds are targeted because they make up a majority of the advertiser's market. Furthermore, 18-35 year olds make up a majority of the workforce...They buy the goods, and those advertisers who's goods are bought make up 100% of the revenue of commercial radio. They also listen to more radio than anyone else. Are you opposed to commercial radio in general? There's a free market solution -- listen to public radio only. As Dr. Dean would say, "you have the power". If you don't like other American's decisions, why should your opinion be shoved down their throat? Let us do what we want, and you can do what you want. We're no better than you, and you are no better than the rest of us. You do your thinking and we'll do ours. Never forget that.
I do wish people wouldn't decide they have to be anti-Bush, and then swing 180 for one policy, then back again for another.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but just because one is against the majority of a politican's policies and would vote for their opponent -- this doesn't mean that you can't be against one policy by that person and for another. This would be -- well...very stupid. If someone makes a good decision, call it out if you support it. Call out a bad decision. When it comes time to vote, weigh it all out putting bias on what you think is most important. Letting your opinions get blindsided by politics is counterproductive.
Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding and you're saying exactly what I am. If this is the case, I apologise in advance. Otherwise, I'm not sure I really understand your position.
/11 was by far the largest single terrorist attack in history, but lets get real here, ten times as many people die on American roads every year. In the grand scheme of things 9/11 was a little more than a bee sting, and the terrorists have about as much chance of inflicting serious damage upon a nation as a bee has of kiling you. But the parallel doesn't end there, because people do die of bee stings, but it's not the bee's sting which does the work but the body's over-reaction causing anaphylactic shock. That is exactly the kind of panic driven over-reaction that the terrorists are trying to provoke, and the politicians are far too happy to encourage. I don't exclude Kerry from this by the way; I'm sure he is playing the security card as much as Bush.
The beesting is an interesting analogy. I've used it before. As I sat on a Brooklyn rooftop on September 11, 2001 next to my friend, we surveyed the damage and it appeared far worse in person than on the news. Manhattan was covered in a cloud of smoke and was burning -- it burned for 100 days. I clearly remember telling him that nothing good will come from this -- on either side. From this day on, things will get worse. I went on to tell him that someone has thrown a huge rock at the biggest hornets' nest in the world, and those hornets will attack the nearest passerby. We did just that with Iraq. As far as downplaying the attack -- you can draw parallels to road fatalities, but it is difficult to believe that you do not see a difference in attitude between accidental deaths and malicous killings of innocent people. Furthermore, we are accustomed to the clear and known risks. When we are faced with new risks, we want to mitigate those -- especially if we are unable to choose whether or not to partake in those risks. I can choose not to drive. I don't think that I can choose to stay out of the path of an incoming airliner. Finally, a poke in an achilles heel is still more than a poke. We were caught at a weak point. New York was out of commission for weeks, and this is an extremely important city for the United States and world economy. Our local economy was devistated, and in due in large part to the attacks, I lost my job and was unable to find gainful employmnt for 6 months. I was competing with all of my friends for the same crappy positions. Sure, the economy was already soft, but this was the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't want to emotionally overreact to your downplaying the September, 2001 attacks, but I do believe that you are wearing far different glasses than I am. Perhaps when you feel threatened, you will feel a bit more aggressively. With this in mind, I have made a similar argument. We have averaged 8 years between international terrorist atatcks on domestic soil (Embassies notwithstanding). They happened to the same buildings. Only around 5000 people died...but again, the promise was to step those attacks up. I can't be sure they'll try and follow through, but to not act is irresponsible. The domestic debate here is not whether or not to act, but how we should act.
Let us consider what might have happened since 9/11 if Bush had been a real Christian leader and turned the other cheek. Support and respect for the US in the middle east and the rest of the world would be sky high. How many can rise above such an outrage and steer a true course in the face of such provocation? Only the truly great can behave that way. Our freedom and our rights would still be intact, and most importantly perhaps, we would not have fallen into the trap set for us by the terrorists, and they would have lost almost all their support. In many ways doing nothing would have been the hardest thing to do, but the hard path is often the right path.
I tend to agree with you on everything but the "real Christian leader" part. I hate to sound anti-Christian, but Jesus' message has been lost to the clergy. It is no longer
What they can't stand is how obsessed western society is with sex, alcohol, violence and wealth. They see our decadence and know that through holywood and American TV those values are being spread to their homes. I can sympathise with that view. Islam, like Christianity, teaches against sexual immorality, but that is all they see America to embody as a consequence of its ideological promotion of individualism, which is incidently the core belief of Satanism. That is why they call you the Great Satan.
I don't necessarily agree with this. They definitely don't hate us for our freedoms. I don't think that our culture is the entirety of their hatred either...although we are being judged by our media. They hate us for our actions. They hate that we had troops in Saudi Arabia. They hate us for our original involvement in Iraq. And they hate us for our support of Isreal (because they hate Jews and more importantly, hate Jews living in or near holy land).
You are talking to an athiest. I was more agnostic before September, 2001...but wathcing those buildings fall just made me realize that if it were Christian fundamentalists in the same position, they would do the same thing. (They're already sniping OB/GYN's who perform abortions in this country). From my position, we can't let these religous zealots run our lives, at home or abroad. I can argue against all of their points. If they want to live in a sexually oppressive nation, I say fine -- I'll stay out of your country, and you can just turn our broadcasts off.
Finally, you also need to remember that Satanism would not exist without a belief in Satan, who is a religous contrsruct. You cannot embrace Satan without believing in the tenents of the religions that created this concept. I do not believe in satan, and although my beliefs on sexuality may be considered amoral by the fundamentalists -- the fact is that I don't care what they think. I will not let religous zealots dictate what I can and can't do. I will live my life in the way that I choose and do my part to develop my community's culture in a way that I see fit. They should do the same for themselves...which is all well and good until they try to hurt me in the process.
Those allegations are not proven, but they are at least worth exploring in more depth, no?
Of course -- but to draw a parallel to our criminal justice system, "innocent until proven guilty". Acting based on no more than a hunch in this case has proven irresponsible. How many people have to die for a hunch? Are you willing to go and fight -- and possibly sacrifice your life based on a hunch?
You can't trust him, he's insulted our real allies ("coalition of the bribed" etc) and that's one lousy Presidentical candidate.
You can't hold Kerry to that standard if you don't hold Bush to it...remember the "Old Europe" statements? Furthermore, these people were (in essence) bribed. My friends who are veterans from this war in Iraq tell me that Polish soldiers are being paid double the American's pay. The American taxpayer foots that bill. If this isn't a coalition of the bribed, what is? This name that Kerry used was a play on Bush's Coalition of the Willing. We used political pressure and dollars to win over our coalition. You're fooling yourself if you believe otherwise. Furthermore, you calling Kerry out for criticizing his opponent is pretty stupid. If he didn't criticize Bush, then he wouldn't be a candidate...he'd be Bush in some other guy's body. If we all towed the line, there would be no dissent, and this wouldn't be America. Are you telling me that you're afraid of Kerry because he may have hurt our allies feelings? You must be joking. Bush pissed all over our real allies and you don't seem to even notice.
the millions of Iraqis who are now free and far better off than they were before.
I am not hearing independant thought from you -- this is Bush rhetoric. Who is safer after this war? The Iraqi politicians who tried to make a positive change but were assassinated? The innocent people who are killed by suicide bombers and roadside bombs? The United States after Al Qaeda has gained sympathy all over the world? The American soldiers who are dying every day in Iraq after our "catastrophic success"? This entire war was turned against us as a rallying call for terrorists, and unfortunately there are more terrorists in Iraq than ever, and there will be more terrorists in the United States.
The fact is that Saddam Hussein could have had his power marginalized by us. There were alternatives to war -- Bush just ignored them.
I'm not even sure what John Kerry wants to do as President, but based on the Democratic convention, I'd say his campaign has been based on lies and hypocracy from the start.
Again, you are not holding Kerry to the same standard that you hold Bush to. You are making assumptions that Kerry's campaign is based on lies. What ever happened to "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."? How can you possibly assume that Kerry is lying and then conveniently ignore the constant barrage of misinformation from the Bush administration? Remember, this was all about WMD. There was no mention of Saddam Hussein's stipends to the families of Hammas terrorists leading up to the war. It was 100% about a material breach of the UN sanctions and a "smoking gun". Do you remember the 3D renderings of the mobile chemical weapons trucks that Colin Powell showed to the UN that we were so sure Iraq had? Do you remember how Bush changed his tune right away to some mystical link to Al Qaeda? Do you remember how he changed his tune again to liberating a people from the clutches of a horrible dictator?
These real "lies" (call it misleading information if you're more confortable with that) are a whole lot worse than the lies that you are accusing Kerry of because you haven't read his website. These are about as provable as Michael Moore'
Hmm...interesting. I would like to say that I can see through the BS as the same way that you can, but unfortunately, like other Americans, I too am afraid. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I lived in NYC for September, 2001. It was a wake-up call that people want to kill me because I'm a taxpaying American.
In reality, I know that nothing really changed except for my feeling about the threat (fear and anger).
In any case, above anything else, I am afraid that there are missing nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union...and this seems to be my country's ultimate justification for attacking Iraq. (yeah yeah, the banter about liberation...that's just rhetoric. We generally don't go to war just to liberate people, and certainly not from a Saddam Hussein.
Ultimately, however, every politician in the country will try to benefit from the "War on Terra". Kerry is doing it, Bush is doing it, Congress is doing it , local politicians are even doing it here. Some are certainly worse than others, but it's clear that no part of politics here is willing/able to transcend the FUD. I think that it's one of those things that people are worried, and if your opponent spouts off on it, you need to in order to avoid appearing weak.
Anyway...I'm just rambling at this point. The whole point that I've been trying to make is that I understand the absurdity of the situation, and really want to believe that we're not in any credible danger...but part of me does believe that there is some reason to be worried. There are some people who do not necessarily share the same system of ethics that I do and will do horrible things to destroy me (and those whom I care for) because of the actions of my country. I still try to remain objective about it...but there is only so much I can do to resist the fear culture.
There is highly controversial evidence that Iraq had a role in 9/11. For example, there is the infamous alleged meeting in Prague between an Al Queda operative and Mohammed Atta. There is also alleged Iraqi involvement in one of the major organizational meetings for 9/11.
Is an unsupported allegation justification for going to war? Would you condemn an individual to death over an unsupported allegation? What about an entire army of humans?
If you go deep enough into the 9/11 report, that is in fact what it says: There is no proof of Iraqi involvement. Doesn't mean there's no involvement, just no proof.
There's no proof that you or I were involved in the 9/11 attacks. That doesn't mean that we were not involed, it just means that there was no proof. Blindly assuming that we have involvement without a shred of real evidence would not only be a meaningless thing to say, but it would also be a reckless assumption. If there is no proof, there is no proof and we should just accept that. If an investigation uncovers some solid evidence, sobeit...but until then, we can't justify war based on a useless suspicion based on the idea that two enemies MUST have colluded. That theory just doesn't make any sense.
Its new police and military are starting to vigourously attack the Al Queda members in the country.
Interesting that you should say this, I recently heard an interview with a Canadian journalist who was released after a long and frightening kidnapping in Iraq. He said that the American-paid Iraqi police were supporting the insurgents. (Clearly, this can't be the case with all of the Iraqi police, but these new cops don't sound like all they're cracked up to be). This is just part of the rosy picture that the Bush administration paints of our occupation. The intel that told us to go to Iraq is now telling us that the best case scenario is a status quo in the insurgency, and the worst case is a full civil war. A civil war means another Vietnam, or the possibility of pulling out and accepting an Islamic dictatorship. Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't that why we supported Iraq and Saddam Hussein in the 70's and 80's? To stop the Islamic dictatorship in Iran? Didn't we topple the Taliban for similar reasons (Islamic Fundamentalist dictatorship sponsoring terrorism)? Is there a chance that we could have mitigated the threat that Saddam posed without a war? I'm not suggesting that they were nice guys and I'm not suggesting that there weren't any atrocities going on there, but this war is not about liberation or Saddam's atrocities against his people.
In the end, I support President Bush not because he's always right - of course he's not - but because he is steadfast and resolute when confronting our enemies.
I have a few issues with this. Is steadfast and resolute a good thing when you're just wrong? The fact that this president does not seem to have the capability to analyze a situation and realize that it's not working...or come up with a plan B -- just in case (for example) his cabinet was wrong and they won't throw roses at our soldier's feet. He seems unable to plan for reality. When reality happens, he spins it into good news -- like everyhting is peachy in Iraq (except for the hard work that our soldiers have to do). Reality happened and our reasons for going into Iraq magically changed from WMD to terror. When they failed to provide a link, it changed to liberating the Iraqi people. When people disagreed with his reasons for going to war, Bush spun it into suggesting the naysayers they were pro-Saddam. His only admitted failure in Iraq was winning too fast. This does not seem like a critical thinker. This seems like a stubborn man, who people are willing to stand behind because they're afraid of not doing enough. I call this "dosomethingism". A paranoia where people want
It's perfectly fair to disagree with the implied sentiment, but calling the statement wishful thinking
Hmmm...I think that you may be reading a little extra into my remarks. To begin with, I never used the term "wishful thinking". I did use the term idealistic, and RMS is undisputably idealistic (no matter what side of that fence you sit on). I also told him (implicitly) that he was fooling himself if he thought that Microsoft's lack of web server dominance was evidence that F/OSS is "winning", and that Microsoft is not going away because of this imperical evidence (because Microsoft's dominance is not about the web server market). How is that unreasonable? I definitely did not attack anyone here, I just offered my beliefs and gave him an example of where subsidising hardware with software sales is happenning in the real world.
I believe he said it WANTS to be free. That's just a colorful way of saying that it's natural tendancy is to be free, much like water WANTS to flow downhill.
I know. RMS-talk is not new to me. "Information wants to be free" is a form of this rhetoric, and I don't think that calling that out was inappropriate. Once you get past the colorful ways of saying stuff, wasn't that his message? Just trying to cut through the muck and get to the point.
It rather startles me that both Microsoft and Sun are yammering about hardware being free and software costing money when, if we've learned anything in the past 13 years, it's the exact opposite. Hardware will always cost money; bricks and mortar don't want to be free. Manufacturing costs will always exist (except in some nanotech utopia).
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but you seem to be ignoring the business model of manufacturers subsidising hardware costs in hopes of making up for it in software or service subscription costs. This happens regularly in the mobile phone industry, and more relevantly in the video game console industry. Neither of these are totally congruent to the commodity desktop computing market, but similarities can be drawn without stretching much.
Like it or not, the demand for Windows is pretty high, and Microsoft's profit margin is high. What if, in order to boost sales, Microsoft cut their profit margin on software a bit, and began building and selling super-cheap PC's at a loss, and bundled a slightly more expensive (still OEM priced) version of Windows? The cost of the entire package would be less, and Microsoft's margin would be less...but Microsoft could sell more volume this way and make a greater net profit. Further, consumers will still buy Microsoft's wildly overpriced Office suite. Ballmer may be onto something, since this could conceivably boost Windows sales. (I'm not saying that it would, but I am suggesting that this is not the completely outlandish scenario that the majority of posters seem to see.)
Your presumption that all information is free is idealistic. Copyright and ownership (physical and intellectual) are both certainly both man-made concepts, and are mandated and supported by governments across the world. Debunking IP rights is as easy as debunking physical property rights, even though these may be two different entities. Sure, a government could arbitrarily take these away, but I'm not calling for it. Information is provided for free by some, and others sell it. Some people use the free/free stuff, and some people buy the !free/!free stuff. The stock market has consistently verified this. As for Netcraft showing the Microsoft is dying, this is simply untrue, and would only be true if Microsoft's dominanace hinged on the server market. As far as I know, Microsoft has never enjoyed server market dominance. There was a surge of companies running to IIS in the late 90's, but as Apache was further developed, the numbers petered back out and other than a few bumps, Microsoft's web server market has sat at around 20% pretty consistently. It is quite clear that Microsoft's dominance is in the desktop OS and software markets, and is not going anywhere as rapidly as you seem to suggest.
Don't get me wrong, although we may have some idealistic differences (I believe that there is a place in the world for both commercial and free software), I think that do share some common desires. I think that we would both like to see a viable, free platform (like Linux) as a legitimate competitor to Windows. It is frustrating that for many businesses (and individuals), Windows is currently a necessary evil. However, I think that fooling ourselves into believing that Microsoft is dying because they can't attain dominance over the server market is sort of naive. I couldn't tell you exactly how it will happen, but the way that free software is going to topple Microsoft's market dominance is with the continued hard work and persistance of the free software community.
NOBODY and I do mean NOBODY writes Java Applets any more. Java Applications are what have been working to displace Windows dominance. A few examples:
Azureus Bit Torrent Client...
I'm with you about the Java Applets. F-U-G-L-Y. However, I'm going to use your post to illustrate my point earlier in this thread about Java. However, I've used Azureus quite regularly on multiple platforms. It's an excellent application. I've also used BitComet, a Windows-only C++ native BitTorrent client. Although the latter is only available for Windows, the performance differences between Azureus and BitComet are astonishing. BitComet's memory and CPU utilization are significantly lower, and from an antecdotal "application snappiness" level, BitComet just crushes Azureus.
This it not to sling mud at all of the Java-lovers out there. Its a fine development package, and definitely has its purposes. The point is that under most circumstances, a lower level language, while generally more expensive to develop, can yield greater performance. To me, this is critical.
This single example clearly doesn't drive the point home, and I've seen studies that tend to show otherwise, but this just provides a single real world example of where a lower-level language-based application can outperform its counterpart. Finally, I don't have a problem admitting (disclaiming) that I'm slightly biased against Java after working on a few Java development projects in the early days and been infuriated by its performance.
So the way to break the Windows monopoly is to create one finely-honed programming platform. When the latest 3D games and business apps run just as well (or better!) on Linux as on Windows, the migration barrier will be much reduced, and people will switch in greater numbers.
That may do it, but it sounds that it may be even more daunting than having something like true Windows ABI compatibility for Linux. This is especially since a new language acheiving your goals includes market acceptance, and a slew of new applications, which can take years (and can run on and on and on, never acheiving its goals, but refusing to die). If you're talking about a cross-platform just-in-time compiled language (like Java, arguably), I believe that you will have a hard time comparing it with the performance of a precompiled binary (again, arguably and not always true). I believe that the true, seamless Windows ABI compatibility would be more effective, however, it would likely require the Windows source code to be implemented seamlessly, running Windows binaries at an equivalent speed to its Windows counterpart. (I'm talking about something along the lines of a kernel-based "native" Windows ABI, not WINE or WABI). Believe me, I know that this is easier said than done...but I figured that while we're talking about idealisic, lofty goals, I'd toss in my 2 cents.
I'm certain that Windows will not remain the dominant desktop OS platform forever...I have faith in the market. The question remains: how?
It's a quicktime movie because the film was made on a mac.
That's just silly. Does that mean that if I buy DVD of this (when it's out) that it won't be MPEG2 -- but Quicktime? (Yes, this too is silly, but that's my point).
Point taken. Still -- remember that their market is largely conservative. Pissing your market off isn't exactly smart business-wise, regardless of your desired editorial slant. I'm still a little surprised.
Polls of journalists have shown that newsmen are consistently more likely to vote Democrat than Republican, and newspaper journalists even more than journalists in other media.
This is only part of the story...and is at the crux of the "liberal media" myth. The fact is that although newspaper journalists tend to be leftish, the executive management team/owners tend to sit on the right wing. If the executive management teams are signing paychecks, as well as hiring and firing journalists, you tell me who has more influence over the stories that get printed? I reject the concept that just because newspaper journalists tend to vote a certain way that all of their stories must have a certain spin. You have to sell the news in this market. The news you sell generally has the spin that your market wants. This is why we have Fox News and WSJ on one side, and the NY Times & Washington Post on another.
Furthermore, Bush's relationship with Crawford, TX goes a bit beyond just owning some land there. It has a population of 705 people, and GWB has made a home there (even though he did not grow up there) popularly known as White House West.
In a town with a population of 705 people who seem to generally support our President -- it *is* surprising that a newspaper in that market would endorse his opponent. Frankly, it's shocking, since I would expect a different spin...they've gotta sell that paper.
You're not surprised -- fine, but there are quite a few people who are, and for good reason.
So it's "Crawford's local paper" now? Okay, then, I declare that the Washington Times is "Washington D.C.'s local paper", and the New York Daily News is "New York City's local paper."
A newspaper being located in a candidates home town is not "a sequence of events".
Nope -- you're right. It's a part of a sequence of events -- one that plays into expectations. I'm still failing to understand your point. Here's another definition
2: characterized by often poignant difference or incongruity between what is expected and what actually is; "madness,
an ironic fate for such a clear thinker"; "it was ironical that the well-planned scheme failed so completely"
Here's another definition -- and it doesn't even suggest that the use of the word here needs to come from a literary work. It's a dictionary, and it's not supposed to be implicit about these things (unless you know something that I don't about dictionaries).
Again, I would expect that the clear endorsement from the paper representing our President's spiritual hometown would be Bush. The outcome is not what was expected, and it need not be more complicated or drawn out for it to fit the definition of irony. Maybe you expected this outcome, or maybe you weren't able to make a reasonable inference using no more than a location of a paper/town...but clearly the poster of the original story, the moderators who accepted the story, myself, and (what appears to be) a large portion of the readers here disagree with you. We would likely all expect the local Crawford press to either be silent or endorse Bush...ironic.
The larger discussion aside, this brings up an interesting point. Assuming that you're right just for a second -- what if popular culture dictates a different use for a word, is it incorrect because it is not in the dictionary? Especially in slang -- calling someone a bitch, its definition in this case, would not be found in the OED. Is its use invalid because it does not fall into the OED, even though we all understand what is being conveyed? Does it show that popular culture's evolution of language moves faster than OED? Can culture not change language unless the OED approves it?
This word, "ironic", I do not think it means what you think it means...So, unless you think the paper is really FOR Bush, you misused the word "ironic".
You left out the third definition from your link, which fits the use of the word pretty nicely:
3a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity b : incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play -- called also dramatic irony, tragic irony
One would expect Crawford's local paper to be pro-Bush. They did not -- hence the irony.
OT disclaimer...this is a rant based on a single sentence from my parent poster, which is relatively unrelated to the story. If you don't want to read stuff that is pretty far OT, please stop readling this now.
What concerns me most is what would have happened had Bush's plan to let people invest SS in the market.
Wow -- that's interesting. Out of all of his ideas, this one was the only thing that I really liked. IIRC, he wasn't talking about cutting SS altogether, the plan was to take a small percentage of that (like 5% or so) and allow citizens to invest it privately (only) if they so choose. What this serves to do is twofold: The smaller effect is a federal nod to their screwing up social security. It was supposed to be a trust, but they've borrowed against it so heavily that it can't do what it was supposed to. My parents won't notice the result of their liberal borrowing, because you and I are paying for that -- but I certainly will notice it. That 5-10% (whatever it was...I remember it being relatively small) wouldn't have destroyed SS and medicare/medicaid, and it's not going to make or break someone's retirement portfolio. However, what it will serve to do, it provide people with a way to get started with saving money.
Look, if you intend to live off of your social security payments when you retire (let's just say it's in 30-35 years), you're crazy if you think you can survive off of this. If an average person cannot survive on that fixed income, and the medicare doesn't provide the all of the services/care that we'll need -- we will all obviously need a plan B that we'll have to work out on our own. All this does is helps us help ourselves...while still having something backed by the fed for the next great depression.
By consistently borrowing money from our social security trust fund, our government has failed us miserably. If I were a trustee of your retirement, how would you feel if I consistently borrowed from it and you had to repay those loans incrementally so as to lose on any gains from compounding interest? This wasn't a fix -- but it was a step in the right direction. The only reason it failed to make it through congress was because the Democrats scared the elderly into believing that Bush was proposing to take away their medicare and social security benefits. This was obviously a load of crap and a dirty, dirty move by the democrats.
Finally, investing in the market helps people, and drives part of the economy. What's wrong with that? Don't we want to encourage careful investing of dollars into stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc?
IANABF & IANAR (I Am Not A Bush Fan & I Am Not A Republican). BTW -- I did like the rest of your post. Pretty pragmatic.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right -- and I did not mean to downplay the rampant terrorism in the UK over the past 30 years.
Not trrying to be argumentative, but 3 years isn't really a good metric. Here's the thing. These Islamic terrorists have a very different sense of time than we have in the west. They feel that if they do not get us, their grandchildren will. Remember, all they have to do is break our spirit and strike fear into our hearts. We can go fifteen years between major attacks and they will still have the same affect on our attitudes and spirit. It remind me of the Terry Gilliam film Brazil.
I don't believe that we're all fundamentally bad. I think that humans have fundamentally bad qualities, but I think that we're all capable of using logic and reasoning to make fair decisions. We're certianly not incapable of visualizing how our decisions will affect others. But fundamental differences in beliefs about human nature are absolutely common, and I think that this is where many differences in attitudes stem from. Anyway, I should get back to work.
Oh -- nono. I must have mis-spoke. Before September, 2001, I was agnostic. I did not believe in God, but also did not see organized religion as harmful. My views on this changed fater September, 2001. However, I haven't believed in God since I was very young.
Hmm...I think that the last part of that sentence has much to do with one of the reasons why I have such a problem with organized religion. Absolute hypocracy. The belief in absolute moral code seems extremely hypocritical to me. Only taxes and death are absolute. Judeo-Christianity (which I am more famailiar with than most other religions) shows this hypocracy in application consistently. If we go through the Ten Commandments, which are supposed to be the framework for their absolute moral code, we will find that there is nothing absolute about those rules. The fist commandment was (very weakly arguably) broken by Christians by accepting Jesus as another God. The fourth commandment is broken every week by 99% of Christians, who moved the day of the sabbath to Sunday by committee. If God's word is absolute, why then, is it OK for mortal men to move the sabbath day to Sunday by committee? This seems absolutely sinful. The sixth commandment, thou shalt not kill, I have a huge problem with. If it is so absolute, why then was the first act of monotheism mass murder (I'm talking about the golden golden goat that was forged while Moses made the trek up Mt. Siani for the Ten Commandments...he returned to find the Jews warshipping the golden goat. He explained his anger and divided the Jews up into the group worshipping the goat, and those who chose to worship his God. Then, the Jews slaughtered the goat-worshippers). How many people have been killed in the name of God? How many lost their lives in the crusades? Of course, the Bible is filled with exceptions to this rule (for example stoning our disobediant children to death). The tenth commandment, another absolute, requires us not to covet our neighbor's house. But in a capitalist society (well, here anyway), this coveting is the backbone of our economy...the coveting of goods. Furthermore, I've heard some interesting arguments about how Calvinism and Capitalism are quite compatible with each other (but this is for another day).
Finally, I have a pretty huge problem with how the church is used in my country in order to discriminate against homosexuals...and ingeneral, it is applied where convenient, and ignored when it's not convenient. If God's word is so absolute that we must pick a few verses out of the Bible to justify our discrimination, how come slavery is not justifyable? The Bible says it is, as long as those slaves are from another nation, and remember, that moral code is absolute. Why can't we stone our disobedient children to death to strike fear into the hearts of the Isrealites? Again, the Bible says that we can. Becuase the only absolute about the Bible's moral code is that it's absolutely relative in it's application. If this is the case, is there really any argument for requiring organized religion for a culture to have an ethical and/or moral code? Would we benefit if we could move beyond dogmatic morals and use some practical logic, possibly accounting for modern issues?
It's this convenient application of the rules that bothers me so much. That, and the use of these conveniently applied rules to declare someone "evil". I do not necessarily beleive in good and evil in the Biblical sense, but I do have a pretty good sense of right and wrong. Can this be attributed
I agree that Liberty needs defending from time to time. But you say you are a Libertarian, and I know quite a bit about Libertarianism...I have a slight tendancy to lean in that direction.
The traffic laws are a perfect example of overregulation, and this was my introduction to Libertarian ideals. Traffic is overregulated. Why put up a stoplight and regulate everything to a crawl, when a 4-way stop sign will allow people to effectively regulate themselves better than the government can in many situations?
Bring it back to broadcast medium. You're not talking about a small amount of regulation -- you're talking about turning every radio and TV into the equivalent of a traffic light, where the government ultimately decides what serves the public interest and what doesn't. That is a frightening amount of control over what we see and hear. A small amount of regulation would be leasing out different chunks of the spectrum to different organizations and enforcing use of only the licensed portion of the spectrum. Otherwise, the regulation of content, and as you suggest, removing the free market system from radio is more control than I'm comfortable with...and contrary to what you say, it is Marxist. You are talking about the federal government determining what is in the public's interest instead of the free market deciding for itself. This is the anthesis of a Libertarian ideal. You are entrusting the content of all our broadcasts into the control of the federal government...not protecting freedom, but withholding it.
Like I said before -- your position on this is decidely Marxist. You are being pretty contradictory.
I've been following your thread and have responded to another of your similar posts and you keep pushing this public interest stuff. Broadcast media is not about public interest. It never was. In the United States, it is generally an expression of the free market enterprise. It is about making money. Some people use it to serve the public interest (NPR) and they are welcome to share in the pool too. There is an entrenched industry attached to this ideal that isn't going away any time soon. To take away their ability to broadcast a message is still prior restraint, which is despicable in a free society.
If the FCC can be granted regulatory powers over certain frequencies, why not satellite radio or cable TV? It is all fed by satellites that broadcast on readily accessible airwaves that manage to beam through all of our bodies and homes. Frankly, your ideals in this arena sound outright Marxist.
I still prefer a free market solution...we can decide what we want for ourselves. Are you suggesting that we're not smart enough to decide what we want for ourselves? If not, are you smarter than the rest of us?
Mod this guy up -- it's the smartest thing I've heard all day.
Then I can assume that you're for censoring all comercial music from the radio waves (since Britney Spears does not serve the public interests)? If so, wow...that's an interesting position.
What if the airwaves used by satellite radio were deemed public? The point is that satellite and terrestrial radio are pretty much the same thing. The public airwaves vs private brodacast are a government construct. In the end, they are all our airwaves. If you are offended, turn it off and stop complaining.
The constitution is very clear about our right to free speech. It is not, however, clear about your right to not hear my speech. This is not a case of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Besides, what is so offensive and dangerous about talking about human sexuality (specifically the humor of human sexuality) in a frank manner? What is the danger in talking about human bodily functions in a humorous way? I think it's funny, other people think it's funny -- so what's wrong with it?
Finally, 18-35 year olds are targeted because they make up a majority of the advertiser's market. Furthermore, 18-35 year olds make up a majority of the workforce...They buy the goods, and those advertisers who's goods are bought make up 100% of the revenue of commercial radio. They also listen to more radio than anyone else. Are you opposed to commercial radio in general? There's a free market solution -- listen to public radio only. As Dr. Dean would say, "you have the power". If you don't like other American's decisions, why should your opinion be shoved down their throat? Let us do what we want, and you can do what you want. We're no better than you, and you are no better than the rest of us. You do your thinking and we'll do ours. Never forget that.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but just because one is against the majority of a politican's policies and would vote for their opponent -- this doesn't mean that you can't be against one policy by that person and for another. This would be -- well...very stupid. If someone makes a good decision, call it out if you support it. Call out a bad decision. When it comes time to vote, weigh it all out putting bias on what you think is most important. Letting your opinions get blindsided by politics is counterproductive.
Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding and you're saying exactly what I am. If this is the case, I apologise in advance. Otherwise, I'm not sure I really understand your position.
The beesting is an interesting analogy. I've used it before. As I sat on a Brooklyn rooftop on September 11, 2001 next to my friend, we surveyed the damage and it appeared far worse in person than on the news. Manhattan was covered in a cloud of smoke and was burning -- it burned for 100 days. I clearly remember telling him that nothing good will come from this -- on either side. From this day on, things will get worse. I went on to tell him that someone has thrown a huge rock at the biggest hornets' nest in the world, and those hornets will attack the nearest passerby. We did just that with Iraq. As far as downplaying the attack -- you can draw parallels to road fatalities, but it is difficult to believe that you do not see a difference in attitude between accidental deaths and malicous killings of innocent people. Furthermore, we are accustomed to the clear and known risks. When we are faced with new risks, we want to mitigate those -- especially if we are unable to choose whether or not to partake in those risks. I can choose not to drive. I don't think that I can choose to stay out of the path of an incoming airliner. Finally, a poke in an achilles heel is still more than a poke. We were caught at a weak point. New York was out of commission for weeks, and this is an extremely important city for the United States and world economy. Our local economy was devistated, and in due in large part to the attacks, I lost my job and was unable to find gainful employmnt for 6 months. I was competing with all of my friends for the same crappy positions. Sure, the economy was already soft, but this was the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't want to emotionally overreact to your downplaying the September, 2001 attacks, but I do believe that you are wearing far different glasses than I am. Perhaps when you feel threatened, you will feel a bit more aggressively. With this in mind, I have made a similar argument. We have averaged 8 years between international terrorist atatcks on domestic soil (Embassies notwithstanding). They happened to the same buildings. Only around 5000 people died...but again, the promise was to step those attacks up. I can't be sure they'll try and follow through, but to not act is irresponsible. The domestic debate here is not whether or not to act, but how we should act.
I tend to agree with you on everything but the "real Christian leader" part. I hate to sound anti-Christian, but Jesus' message has been lost to the clergy. It is no longer
I don't necessarily agree with this. They definitely don't hate us for our freedoms. I don't think that our culture is the entirety of their hatred either...although we are being judged by our media. They hate us for our actions. They hate that we had troops in Saudi Arabia. They hate us for our original involvement in Iraq. And they hate us for our support of Isreal (because they hate Jews and more importantly, hate Jews living in or near holy land).
You are talking to an athiest. I was more agnostic before September, 2001...but wathcing those buildings fall just made me realize that if it were Christian fundamentalists in the same position, they would do the same thing. (They're already sniping OB/GYN's who perform abortions in this country). From my position, we can't let these religous zealots run our lives, at home or abroad. I can argue against all of their points. If they want to live in a sexually oppressive nation, I say fine -- I'll stay out of your country, and you can just turn our broadcasts off.
Finally, you also need to remember that Satanism would not exist without a belief in Satan, who is a religous contrsruct. You cannot embrace Satan without believing in the tenents of the religions that created this concept. I do not believe in satan, and although my beliefs on sexuality may be considered amoral by the fundamentalists -- the fact is that I don't care what they think. I will not let religous zealots dictate what I can and can't do. I will live my life in the way that I choose and do my part to develop my community's culture in a way that I see fit. They should do the same for themselves...which is all well and good until they try to hurt me in the process.
Of course -- but to draw a parallel to our criminal justice system, "innocent until proven guilty". Acting based on no more than a hunch in this case has proven irresponsible. How many people have to die for a hunch? Are you willing to go and fight -- and possibly sacrifice your life based on a hunch?
You can't hold Kerry to that standard if you don't hold Bush to it...remember the "Old Europe" statements? Furthermore, these people were (in essence) bribed. My friends who are veterans from this war in Iraq tell me that Polish soldiers are being paid double the American's pay. The American taxpayer foots that bill. If this isn't a coalition of the bribed, what is? This name that Kerry used was a play on Bush's Coalition of the Willing. We used political pressure and dollars to win over our coalition. You're fooling yourself if you believe otherwise. Furthermore, you calling Kerry out for criticizing his opponent is pretty stupid. If he didn't criticize Bush, then he wouldn't be a candidate...he'd be Bush in some other guy's body. If we all towed the line, there would be no dissent, and this wouldn't be America. Are you telling me that you're afraid of Kerry because he may have hurt our allies feelings? You must be joking. Bush pissed all over our real allies and you don't seem to even notice.
I am not hearing independant thought from you -- this is Bush rhetoric. Who is safer after this war? The Iraqi politicians who tried to make a positive change but were assassinated? The innocent people who are killed by suicide bombers and roadside bombs? The United States after Al Qaeda has gained sympathy all over the world? The American soldiers who are dying every day in Iraq after our "catastrophic success"? This entire war was turned against us as a rallying call for terrorists, and unfortunately there are more terrorists in Iraq than ever, and there will be more terrorists in the United States.
The fact is that Saddam Hussein could have had his power marginalized by us. There were alternatives to war -- Bush just ignored them.
Again, you are not holding Kerry to the same standard that you hold Bush to. You are making assumptions that Kerry's campaign is based on lies. What ever happened to "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."? How can you possibly assume that Kerry is lying and then conveniently ignore the constant barrage of misinformation from the Bush administration? Remember, this was all about WMD. There was no mention of Saddam Hussein's stipends to the families of Hammas terrorists leading up to the war. It was 100% about a material breach of the UN sanctions and a "smoking gun". Do you remember the 3D renderings of the mobile chemical weapons trucks that Colin Powell showed to the UN that we were so sure Iraq had? Do you remember how Bush changed his tune right away to some mystical link to Al Qaeda? Do you remember how he changed his tune again to liberating a people from the clutches of a horrible dictator?
These real "lies" (call it misleading information if you're more confortable with that) are a whole lot worse than the lies that you are accusing Kerry of because you haven't read his website. These are about as provable as Michael Moore'
Hmm...interesting. I would like to say that I can see through the BS as the same way that you can, but unfortunately, like other Americans, I too am afraid. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I lived in NYC for September, 2001. It was a wake-up call that people want to kill me because I'm a taxpaying American.
In reality, I know that nothing really changed except for my feeling about the threat (fear and anger).
In any case, above anything else, I am afraid that there are missing nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union...and this seems to be my country's ultimate justification for attacking Iraq. (yeah yeah, the banter about liberation...that's just rhetoric. We generally don't go to war just to liberate people, and certainly not from a Saddam Hussein.
Ultimately, however, every politician in the country will try to benefit from the "War on Terra". Kerry is doing it, Bush is doing it, Congress is doing it , local politicians are even doing it here. Some are certainly worse than others, but it's clear that no part of politics here is willing/able to transcend the FUD. I think that it's one of those things that people are worried, and if your opponent spouts off on it, you need to in order to avoid appearing weak.
Anyway...I'm just rambling at this point. The whole point that I've been trying to make is that I understand the absurdity of the situation, and really want to believe that we're not in any credible danger...but part of me does believe that there is some reason to be worried. There are some people who do not necessarily share the same system of ethics that I do and will do horrible things to destroy me (and those whom I care for) because of the actions of my country. I still try to remain objective about it...but there is only so much I can do to resist the fear culture.
Is an unsupported allegation justification for going to war? Would you condemn an individual to death over an unsupported allegation? What about an entire army of humans?
There's no proof that you or I were involved in the 9/11 attacks. That doesn't mean that we were not involed, it just means that there was no proof. Blindly assuming that we have involvement without a shred of real evidence would not only be a meaningless thing to say, but it would also be a reckless assumption. If there is no proof, there is no proof and we should just accept that. If an investigation uncovers some solid evidence, sobeit...but until then, we can't justify war based on a useless suspicion based on the idea that two enemies MUST have colluded. That theory just doesn't make any sense.
Interesting that you should say this, I recently heard an interview with a Canadian journalist who was released after a long and frightening kidnapping in Iraq. He said that the American-paid Iraqi police were supporting the insurgents. (Clearly, this can't be the case with all of the Iraqi police, but these new cops don't sound like all they're cracked up to be). This is just part of the rosy picture that the Bush administration paints of our occupation. The intel that told us to go to Iraq is now telling us that the best case scenario is a status quo in the insurgency, and the worst case is a full civil war. A civil war means another Vietnam, or the possibility of pulling out and accepting an Islamic dictatorship. Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't that why we supported Iraq and Saddam Hussein in the 70's and 80's? To stop the Islamic dictatorship in Iran? Didn't we topple the Taliban for similar reasons (Islamic Fundamentalist dictatorship sponsoring terrorism)? Is there a chance that we could have mitigated the threat that Saddam posed without a war? I'm not suggesting that they were nice guys and I'm not suggesting that there weren't any atrocities going on there, but this war is not about liberation or Saddam's atrocities against his people.
I have a few issues with this. Is steadfast and resolute a good thing when you're just wrong? The fact that this president does not seem to have the capability to analyze a situation and realize that it's not working...or come up with a plan B -- just in case (for example) his cabinet was wrong and they won't throw roses at our soldier's feet. He seems unable to plan for reality. When reality happens, he spins it into good news -- like everyhting is peachy in Iraq (except for the hard work that our soldiers have to do). Reality happened and our reasons for going into Iraq magically changed from WMD to terror. When they failed to provide a link, it changed to liberating the Iraqi people. When people disagreed with his reasons for going to war, Bush spun it into suggesting the naysayers they were pro-Saddam. His only admitted failure in Iraq was winning too fast. This does not seem like a critical thinker. This seems like a stubborn man, who people are willing to stand behind because they're afraid of not doing enough. I call this "dosomethingism". A paranoia where people want
Hmmm...I think that you may be reading a little extra into my remarks. To begin with, I never used the term "wishful thinking". I did use the term idealistic, and RMS is undisputably idealistic (no matter what side of that fence you sit on). I also told him (implicitly) that he was fooling himself if he thought that Microsoft's lack of web server dominance was evidence that F/OSS is "winning", and that Microsoft is not going away because of this imperical evidence (because Microsoft's dominance is not about the web server market). How is that unreasonable? I definitely did not attack anyone here, I just offered my beliefs and gave him an example of where subsidising hardware with software sales is happenning in the real world.
I know. RMS-talk is not new to me. "Information wants to be free" is a form of this rhetoric, and I don't think that calling that out was inappropriate. Once you get past the colorful ways of saying stuff, wasn't that his message? Just trying to cut through the muck and get to the point.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but you seem to be ignoring the business model of manufacturers subsidising hardware costs in hopes of making up for it in software or service subscription costs. This happens regularly in the mobile phone industry, and more relevantly in the video game console industry. Neither of these are totally congruent to the commodity desktop computing market, but similarities can be drawn without stretching much.
Like it or not, the demand for Windows is pretty high, and Microsoft's profit margin is high. What if, in order to boost sales, Microsoft cut their profit margin on software a bit, and began building and selling super-cheap PC's at a loss, and bundled a slightly more expensive (still OEM priced) version of Windows? The cost of the entire package would be less, and Microsoft's margin would be less...but Microsoft could sell more volume this way and make a greater net profit. Further, consumers will still buy Microsoft's wildly overpriced Office suite. Ballmer may be onto something, since this could conceivably boost Windows sales. (I'm not saying that it would, but I am suggesting that this is not the completely outlandish scenario that the majority of posters seem to see.)
Your presumption that all information is free is idealistic. Copyright and ownership (physical and intellectual) are both certainly both man-made concepts, and are mandated and supported by governments across the world. Debunking IP rights is as easy as debunking physical property rights, even though these may be two different entities. Sure, a government could arbitrarily take these away, but I'm not calling for it. Information is provided for free by some, and others sell it. Some people use the free/free stuff, and some people buy the !free/!free stuff. The stock market has consistently verified this. As for Netcraft showing the Microsoft is dying, this is simply untrue, and would only be true if Microsoft's dominanace hinged on the server market. As far as I know, Microsoft has never enjoyed server market dominance. There was a surge of companies running to IIS in the late 90's, but as Apache was further developed, the numbers petered back out and other than a few bumps, Microsoft's web server market has sat at around 20% pretty consistently. It is quite clear that Microsoft's dominance is in the desktop OS and software markets, and is not going anywhere as rapidly as you seem to suggest.
Don't get me wrong, although we may have some idealistic differences (I believe that there is a place in the world for both commercial and free software), I think that do share some common desires. I think that we would both like to see a viable, free platform (like Linux) as a legitimate competitor to Windows. It is frustrating that for many businesses (and individuals), Windows is currently a necessary evil. However, I think that fooling ourselves into believing that Microsoft is dying because they can't attain dominance over the server market is sort of naive. I couldn't tell you exactly how it will happen, but the way that free software is going to topple Microsoft's market dominance is with the continued hard work and persistance of the free software community.
I'm with you about the Java Applets. F-U-G-L-Y. However, I'm going to use your post to illustrate my point earlier in this thread about Java. However, I've used Azureus quite regularly on multiple platforms. It's an excellent application. I've also used BitComet, a Windows-only C++ native BitTorrent client. Although the latter is only available for Windows, the performance differences between Azureus and BitComet are astonishing. BitComet's memory and CPU utilization are significantly lower, and from an antecdotal "application snappiness" level, BitComet just crushes Azureus.
This it not to sling mud at all of the Java-lovers out there. Its a fine development package, and definitely has its purposes. The point is that under most circumstances, a lower level language, while generally more expensive to develop, can yield greater performance. To me, this is critical.
This single example clearly doesn't drive the point home, and I've seen studies that tend to show otherwise, but this just provides a single real world example of where a lower-level language-based application can outperform its counterpart. Finally, I don't have a problem admitting (disclaiming) that I'm slightly biased against Java after working on a few Java development projects in the early days and been infuriated by its performance.
That may do it, but it sounds that it may be even more daunting than having something like true Windows ABI compatibility for Linux. This is especially since a new language acheiving your goals includes market acceptance, and a slew of new applications, which can take years (and can run on and on and on, never acheiving its goals, but refusing to die). If you're talking about a cross-platform just-in-time compiled language (like Java, arguably), I believe that you will have a hard time comparing it with the performance of a precompiled binary (again, arguably and not always true). I believe that the true, seamless Windows ABI compatibility would be more effective, however, it would likely require the Windows source code to be implemented seamlessly, running Windows binaries at an equivalent speed to its Windows counterpart. (I'm talking about something along the lines of a kernel-based "native" Windows ABI, not WINE or WABI). Believe me, I know that this is easier said than done...but I figured that while we're talking about idealisic, lofty goals, I'd toss in my 2 cents.
I'm certain that Windows will not remain the dominant desktop OS platform forever...I have faith in the market. The question remains: how?
That's just silly. Does that mean that if I buy DVD of this (when it's out) that it won't be MPEG2 -- but Quicktime? (Yes, this too is silly, but that's my point).
Point taken. Still -- remember that their market is largely conservative. Pissing your market off isn't exactly smart business-wise, regardless of your desired editorial slant. I'm still a little surprised.
This is only part of the story...and is at the crux of the "liberal media" myth. The fact is that although newspaper journalists tend to be leftish, the executive management team/owners tend to sit on the right wing. If the executive management teams are signing paychecks, as well as hiring and firing journalists, you tell me who has more influence over the stories that get printed? I reject the concept that just because newspaper journalists tend to vote a certain way that all of their stories must have a certain spin. You have to sell the news in this market. The news you sell generally has the spin that your market wants. This is why we have Fox News and WSJ on one side, and the NY Times & Washington Post on another.
Furthermore, Bush's relationship with Crawford, TX goes a bit beyond just owning some land there. It has a population of 705 people, and GWB has made a home there (even though he did not grow up there) popularly known as White House West.
In a town with a population of 705 people who seem to generally support our President -- it *is* surprising that a newspaper in that market would endorse his opponent. Frankly, it's shocking, since I would expect a different spin...they've gotta sell that paper.
You're not surprised -- fine, but there are quite a few people who are, and for good reason.
Yes, according to Google (and most of the news) it certainly is Crawford's local paper.
BTW - I know very little about Crawford. It's not a big town -- how many papers does it have?
Nope -- you're right. It's a part of a sequence of events -- one that plays into expectations. I'm still failing to understand your point. Here's another definition
Here's another definition -- and it doesn't even suggest that the use of the word here needs to come from a literary work. It's a dictionary, and it's not supposed to be implicit about these things (unless you know something that I don't about dictionaries).Again, I would expect that the clear endorsement from the paper representing our President's spiritual hometown would be Bush. The outcome is not what was expected, and it need not be more complicated or drawn out for it to fit the definition of irony. Maybe you expected this outcome, or maybe you weren't able to make a reasonable inference using no more than a location of a paper/town...but clearly the poster of the original story, the moderators who accepted the story, myself, and (what appears to be) a large portion of the readers here disagree with you. We would likely all expect the local Crawford press to either be silent or endorse Bush...ironic.
The larger discussion aside, this brings up an interesting point. Assuming that you're right just for a second -- what if popular culture dictates a different use for a word, is it incorrect because it is not in the dictionary? Especially in slang -- calling someone a bitch, its definition in this case, would not be found in the OED. Is its use invalid because it does not fall into the OED, even though we all understand what is being conveyed? Does it show that popular culture's evolution of language moves faster than OED? Can culture not change language unless the OED approves it?
You left out the third definition from your link, which fits the use of the word pretty nicely:
One would expect Crawford's local paper to be pro-Bush. They did not -- hence the irony.
OT disclaimer...this is a rant based on a single sentence from my parent poster, which is relatively unrelated to the story. If you don't want to read stuff that is pretty far OT, please stop readling this now.
Wow -- that's interesting. Out of all of his ideas, this one was the only thing that I really liked. IIRC, he wasn't talking about cutting SS altogether, the plan was to take a small percentage of that (like 5% or so) and allow citizens to invest it privately (only) if they so choose. What this serves to do is twofold: The smaller effect is a federal nod to their screwing up social security. It was supposed to be a trust, but they've borrowed against it so heavily that it can't do what it was supposed to. My parents won't notice the result of their liberal borrowing, because you and I are paying for that -- but I certainly will notice it. That 5-10% (whatever it was...I remember it being relatively small) wouldn't have destroyed SS and medicare/medicaid, and it's not going to make or break someone's retirement portfolio. However, what it will serve to do, it provide people with a way to get started with saving money.
Look, if you intend to live off of your social security payments when you retire (let's just say it's in 30-35 years), you're crazy if you think you can survive off of this. If an average person cannot survive on that fixed income, and the medicare doesn't provide the all of the services/care that we'll need -- we will all obviously need a plan B that we'll have to work out on our own. All this does is helps us help ourselves...while still having something backed by the fed for the next great depression.
By consistently borrowing money from our social security trust fund, our government has failed us miserably. If I were a trustee of your retirement, how would you feel if I consistently borrowed from it and you had to repay those loans incrementally so as to lose on any gains from compounding interest? This wasn't a fix -- but it was a step in the right direction. The only reason it failed to make it through congress was because the Democrats scared the elderly into believing that Bush was proposing to take away their medicare and social security benefits. This was obviously a load of crap and a dirty, dirty move by the democrats.
Finally, investing in the market helps people, and drives part of the economy. What's wrong with that? Don't we want to encourage careful investing of dollars into stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc?
IANABF & IANAR (I Am Not A Bush Fan & I Am Not A Republican). BTW -- I did like the rest of your post. Pretty pragmatic.