This is exactly what I thought when I read this. Dean was a long shot candidate like Kucinich at the start of the race, now he's the front runner for the nomination for leader of the free world.
Joe Trippi is a Jedi. Cringely is smarter than he realizes.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a reason why we need free software that Joe-sixpack will understand. With free software you're in control. When it's proprietary, the owner can be pressured to release features that are good for you but unprofitable.
Microsoft made Windows ME, which is obviously just switching the first letter of "Be" with an "M", which I guess stood for "Microsoft". That's more than half the letters in "Be". MS should be ashamed of their rank hypocrisy.
I don't care if they claim it means "Milennium", it's obvious what their real motives were.
God bless you, I wish I had mod points to spend. The courtroom is about the only place where this distinction makes sense, and the wisdom of it becomes more and more evident as this farce of a case presses on. They'll have a hard time claiming ownership of GNU via Linux when the originator of GNU has been differentiating them for a decade.
Do you honestly think the UN could do shit if the US and China decided to go at it?
Do you honestly think the US could do shit if Idaho and Montana decided to go at it? Do you think they'd even bother?
Re:could someone name one commercial app...
on
Kylix in Limbo
·
· Score: 1
I can't think of a commercial application that seems to have strong sales on linux. Either the desktop or server.
Oracle.
Probably Winex, but they broke their promise about freeing the source when subscriptions got to a reasonable level and never let us see the subscription levels. But they're still in business.
You kind of have a point though- the software market right now caters to idiots who don't realize they can demand the source code and only pay for real improvements. The reason people don't buy apps for linux is that in general, they don't NEED them- the free tools do their jobs perfectly well thank you.
I had roughly the same problem with a Lexmark Printer/Concord Digital Camera combo I picked up at Walmart. I was super excited to see linux support on the side of the box.
Turns out, a. the support was binary only and would not be updated for future versions of linux: Redhat 7 or 8 only please b. the support is for the printer only, even though there's nothing on the package to indicate this.
I spent a week sending plaintive emails to Concord asking them to live up to their packaging to no avail. Finally I discovered that there was a USB mass storage driver on the camera that worked fine with Linux. This made me very angry to say the least.
This is why free software is so important. You don't want to be at the mercy of a company any time you want to wipe your ass. Do we really want nvidia-style binary only drivers for every piece of hardware in our computers? Because that's what's starting to happen. You can no longer get modern free software drivers for 3d accelerated video since ATI stopped releasing the specs on their cards after the Radeon 9200 series. If Linux one day wakes up and realizes it depends on proprietary, nonfree Windows drivers to function, guess who wins?
I wouldn't be a bit surprised to learn that Microsoft funded this venture. It would be a keen strategy for them- they can't embrace and extend linux directly, but they can hobble it by making it depend on nonfree software.
Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!
on
Hackers On Atkins
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
jogging can be boring as hell, and more interesting activities like basketball leave you sore and injured often
This is why DDR is the best video game ever invented. It makes exercise fun, even when it's just you.
The only thing that could top it would be a hack & slash video game that worked both upper body and lower body, but I think we'll have to wait for holodeck technology for that one.
Essentially, what they are doing RIGHT NOW is as wrongheaded as pirating and selling the latest sets of MSDN.
It's actually worse, because the price you pay for free software is so much more reasonable than the monopoly rents (not to mention restrictive licensing!) Microsoft is charging. No sharecropping for me thanks.
If Diebold is claiming copyright infringement, they are admitting that the memos are real!
I hope people don't focus so much on the.sig file, even if it does become kind of creepy in this context. Don't be distracted, Diebold is strangling democracy in a bathtub while we stand by and watch.
Re:Translated for the America-Impaired
on
Who Needs Radio?
·
· Score: 1
we will never know for sure of the motivation, only that of all the major outlets only Fox did the right thing
Uh, yeah, right.
Dunno, pretty big difference between intentional bias and trying to be a good citizen and doing something because the President of the USA asked them to.
Actually, the press has a responsibility to be adversarial to the wishes of the president if anything. The president is at least as capable as any of us of having a bad idea. Fox ran with this one. Far from being patriots, they rolled over and played lapdog.
Nah, it just says I'm an old fart who isn't shocked at full contact politics. Not the first felony and certainly not the last.
Well excuse me for finding executive branch felons shocking. We can agree to disagree on this one.
Heck, the Pentagon Papers probably rose to an overt act of Treason but if anybody was executed over it never made the papers. Besides, this one is still going to have a few more plot twists methinks so I'm not worrying about it until a few more chapters get written.
The motivations were important in that case - the Pentagon papers themselves revealed an act of treason. The Plame case is motivated by political revenge. Plus, the law making the outing of sources a felony was passed in 1982.
Har Har, nice attempt at character assassination but I really doubt Miss Rice is the leak.
You're mistaken; if you look at my posts you'll see that I use the feminine preferred when referring to a person for whom the gender is undetermined. I personally think it was Rove, but that really doesn't matter.
Yea, and the Pope isn't Catholic. I did know Ted & Jane aren't married anymore. Talk about Poetic Justice! Ted finally finds the Godless Communist of his dreams and then she goes and finds God! Almost makes me believe in God, and that He has a sick and twisted sense of humor.:)
Again I am agape at your ability to assert all these things without evidence or examples. How can you accuse me of character assassination? Are you not yourself above what you find objectionable in others?
> Besides, CNN has taken a giant step to the right to try to keep > up with Fox's ratings.
And of course Ted isn't in charge anymore, which might also have something to do with it.
Doesn't that sort of defeat your entire premise?
And it says a lot about how out of step mainstream news is that as soon as a single news outlet leaned Right they shot to #1 and now the others are forced to change their position in a desperate attempt to recover ratings. But they still have a long way to go to reach unbiased.
The thing is, it's not Fox's conservatism that grabs ratings- it's their sensationalism. That's why a simple shift to the right from the middle doesn't net CNN many viewers- CNN can change their ideology, but there's a certain level of sensationalism they can't stoop to without wrecking their reputation and losing their core. They couldn't have a Bill O'Reilly on the air.
> This is what I mean by calling names. You're not making an argument, > you're calling me insane.
Not at all, and I wouldn't mind if liberals think us Conservatives are "hopelessly misguided, delusional, borderline fascists". Because that means we would actually exist on the liberal radar as actual people with a coherent worldview, just one they disagree with.
Logically speaking, if I thought you were delusional that would mean that you didn't have a coherent world view at all. As it stands, I'm just trying to understand what facts about the world make you believe as you do, and I'm having a hard time of it.
What I object to is the standard PC liberal position
Pigeonholing me again.
that the world consists of various brands of liberalism with full blown socialists/communists over to their left but no rational position to
Re:Translated for the America-Impaired
on
Who Needs Radio?
·
· Score: 1
Well, you at least contest my examples here, although I'm still waiting for some counterexamples. Quickly:
The people of California watch the news, some of them even watch Fox.. Command came down from on high because the people on high at Fox wanted Arnold to win.
Regarding the press secretary request, I concede your point. It was Ari who suggested it first, I forgot. But Fox pushed it enthusiastically. Everyone else kinda said "WTF?" for the reasons I outlined in an earlier post. Your point is true, but the distinction is not really important.
The fact that you believe the Plame affair to be a minor issue is telling. It's a felony. I'm sure you've seen the Bush Sr. quote about revealing sources by now. But what bothers me is not so much that it happened, but that no one really seems to care if the felon is caught. If I were a true partisan this would please me; the Democrats can prove logically that there's a guaranteed felon in the White House and the only way to get rid of her is to elect a new administration. I mean, at least Poindexter had been pardoned.
Murdoch vs. Turner: Turner is no liberal. Nor is he married to Jane Fonda any longer. Besides, CNN has taken a giant step to the right to try to keep up with Fox's ratings. There was a FAIR study documenting this rightward shift on reliable sources; viewers can see it for themselves. I seek documentation to the contrary, that CNN, or NPR for that matter, is a liberal news outlet. You assert but do not prove this.
Which only proves the blindness of the left. While those of on the Right will concede you guys exist (but are hopelessly misguided, delusional, borderline anti-american, but you DO exist) you guys think the political spectrum goes from Joe Stalin to Joe Lieberman and anything to the right of there is only howling madness.
This is what I mean by calling names. You're not making an argument, you're calling me insane. This is not reasonable discourse, it's ad hominem attack. Besides, I, like you, have mostly libertarian leanings- I'm concerned foremost with an empirical basis for policy making. Clinton was quite good at this, the Bush Administration is famously afraid of it. I live in Pennsylvania, I've voted for Arlen Specter (but Rick Santorum scares the living daylights out of me). But you seem to think I'm some wacko because I don't see a communist conspiracy in the media.
Let's hear from someone who can recite a similar litany explaining how NPR is left-wing. Indymedia is left wing. Pacifica is left-wing. There is no major national left-wing news television or radio network at the present time.
I just wanted to repost that to remind you. I'm interested in hearing how NPR is slanted, specifically. I gave several examples.
I swear to Jeebus I'm trying not to be blinded by my politics, I'm trying to "call 'em like I see 'em." I'm looking for examples.
The Ombudsman was reporting what the listeners wrote to him. This is kind of an unfair example- the subject was Bill O'Reilly- it was a show ABOUT Fox News and it's most famous personality.
I listened to the Terry Gross interview- I thought she was just wimpy, not liberal. In my mind at least those two are not the same. Bill rolled right over her- without addressing any of the substantiated lies she mentioned from Franken's book. Terry Gross may be biased agains unethical journalists, and I share that criticism of O'Reilly with her. She asked questions that attacked his credentials- but couldn't he defend himself? His response to any criticism at all seems to be to attack rather than to appeal to the facts of the matter. Good for ratings, bad for empiricism.
By the way, I'd appreciate a pointer at *any* credible debunking of Franken's book. The ombudsman cites the "popular left-wing (mis)perception" of Mr. O'Reilly. Please explain to me what part of that perception is incorrect, because I am not blind, I simply do not know after my own investigation which consisted mostly of googling for reviews and looking for a point-by-point rebuttal from Mr. O'Reilly (like the one we finally got from Michael Moore, after reading the Franken book. I realize we're getting off topic here, but I want to make this clear:
I don't get my reasons because I'm a liberal (in fact, on most issues I'm more of a libertarian truth be told)- I have reasons for what I believe, and will change my beliefs in the face of compelling evidence.
I want very badly for someone out there to prove that Franken was the real liar, and that O'Reilly, Bush, Coulter and co. are honest and consistent. I want to believe that things are not as bad as they seem, but the facts seem to dictate otherwise.
Re:Translated for the America-Impaired
on
Who Needs Radio?
·
· Score: 1
I gave examples, you called me names.
Let's hear some evidence. What on earth is it that makes you think MSNBC is left-wing? Pardon the allusion, but you must imagine the center to be somewhere in between Rupert Murdoch's cheeks.
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly what I thought when I read this. Dean was a long shot candidate like Kucinich at the start of the race, now he's the front runner for the nomination for leader of the free world.
Joe Trippi is a Jedi. Cringely is smarter than he realizes.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a reason why we need free software that Joe-sixpack will understand. With free software you're in control. When it's proprietary, the owner can be pressured to release features that are good for you but unprofitable.
Don't forget about BeOS.
Microsoft made Windows ME, which is obviously just switching the first letter of "Be" with an "M", which I guess stood for "Microsoft". That's more than half the letters in "Be". MS should be ashamed of their rank hypocrisy.
I don't care if they claim it means "Milennium", it's obvious what their real motives were.
Doesn't Pillsbury have a trademark on the term bake-off?
Intellectual property hawks of the world, unite! Fight this outrage. SCO, are you listening?
Hm, I've been pinging god.va all day, are you trying a different denomination?
Or just get yourself a slightly older Radeon chipset (9200 or older) and use the free software DRI drivers.
I'm with you. Lucky Charms is decaf too, y'know; I could sprinkle folgers crystals on it if I wanted it to taste like coffee but not give me a buzz.
The nerve of some people.
Plus free patent abuse with every purchase!
Capitalism gives you political power as a consumer. Use it or suffer corporate socialism.
Ever seen demolition man?
Every time you think about this as a good idea, just repeat the phrase "My eye impaled on a pencil" over and over again until you reconsider.
"Do I feel lucky?"
If you are too young to understand this quote, you need an education in Clint Eastwoodisms. Fire up Kazaa and download all the Dirty Harry films.
Give me UI that I can control by sucking on breasts, and then I'll be impressed.
Would that make Douglas Adams the inventor of the ternary operator?
God bless you, I wish I had mod points to spend. The courtroom is about the only place where this distinction makes sense, and the wisdom of it becomes more and more evident as this farce of a case presses on. They'll have a hard time claiming ownership of GNU via Linux when the originator of GNU has been differentiating them for a decade.
Do you honestly think the UN could do shit if the US and China decided to go at it?
Do you honestly think the US could do shit if Idaho and Montana decided to go at it? Do you think they'd even bother?
I can't think of a commercial application that seems to have strong sales on linux. Either the desktop or server.
Oracle.
Probably Winex, but they broke their promise about freeing the source when subscriptions got to a reasonable level and never let us see the subscription levels. But they're still in business.
You kind of have a point though- the software market right now caters to idiots who don't realize they can demand the source code and only pay for real improvements. The reason people don't buy apps for linux is that in general, they don't NEED them- the free tools do their jobs perfectly well thank you.
It'll be seen by more people that way. Administrators often care more if you tell someone else that something's wrong than if you just tell them.
I had roughly the same problem with a Lexmark Printer/Concord Digital Camera combo I picked up at Walmart. I was super excited to see linux support on the side of the box.
Turns out, a. the support was binary only and would not be updated for future versions of linux: Redhat 7 or 8 only please b. the support is for the printer only, even though there's nothing on the package to indicate this.
I spent a week sending plaintive emails to Concord asking them to live up to their packaging to no avail. Finally I discovered that there was a USB mass storage driver on the camera that worked fine with Linux. This made me very angry to say the least.
This is why free software is so important. You don't want to be at the mercy of a company any time you want to wipe your ass. Do we really want nvidia-style binary only drivers for every piece of hardware in our computers? Because that's what's starting to happen. You can no longer get modern free software drivers for 3d accelerated video since ATI stopped releasing the specs on their cards after the Radeon 9200 series. If Linux one day wakes up and realizes it depends on proprietary, nonfree Windows drivers to function, guess who wins?
I wouldn't be a bit surprised to learn that Microsoft funded this venture. It would be a keen strategy for them- they can't embrace and extend linux directly, but they can hobble it by making it depend on nonfree software.
jogging can be boring as hell, and more interesting activities like basketball leave you sore and injured often
This is why DDR is the best video game ever invented. It makes exercise fun, even when it's just you.
The only thing that could top it would be a hack & slash video game that worked both upper body and lower body, but I think we'll have to wait for holodeck technology for that one.
Essentially, what they are doing RIGHT NOW is as wrongheaded as pirating and selling the latest sets of MSDN.
It's actually worse, because the price you pay for free software is so much more reasonable than the monopoly rents (not to mention restrictive licensing!) Microsoft is charging. No sharecropping for me thanks.
This is actually pretty amazing.
.sig file, even if it does become kind of creepy in this context. Don't be distracted, Diebold is strangling democracy in a bathtub while we stand by and watch.
If Diebold is claiming copyright infringement, they are admitting that the memos are real!
I hope people don't focus so much on the
we will never know for sure of the motivation, only that of all the major outlets only Fox did the right thing
:)
Uh, yeah, right.
Dunno, pretty big difference between intentional bias and trying to be a good citizen and doing something because the President of the USA asked them to.
Actually, the press has a responsibility to be adversarial to the wishes of the president if anything. The president is at least as capable as any of us of having a bad idea. Fox ran with this one. Far from being patriots, they rolled over and played lapdog.
Nah, it just says I'm an old fart who isn't shocked at full contact politics. Not the first felony and certainly not the last.
Well excuse me for finding executive branch felons shocking. We can agree to disagree on this one.
Heck, the Pentagon Papers probably rose to an overt act of Treason but if anybody was executed over it never made the papers. Besides, this one is still going to have a few more plot twists methinks so I'm not worrying about it until a few more chapters get written.
The motivations were important in that case - the Pentagon papers themselves revealed an act of treason. The Plame case is motivated by political revenge. Plus, the law making the outing of sources a felony was passed in 1982.
Har Har, nice attempt at character assassination but I really doubt Miss Rice is the leak.
You're mistaken; if you look at my posts you'll see that I use the feminine preferred when referring to a person for whom the gender is undetermined. I personally think it was Rove, but that really doesn't matter.
Yea, and the Pope isn't Catholic. I did know Ted & Jane aren't married anymore. Talk about Poetic Justice! Ted finally finds the Godless Communist of his dreams and then she goes and finds God! Almost makes me believe in God, and that He has a sick and twisted sense of humor.
Again I am agape at your ability to assert all these things without evidence or examples. How can you accuse me of character assassination? Are you not yourself above what you find objectionable in others?
> Besides, CNN has taken a giant step to the right to try to keep
> up with Fox's ratings.
And of course Ted isn't in charge anymore, which might also have something to do with it.
Doesn't that sort of defeat your entire premise?
And it says a lot about how out of step mainstream news is that as soon as a single news outlet leaned Right they shot to #1 and now the others are forced to change their position in a desperate attempt to recover ratings. But they still have a long way to go to reach unbiased.
The thing is, it's not Fox's conservatism that grabs ratings- it's their sensationalism. That's why a simple shift to the right from the middle doesn't net CNN many viewers- CNN can change their ideology, but there's a certain level of sensationalism they can't stoop to without wrecking their reputation and losing their core. They couldn't have a Bill O'Reilly on the air.
> This is what I mean by calling names. You're not making an argument,
> you're calling me insane.
Not at all, and I wouldn't mind if liberals think us Conservatives are "hopelessly misguided, delusional, borderline fascists". Because that means we would actually exist on the liberal radar as actual people with a coherent worldview, just one they disagree with.
Logically speaking, if I thought you were delusional that would mean that you didn't have a coherent world view at all. As it stands, I'm just trying to understand what facts about the world make you believe as you do, and I'm having a hard time of it.
What I object to is the standard PC liberal position
Pigeonholing me again.
that the world consists of various brands of liberalism with full blown socialists/communists over to their left but no rational position to
Well, you at least contest my examples here, although I'm still waiting for some counterexamples. Quickly:
The people of California watch the news, some of them even watch Fox.. Command came down from on high because the people on high at Fox wanted Arnold to win.
Regarding the press secretary request, I concede your point. It was Ari who suggested it first, I forgot. But Fox pushed it enthusiastically. Everyone else kinda said "WTF?" for the reasons I outlined in an earlier post. Your point is true, but the distinction is not really important.
The fact that you believe the Plame affair to be a minor issue is telling. It's a felony. I'm sure you've seen the Bush Sr. quote about revealing sources by now. But what bothers me is not so much that it happened, but that no one really seems to care if the felon is caught. If I were a true partisan this would please me; the Democrats can prove logically that there's a guaranteed felon in the White House and the only way to get rid of her is to elect a new administration. I mean, at least Poindexter had been pardoned.
Murdoch vs. Turner: Turner is no liberal. Nor is he married to Jane Fonda any longer. Besides, CNN has taken a giant step to the right to try to keep up with Fox's ratings. There was a FAIR study documenting this rightward shift on reliable sources; viewers can see it for themselves. I seek documentation to the contrary, that CNN, or NPR for that matter, is a liberal news outlet. You assert but do not prove this.
Which only proves the blindness of the left. While those of on the Right will concede you guys exist (but are hopelessly misguided, delusional, borderline anti-american, but you DO exist) you guys think the political spectrum goes from Joe Stalin to Joe Lieberman and anything to the right of there is only howling madness.
This is what I mean by calling names. You're not making an argument, you're calling me insane. This is not reasonable discourse, it's ad hominem attack. Besides, I, like you, have mostly libertarian leanings- I'm concerned foremost with an empirical basis for policy making. Clinton was quite good at this, the Bush Administration is famously afraid of it. I live in Pennsylvania, I've voted for Arlen Specter (but Rick Santorum scares the living daylights out of me). But you seem to think I'm some wacko because I don't see a communist conspiracy in the media.
He makes MSNBC liberal for sure- oh wait, they fired him even though he had their highest rated show. "Liberals" sure act strangely these days.
I grouped those three together because they're the focus of Franken's book.
Don't facts matter to anyone anymore? I care about facts, not parties.
Let's hear from someone who can recite a similar litany explaining how NPR is left-wing. Indymedia is left wing. Pacifica is left-wing. There is no major national left-wing news television or radio network at the present time.
I just wanted to repost that to remind you. I'm interested in hearing how NPR is slanted, specifically. I gave several examples.
I swear to Jeebus I'm trying not to be blinded by my politics, I'm trying to "call 'em like I see 'em." I'm looking for examples.
The Ombudsman was reporting what the listeners wrote to him. This is kind of an unfair example- the subject was Bill O'Reilly- it was a show ABOUT Fox News and it's most famous personality.
I listened to the Terry Gross interview- I thought she was just wimpy, not liberal. In my mind at least those two are not the same. Bill rolled right over her- without addressing any of the substantiated lies she mentioned from Franken's book. Terry Gross may be biased agains unethical journalists, and I share that criticism of O'Reilly with her. She asked questions that attacked his credentials- but couldn't he defend himself? His response to any criticism at all seems to be to attack rather than to appeal to the facts of the matter. Good for ratings, bad for empiricism.
By the way, I'd appreciate a pointer at *any* credible debunking of Franken's book. The ombudsman cites the "popular left-wing (mis)perception" of Mr. O'Reilly. Please explain to me what part of that perception is incorrect, because I am not blind, I simply do not know after my own investigation which consisted mostly of googling for reviews and looking for a point-by-point rebuttal from Mr. O'Reilly (like the one we finally got from Michael Moore, after reading the Franken book. I realize we're getting off topic here, but I want to make this clear:
I don't get my reasons because I'm a liberal (in fact, on most issues I'm more of a libertarian truth be told)- I have reasons for what I believe, and will change my beliefs in the face of compelling evidence.
I want very badly for someone out there to prove that Franken was the real liar, and that O'Reilly, Bush, Coulter and co. are honest and consistent. I want to believe that things are not as bad as they seem, but the facts seem to dictate otherwise.
I gave examples, you called me names.
Let's hear some evidence. What on earth is it that makes you think MSNBC is left-wing? Pardon the allusion, but you must imagine the center to be somewhere in between Rupert Murdoch's cheeks.