You have cherry picked a few secondary and tertiary traits or tactics used by the Nazis and drawn parallels to Bush - coincidentally, ones that are often used by ALL governments.
The scale of the negative things done by Bush is several orders of magnatude less evil than what the Nazis did. It's not even close. This is why comparisons to the Nazis is ridiculous. You can rant all day about people who were allegedly connected here and there, and focus exclusively on more common and less prominent Nazi traits, and it means nothing.
Shall I label you a Stalinist? I could dig up probably more evidence for than than you could to connect Bush to Naziism.
Hate Bush all you want, but the Nazi comparisons hold no water. The whole 'do some research' canard doesn't excuse poor logic. I paid attention during history class, I *know* what the Nazis really did. Their primary traits were not 'make marriage illegal for some people and try and distract the country.' Clinton didn't support Gay marriage and used cruise missles to distract the country during his sexcapade scandal, therefore he's a Nazi too, right?
I *am* addressing the issues, just because you say I'm not doesn't make it true. Bush isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread, but the Nazi comparisons are stupid. I've addressed all of the major traits of Naziism, and you've as much agreed that Bush isn't like any of those.
Propaganda is used by ALL governments. Gays aren't nearly as demonized by the anti-Gay marriage crowd as you would like to believe (as sad and misguided as I believe they are) Prevention of marriage is not the same as sending to death camps.
This Bush = Nazi ludicrous exaggeration is tired, old, and annoying. Cherry picking a few unimportant Nazi traits doesn't make someone a Nazi. One certainly doesn't need to be a Bush lover to recognize this.
So you agree that almost everything is different, but they're still the same?
Fuck you're stupid.
Gay rights is one of my major beefs with the Republican party - they should get the hell out of the bedroom and stop legislating morality. However, this seems to be your single issue here, and you seem to forget what really happened to the Jews. There weren't a handful of hate crimes here and there, they systematically rounded them up and killed them. BY THE MILLIONS. Denying marriage and survivorship rights sucks, but it's just a TAD short of execution in a labor camp with a target of total extermination. Just a tad. 'Promoting hatred' is not lethal. That's not even what they're doing anyways.
Everything else I said addressed the point - that there are few similarities between the Nazis and the Republicans. You even agree, point by point, but you're so hateful you can't apply any reason. The only attempt to address what I said was effectively
1. Republicans (allegedly) hate Gays 2. Nazis hate Jews 3. Republicans are Nazis (QED)
Exactly what I expected, and as idiotic as whatever you said to garner the little red dot next to your name months ago. I suppose in your proportionless hyperbolic world, that would qualify as a 'hate crime.'
Please, show how the current 'cabal' (LOL) is extensively influenced by Nazi philosophy. Which particular racial/ethnic/religious American mix of international mutt is the 'master race?' When do we start rounding up the Jews? When does Bush do a complete 180 and start nationalizing everything instead of the current push to privatize things more and more? When do we round up all the guns from private citizens? When do the book burnings start? When do we start taking over other countries? The US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan bear little to no resemblance to Nazi Germany's march across Europe. They didn't depose murderous dictators repeatedly condemned by the League of Nations (no UN at the time) and set up democracies, in case you missed it.
Does anyone every study unrevised history any more? Does anyone actually remember what the Nazis did, beyond 'bad stuff and like Bush is like totally doing bad stuff too so he's like totally a Nazi, dude?'
IBM did business with Nazi Germany. Does that have any bearing on them or the management's relatives in this day and age? No. Ford and GM, too.
I see little more than a 'Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon' connection between Bush and Naziism. You can quickly connect Nazis and former Nazis to Germany's government, many (if not most) large corporations that were around in the 30s and 40s, and much of FDR's aerospace and nuclear programs. Trying to connect Bush to Naziism demonstrates a complete lack of historical perspective and is so ludicrous it seems pointless to try and debate anyone who is so deluded.
Empty of substance? Because it wasn't a long winded rant devoid of any attachment to reality?
If you think Bush even mildly resembles Hitler, you are completely out of your fucking mind. We are not marching across continents subjugating people, in spite of the worst spin by the loony left media on events in Iraq and elsewhere (or did you miss the elections?). We are not rounding up millions of people to exterminate because of their race and/or beliefs. Bush is also not centralizing and federalizing power, he is trying to decentralize and privatize things. Hitler was also a brilliant public speaker (as disgusting as his ideals were). And Bush bears what resemblance to him? Pretty much none. It's just a name-smear job to try and make him look evil.
He is also not bankrupting the US, intentionally or not - we are intentionally pursuing a weak dollar policy to make our manufactured goods more affordable during a recovery. WHAT A TERRIBLE IDEA, CREATING MANUFACTURING JOBS AND MAKING AMERICAN GOODS AFFORDABLE. Clearly, we are on the road to bankruptcy by creating a decentralized, privatized, fertile economy that generates private jobs and makes American goods more affordable abroad.
The fact that you even bring Jerry Falwell up at all demonstrates your colossal ignorance of American politics. Jerry isn't even a bit player in the national political scene, and is almost universally mocked (though most often just ignored) by people of all political persuasions here.
Counter-evidence seemed futile because your rant was so detached from reality. I threw you a few bones, we'll see if you can even let those sink in - but I suspect I'll get nothing logical in return.
My response was also hardly partisan, as I wasn't endorsing or attacking a particular party as you were. I'm not a Republican and I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004 either - I'm just tired of the loony comparisons.
Wow. You invoked Godwin's Law before most of us dumb uninformed Americans were even awake. Not that we could read your loony rant because we're illiterate.
Perhaps it was a clever reverse troll? You whined about total ignorance and mischaracterization of the left, and then spun around and ignorantly mischaracterized the American right. Intentional or not, it was an excellent illustration of the mindless partisan idiocy and distortion that you claim to dislike, at least when it's applied to the left.
About what I expected. You get caught in a lie, so you scuttle the argument with "I'm too smart to argue with you." Brilliant. You may have a future in politics.
What was I dishonest about? The other anti-Bush mental patient said that Bush was 'respoinsible' because he had better access to intelligence. Responsible for what? The thread he replied to was all Democrats beating the war drum and talking about WMD, starting years before Bush was elected. There was rhetoric about Bush being able to filter the data, yadda yadda, so how did the Dems get Bush-tainted data 2+ years before he was elected? Who "tainted" the intelligence before 2001? And how does Bush come up responsible for that tainted data?
So is Bush responsible for starting the war? Of course. Duh. But that's not what this fork of the thread was about. Do you even know what intellectual dishonesty is, or is it just a canned insult you throw around to make yourself sound more intellectual?
Interesting how people like you refuse to assign any responsibility for the terrorist thugs, and pin it all on Bush/Rove/etc. Sounds like...oh...I dunno...INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY?
Favor returned for your weak ass straw man trying to paint me as a neo con, and misrepresenting what I said. Par for the course lately at Slashdot, home of the knee-jerk Rove conspiracy theorists.
What the coward fails to recognize is the reason that Bush is accountable is that as the President he is in a unique position. He has more access to more intelligence than anyone else, he has the power to distribute that intelligence so as to alter the debate, and he has the power to alter the manner in which intelligence is gathered. Bush did not use his unique ability to gather intelligence to come up with an accurate picture.
You might take another look at the dates of the statements and when President Bush was first elected - or do you honestly mean to suggest that Bush is somehow 'accountable' for these Democrats coming to the same exact conclusions about Iraq and WMDs years before he became president?
Oh, and that's better? Not necessarily....but it's accurate, unlike your statement.
Oh, we should feel better they only screwed 60 people out of their jobs for no reason at all. Again, better or not, that's debatable....but your statement was again, inaccurate. Didn't you read the article or the post you replied to that pointed the information out?
Can you substantiate your claim that 60 people got "screwed" out of their jobs for no reason at all? Or is this just more angry anti-corporate ranting that produced the previous inaccuracies?
They didn't "wait until after the game was done." The article had already been updated, and that information was clearly stated in the post you replied to.
Are you implying that independent farmers are *all* IP thieves who break their contracts with seed distributors?
This is not the case of some poor, hapless chump who had some accidental cross-polination imposed upon him, this is someone who knowingly bought Monsanto's seed, agreed not to harvest the seeds, and did so anyways. Sounds like an open and shut case, and no threat whatsoever to American farmers who honor their contracts.
I used to work for the Water Utilities Department in San Diego. We had an experimental poo water to drinking water facility, but they were fighting the same perception issue. Desalinization was dirtier and more labor intensive to get 2x the impurities.
And no, I didn't try any of the processed water, either.:) They didn't exactly have dixie cups and a spigot at the end.
I've been using Mozilla and later Firefox for quite a while now - I like it - but the bitter partisan political stuff is just a big turn off for many people. If you assault them with all sorts of insults to their PC, their OS, and even the web browser that works at least acceptably well for many of them, they'll probably write it off as some zealous partisan attack.
The people who hate hate hate MS and/or IE have already moved on. I'm sure they'll cheer the ad, but that's a big waste of money.
SFF's site is/.ed right now, and they didn't seem to have the ad up anyways, but I hope it's a bit more subdued than the summary.
Actually, I used BeOS for a while - so you're wrong again. I sort of liked it, in fact - one reason was the video stuff seemed solid and responsive. I think my network card was unsupported...but it did seem sort of nice. The one really scary thing was that copying same-named folders deleted everything that was in the pre-existing folder. The Unix command line seemed to lack just about everything when I tried it....but of course I sound like I didn't use it for some reason.
Troll or not, it's fact - and I've tried many different configurations, as opposed to the ONE system you mention. I've heard the same from many users who aren't primarily Mac users, who tend to get defensive about it without even really testing it.
I wonder why so many people use Quicktime Alternative? Must just be all the trolls. Yeah, that's it. In fact, it came out before Real Alternative, and I think we all know how much most people hate Real.
Well, "I don't accept" your statements on BeOS. They were dead before they tried to go x86, and the only people that I've ever encountered that disagree are Apple zealots. Apple shut them out. They tried the BeBox after that, but couldn't sustain it. For some reason they couldn't get pre-installed on Apple Macs either, or even pitch their product at Apple events. Hmmm....
I've seen approximately 10 systems try and deal with QT vs. WMP, from homebuilt to prebuilt, from AMD and Intel, with and without "real" video cards, and your sample of one doesn't mean my multiple PCs need fixing. QT needs fixing. Ask any non-Apple zealot with a PC and they'll agree. VLC works. Even the scourge of Real works. WMP works fine too. QT makes everything grind to a halt. All on the same video. Is MS "abusing their monopoly" and writing code that detects QT playing and bogging it down?
MS may abuse their monopoly, but that doesn't mean you get to distort the facts about Apple and Be. Oh yeah. "Fact."
BeOS was really killed by Apple, not MS. Porting BeOS to x86 was their last dying grasp at surviving after Apple shut them out of every Apple trade show and developer's convention that they could. They even tried their own PPC hardware before they went up against MS on x86.
iTunes and Quicktime are garbage on the PC. They're absolutely terrible. Play the same video on VLC, WMP, Real, and QT, and the QT one practically grinds the system to a halt, and often stutters, when the other ones play smoothly. It has 2-3x the processor loading of any other of those media players. iTunes is a similar resource hog just for playing music.
They ignore all interface paradigms and standards on the Windows platform to boot, from looks to window resizing to mouse behavior. Speaking of 'boot,' that system boot crippling feature of iTunes was a dandy, wasn't it? Apple's Windows software QA department asleep on the job, as always.
Well, you haven't presented any evidence that this campaign doesn't target uninformed voters - you just like it because it gets out the vote, informed or not, agreeing with you, or not - which is completely separate. You could argue (as you did) that this might be a good thing, but that doesn't mean the voters are now informed. You pretty much acknowledge they aren't informed by trying to encourage them to vote for "anyone/anything," otherwise, they'd probably already have an opinion and a candidate they were at least leaning towards.
I also think that's a bad thing, because people who are too lazy to pay attention and eventually go out and vote are going to make poorly informed decisions. I certainly don't discourage anyone who cares enough to vote to do so, just that the people who haven't paid attention until MTV showed them some video game characters that convinced them, "by golly maybe I should look into this voting thing" aren't going to have *any* context to make their decision, other than "MTV wants me to vote."
BTW, the facist accusation (from you, or at least a clear implication and addition to your enemy list) was attached to a previous discussion where I suggested that registering unlikely voters was a bad idea because they leave those registrations open for fraud. If you care enough to vote, you'll probably remember to forward your address, and notice when your absentee application goes missing (as I've had to do personally).
Also, it's also not really a nonpartisan campagin - they know who tends to watch MTV, and they know how they tend to vote. Viacom is also (just coincidentally!) run by former Clinton cabinet members and heavy Democratic donors. They try to make it look that way, of course.
I don't know, but trying to use video game characters on MTV to get people to "just vote, we don't care who for, just vote for anyone/anything" is pretty much the standard for an uninformed voter.
Of course, some people call you a facist for saying such ridiculous things.
You're the one playing the man (me) not the ball (Soros's alleged independence). You made a false statement, I corrected it. You're trying to obfuscate this and redirect me to engage his documented lies and established political agenda, and spinning him as a libertarian, again, when he spends $10s of MILLIONS of dollars to advance Democratic causes. Directly. Dabbled? DABBLED? Wow. You're touched.
Respond to my points with something that refutes the evidence that he's deeply entrenched with the DNC and has been for well over 10 years and $10s of MILLIONS of dollars. I was taking issue with YOUR misstatements. You have nothing to back your bizarre assessment up other than his implied neutrality (and alleged libertarianism ROTFLMAO!), which is obviously false.
Your Nader comment makes no sense to me. As well, you keep trying to spin Soros as something less than a dyed in the wool Democrat. Actions speak louder than words, and Soros has many actions which speak far louder than his silly little rant about Bush (and I illustrated why it's silly above, since he compares Kerry favorably when Kerry supported the same policies until he decided to flip-flop).
Ask Soros about what he did to Russia sometime. He's a real sweetheart.
Oh well, I tried. You clearly won't consider the obvious facts. And you say I'm playing cheap politics! Hah.
He is a Democratic tool - he's been a big fund raiser since well before 2000. I searched back to '92 and he was still writing $x0,000 checks to the DNC/DCCC/etc. It has nothing to do with the current administration, he's a dyed in the wool Democrat, and has been for years. His intent (admittedly so, at least he's more honest than CBS) is to sway voter opinion. That sort of taints most of what he's presenting.
I have never been heavily involved in partisan politics but these are not normal times.
That's a flat out lie. Do a little research on the guy even beyond the millions he's dumped into political causes. See campaign finance reform, where he simultaneously tries to minimize other people's influence (McCain-Feingold) and dumps $10s of MILLIONS of dollars into largely or purely partisan causes. Note also that many of his 'philanthropic' activities all have a rather left political slant to them.
Soros may not fit with your perception of what the Democrats supposedly stand for, but that's the case. He isn't handing out $10s of millions of dollars to Badnarik, so it's rather ludicrous to call him a Libertarian (even with a small l).
I have a hard time believing the man since he obviously lies about his political involvement to try and decieve the reader into believing that he's just some concerned citizen. It's also funny that he favorably compares Kerry to Bush when one of his big gripes is preemptive policies - see Kerry's statements on Crossfire in 1997, or his letter to Clinton urging him to invade Iraq to disarm them of their WMDs in 1998. That makes Soros (and Kerry, BTW) either dumb, uninformed, or just deceptive partisans. I think we all know which one is correct.
Also, I have no responsibility to refute his letter. He is the partisan, he is being deceptive, and he is even outright lying. I am merely pointing that out - as well as the fact that you are quite mistaken about his political stances. You apparently took his letter at face value, and don't really know anything about the guy. So I suppose it's "interesting" from an apolitical point of view, as per your submission, but it's pure propaganda. You ought to know a little bit more about him before you try and paint him as a libertarian or anything other than the political tool that he is.
That sort of brings us back to the comment that you took exception to - which was correct. Soros is not some "rightist" that suddenly took a look at the current "rightist" president and found issues, as you suggest. This is just the latest chapter in his long string of purely partisan multi-million dollar support for the Democrats.
You'd be right on-the-money except for one thing - George Soros (as people have described here) is about as republican as they come.
Late reply, but this has got to be one of the biggest and boldest lies I've read on Slashdot - and that's saying A LOT. He's about as Republican as Ted Kennedy. Look up his donations - just because he's a rich capitalist doesn't make him Republican.
He has been an exceedingly generous donor to Democratic organizations and candidates for YEARS. Look him up.
As a result, the number of desktop Linux PCs that ship will exceed the actual percentage of Linux machines that get installed in the real world. Desktop Linux will account for about 5 percent of desktops shipped in 2004, according to Gartner, with 10.5 percent of the desktops in Asia shipping with Linux this year. However, the installed base of Linux will come to only 1.3 percent.
So white boxes and Linux-preinstalled-and-actually-running-Linux boxes have a combined negative market share? That's what it would take for the offsets to negate each other and wind up with a 1.3% installed base. If you take the "Linux runs longer on older boxes" argument at face value, the installed base is even more negative.
Bob Dole thinks you're a big internet meanie. I, Bob Dole, was talking to Bob Dole the other day, and Bob Dole agrees. Bob Dole sees nothing wrong with speaking of Bob Dole in the 3rd person, so why can't this SpaceCanary person do that too? Just IBDHO, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Many Linux users found to be insecure whenever the faults in their OS are pointed out. ;)
One last try.
You have cherry picked a few secondary and tertiary traits or tactics used by the Nazis and drawn parallels to Bush - coincidentally, ones that are often used by ALL governments.
The scale of the negative things done by Bush is several orders of magnatude less evil than what the Nazis did. It's not even close. This is why comparisons to the Nazis is ridiculous. You can rant all day about people who were allegedly connected here and there, and focus exclusively on more common and less prominent Nazi traits, and it means nothing.
Shall I label you a Stalinist? I could dig up probably more evidence for than than you could to connect Bush to Naziism.
Hate Bush all you want, but the Nazi comparisons hold no water. The whole 'do some research' canard doesn't excuse poor logic. I paid attention during history class, I *know* what the Nazis really did. Their primary traits were not 'make marriage illegal for some people and try and distract the country.' Clinton didn't support Gay marriage and used cruise missles to distract the country during his sexcapade scandal, therefore he's a Nazi too, right?
I *am* addressing the issues, just because you say I'm not doesn't make it true. Bush isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread, but the Nazi comparisons are stupid. I've addressed all of the major traits of Naziism, and you've as much agreed that Bush isn't like any of those.
Propaganda is used by ALL governments.
Gays aren't nearly as demonized by the anti-Gay marriage crowd as you would like to believe (as sad and misguided as I believe they are)
Prevention of marriage is not the same as sending to death camps.
This Bush = Nazi ludicrous exaggeration is tired, old, and annoying. Cherry picking a few unimportant Nazi traits doesn't make someone a Nazi. One certainly doesn't need to be a Bush lover to recognize this.
So you agree that almost everything is different, but they're still the same?
Fuck you're stupid.
Gay rights is one of my major beefs with the Republican party - they should get the hell out of the bedroom and stop legislating morality. However, this seems to be your single issue here, and you seem to forget what really happened to the Jews. There weren't a handful of hate crimes here and there, they systematically rounded them up and killed them. BY THE MILLIONS. Denying marriage and survivorship rights sucks, but it's just a TAD short of execution in a labor camp with a target of total extermination. Just a tad. 'Promoting hatred' is not lethal. That's not even what they're doing anyways.
Everything else I said addressed the point - that there are few similarities between the Nazis and the Republicans. You even agree, point by point, but you're so hateful you can't apply any reason. The only attempt to address what I said was effectively
1. Republicans (allegedly) hate Gays
2. Nazis hate Jews
3. Republicans are Nazis (QED)
Exactly what I expected, and as idiotic as whatever you said to garner the little red dot next to your name months ago. I suppose in your proportionless hyperbolic world, that would qualify as a 'hate crime.'
Please, show how the current 'cabal' (LOL) is extensively influenced by Nazi philosophy. Which particular racial/ethnic/religious American mix of international mutt is the 'master race?' When do we start rounding up the Jews? When does Bush do a complete 180 and start nationalizing everything instead of the current push to privatize things more and more? When do we round up all the guns from private citizens? When do the book burnings start? When do we start taking over other countries? The US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan bear little to no resemblance to Nazi Germany's march across Europe. They didn't depose murderous dictators repeatedly condemned by the League of Nations (no UN at the time) and set up democracies, in case you missed it.
Does anyone every study unrevised history any more? Does anyone actually remember what the Nazis did, beyond 'bad stuff and like Bush is like totally doing bad stuff too so he's like totally a Nazi, dude?'
IBM did business with Nazi Germany. Does that have any bearing on them or the management's relatives in this day and age? No. Ford and GM, too.
I see little more than a 'Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon' connection between Bush and Naziism. You can quickly connect Nazis and former Nazis to Germany's government, many (if not most) large corporations that were around in the 30s and 40s, and much of FDR's aerospace and nuclear programs. Trying to connect Bush to Naziism demonstrates a complete lack of historical perspective and is so ludicrous it seems pointless to try and debate anyone who is so deluded.
Where are the alleged similarities?
Empty of substance? Because it wasn't a long winded rant devoid of any attachment to reality?
If you think Bush even mildly resembles Hitler, you are completely out of your fucking mind. We are not marching across continents subjugating people, in spite of the worst spin by the loony left media on events in Iraq and elsewhere (or did you miss the elections?). We are not rounding up millions of people to exterminate because of their race and/or beliefs. Bush is also not centralizing and federalizing power, he is trying to decentralize and privatize things. Hitler was also a brilliant public speaker (as disgusting as his ideals were). And Bush bears what resemblance to him? Pretty much none. It's just a name-smear job to try and make him look evil.
He is also not bankrupting the US, intentionally or not - we are intentionally pursuing a weak dollar policy to make our manufactured goods more affordable during a recovery. WHAT A TERRIBLE IDEA, CREATING MANUFACTURING JOBS AND MAKING AMERICAN GOODS AFFORDABLE. Clearly, we are on the road to bankruptcy by creating a decentralized, privatized, fertile economy that generates private jobs and makes American goods more affordable abroad.
The fact that you even bring Jerry Falwell up at all demonstrates your colossal ignorance of American politics. Jerry isn't even a bit player in the national political scene, and is almost universally mocked (though most often just ignored) by people of all political persuasions here.
Counter-evidence seemed futile because your rant was so detached from reality. I threw you a few bones, we'll see if you can even let those sink in - but I suspect I'll get nothing logical in return.
My response was also hardly partisan, as I wasn't endorsing or attacking a particular party as you were. I'm not a Republican and I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004 either - I'm just tired of the loony comparisons.
Wow. You invoked Godwin's Law before most of us dumb uninformed Americans were even awake. Not that we could read your loony rant because we're illiterate.
Perhaps it was a clever reverse troll? You whined about total ignorance and mischaracterization of the left, and then spun around and ignorantly mischaracterized the American right. Intentional or not, it was an excellent illustration of the mindless partisan idiocy and distortion that you claim to dislike, at least when it's applied to the left.
About what I expected. You get caught in a lie, so you scuttle the argument with "I'm too smart to argue with you." Brilliant. You may have a future in politics.
What was I dishonest about? The other anti-Bush mental patient said that Bush was 'respoinsible' because he had better access to intelligence. Responsible for what? The thread he replied to was all Democrats beating the war drum and talking about WMD, starting years before Bush was elected. There was rhetoric about Bush being able to filter the data, yadda yadda, so how did the Dems get Bush-tainted data 2+ years before he was elected? Who "tainted" the intelligence before 2001? And how does Bush come up responsible for that tainted data?
So is Bush responsible for starting the war? Of course. Duh. But that's not what this fork of the thread was about. Do you even know what intellectual dishonesty is, or is it just a canned insult you throw around to make yourself sound more intellectual?
Interesting how people like you refuse to assign any responsibility for the terrorist thugs, and pin it all on Bush/Rove/etc. Sounds like...oh...I dunno...INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY?
Favor returned for your weak ass straw man trying to paint me as a neo con, and misrepresenting what I said. Par for the course lately at Slashdot, home of the knee-jerk Rove conspiracy theorists.
What the coward fails to recognize is the reason that Bush is accountable is that as the President he is in a unique position. He has more access to more intelligence than anyone else, he has the power to distribute that intelligence so as to alter the debate, and he has the power to alter the manner in which intelligence is gathered. Bush did not use his unique ability to gather intelligence to come up with an accurate picture.
You might take another look at the dates of the statements and when President Bush was first elected - or do you honestly mean to suggest that Bush is somehow 'accountable' for these Democrats coming to the same exact conclusions about Iraq and WMDs years before he became president?
Oh, and that's better?
Not necessarily....but it's accurate, unlike your statement.
Oh, we should feel better they only screwed 60 people out of their jobs for no reason at all.
Again, better or not, that's debatable....but your statement was again, inaccurate. Didn't you read the article or the post you replied to that pointed the information out?
Can you substantiate your claim that 60 people got "screwed" out of their jobs for no reason at all? Or is this just more angry anti-corporate ranting that produced the previous inaccuracies?
They didn't "wait until after the game was done." The article had already been updated, and that information was clearly stated in the post you replied to.
60 out of 380 is 'half?'
Score:+5, and you didn't even RTFA.
Isn't it obvious he's in the pocket of the volcano construction industry?
Are you implying that independent farmers are *all* IP thieves who break their contracts with seed distributors?
This is not the case of some poor, hapless chump who had some accidental cross-polination imposed upon him, this is someone who knowingly bought Monsanto's seed, agreed not to harvest the seeds, and did so anyways. Sounds like an open and shut case, and no threat whatsoever to American farmers who honor their contracts.
I used to work for the Water Utilities Department in San Diego. We had an experimental poo water to drinking water facility, but they were fighting the same perception issue. Desalinization was dirtier and more labor intensive to get 2x the impurities.
:) They didn't exactly have dixie cups and a spigot at the end.
And no, I didn't try any of the processed water, either.
I've been using Mozilla and later Firefox for quite a while now - I like it - but the bitter partisan political stuff is just a big turn off for many people. If you assault them with all sorts of insults to their PC, their OS, and even the web browser that works at least acceptably well for many of them, they'll probably write it off as some zealous partisan attack.
/.ed right now, and they didn't seem to have the ad up anyways, but I hope it's a bit more subdued than the summary.
The people who hate hate hate MS and/or IE have already moved on. I'm sure they'll cheer the ad, but that's a big waste of money.
SFF's site is
Actually, I used BeOS for a while - so you're wrong again. I sort of liked it, in fact - one reason was the video stuff seemed solid and responsive. I think my network card was unsupported...but it did seem sort of nice. The one really scary thing was that copying same-named folders deleted everything that was in the pre-existing folder. The Unix command line seemed to lack just about everything when I tried it....but of course I sound like I didn't use it for some reason.
Troll or not, it's fact - and I've tried many different configurations, as opposed to the ONE system you mention. I've heard the same from many users who aren't primarily Mac users, who tend to get defensive about it without even really testing it.
I wonder why so many people use Quicktime Alternative? Must just be all the trolls. Yeah, that's it. In fact, it came out before Real Alternative, and I think we all know how much most people hate Real.
Well, "I don't accept" your statements on BeOS. They were dead before they tried to go x86, and the only people that I've ever encountered that disagree are Apple zealots. Apple shut them out. They tried the BeBox after that, but couldn't sustain it. For some reason they couldn't get pre-installed on Apple Macs either, or even pitch their product at Apple events. Hmmm....
I've seen approximately 10 systems try and deal with QT vs. WMP, from homebuilt to prebuilt, from AMD and Intel, with and without "real" video cards, and your sample of one doesn't mean my multiple PCs need fixing. QT needs fixing. Ask any non-Apple zealot with a PC and they'll agree. VLC works. Even the scourge of Real works. WMP works fine too. QT makes everything grind to a halt. All on the same video. Is MS "abusing their monopoly" and writing code that detects QT playing and bogging it down?
MS may abuse their monopoly, but that doesn't mean you get to distort the facts about Apple and Be. Oh yeah. "Fact."
A few things:
BeOS was really killed by Apple, not MS. Porting BeOS to x86 was their last dying grasp at surviving after Apple shut them out of every Apple trade show and developer's convention that they could. They even tried their own PPC hardware before they went up against MS on x86.
iTunes and Quicktime are garbage on the PC. They're absolutely terrible. Play the same video on VLC, WMP, Real, and QT, and the QT one practically grinds the system to a halt, and often stutters, when the other ones play smoothly. It has 2-3x the processor loading of any other of those media players. iTunes is a similar resource hog just for playing music.
They ignore all interface paradigms and standards on the Windows platform to boot, from looks to window resizing to mouse behavior. Speaking of 'boot,' that system boot crippling feature of iTunes was a dandy, wasn't it? Apple's Windows software QA department asleep on the job, as always.
Well, you haven't presented any evidence that this campaign doesn't target uninformed voters - you just like it because it gets out the vote, informed or not, agreeing with you, or not - which is completely separate. You could argue (as you did) that this might be a good thing, but that doesn't mean the voters are now informed. You pretty much acknowledge they aren't informed by trying to encourage them to vote for "anyone/anything," otherwise, they'd probably already have an opinion and a candidate they were at least leaning towards.
I also think that's a bad thing, because people who are too lazy to pay attention and eventually go out and vote are going to make poorly informed decisions. I certainly don't discourage anyone who cares enough to vote to do so, just that the people who haven't paid attention until MTV showed them some video game characters that convinced them, "by golly maybe I should look into this voting thing" aren't going to have *any* context to make their decision, other than "MTV wants me to vote."
BTW, the facist accusation (from you, or at least a clear implication and addition to your enemy list) was attached to a previous discussion where I suggested that registering unlikely voters was a bad idea because they leave those registrations open for fraud. If you care enough to vote, you'll probably remember to forward your address, and notice when your absentee application goes missing (as I've had to do personally).
Also, it's also not really a nonpartisan campagin - they know who tends to watch MTV, and they know how they tend to vote. Viacom is also (just coincidentally!) run by former Clinton cabinet members and heavy Democratic donors. They try to make it look that way, of course.
What is the standard for "an informed public"?
I don't know, but trying to use video game characters on MTV to get people to "just vote, we don't care who for, just vote for anyone/anything" is pretty much the standard for an uninformed voter.
Of course, some people call you a facist for saying such ridiculous things.
You're the one playing the man (me) not the ball (Soros's alleged independence). You made a false statement, I corrected it. You're trying to obfuscate this and redirect me to engage his documented lies and established political agenda, and spinning him as a libertarian, again, when he spends $10s of MILLIONS of dollars to advance Democratic causes. Directly. Dabbled? DABBLED? Wow. You're touched.
Respond to my points with something that refutes the evidence that he's deeply entrenched with the DNC and has been for well over 10 years and $10s of MILLIONS of dollars. I was taking issue with YOUR misstatements. You have nothing to back your bizarre assessment up other than his implied neutrality (and alleged libertarianism ROTFLMAO!), which is obviously false.
Your Nader comment makes no sense to me. As well, you keep trying to spin Soros as something less than a dyed in the wool Democrat. Actions speak louder than words, and Soros has many actions which speak far louder than his silly little rant about Bush (and I illustrated why it's silly above, since he compares Kerry favorably when Kerry supported the same policies until he decided to flip-flop).
Ask Soros about what he did to Russia sometime. He's a real sweetheart.
Oh well, I tried. You clearly won't consider the obvious facts. And you say I'm playing cheap politics! Hah.
He is a Democratic tool - he's been a big fund raiser since well before 2000. I searched back to '92 and he was still writing $x0,000 checks to the DNC/DCCC/etc. It has nothing to do with the current administration, he's a dyed in the wool Democrat, and has been for years. His intent (admittedly so, at least he's more honest than CBS) is to sway voter opinion. That sort of taints most of what he's presenting.
I have never been heavily involved in partisan politics but these are not normal times.
That's a flat out lie. Do a little research on the guy even beyond the millions he's dumped into political causes. See campaign finance reform, where he simultaneously tries to minimize other people's influence (McCain-Feingold) and dumps $10s of MILLIONS of dollars into largely or purely partisan causes. Note also that many of his 'philanthropic' activities all have a rather left political slant to them.
Soros may not fit with your perception of what the Democrats supposedly stand for, but that's the case. He isn't handing out $10s of millions of dollars to Badnarik, so it's rather ludicrous to call him a Libertarian (even with a small l).
I have a hard time believing the man since he obviously lies about his political involvement to try and decieve the reader into believing that he's just some concerned citizen. It's also funny that he favorably compares Kerry to Bush when one of his big gripes is preemptive policies - see Kerry's statements on Crossfire in 1997, or his letter to Clinton urging him to invade Iraq to disarm them of their WMDs in 1998. That makes Soros (and Kerry, BTW) either dumb, uninformed, or just deceptive partisans. I think we all know which one is correct.
Also, I have no responsibility to refute his letter. He is the partisan, he is being deceptive, and he is even outright lying. I am merely pointing that out - as well as the fact that you are quite mistaken about his political stances. You apparently took his letter at face value, and don't really know anything about the guy. So I suppose it's "interesting" from an apolitical point of view, as per your submission, but it's pure propaganda. You ought to know a little bit more about him before you try and paint him as a libertarian or anything other than the political tool that he is.
That sort of brings us back to the comment that you took exception to - which was correct. Soros is not some "rightist" that suddenly took a look at the current "rightist" president and found issues, as you suggest. This is just the latest chapter in his long string of purely partisan multi-million dollar support for the Democrats.
You'd be right on-the-money except for one thing - George Soros (as people have described here) is about as republican as they come.
/. - even while the players have the gall to insist that they're trying to be fair.
Late reply, but this has got to be one of the biggest and boldest lies I've read on Slashdot - and that's saying A LOT. He's about as Republican as Ted Kennedy. Look up his donations - just because he's a rich capitalist doesn't make him Republican.
He has been an exceedingly generous donor to Democratic organizations and candidates for YEARS. Look him up.
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.asp
Sort by amount - notice a pattern? Similar to the pattern here on
Playing the man instead of the ball indeed. Soros is a Democratic party tool. He is as partisan as they come.
RTFA?
As a result, the number of desktop Linux PCs that ship will exceed the actual percentage of Linux machines that get installed in the real world. Desktop Linux will account for about 5 percent of desktops shipped in 2004, according to Gartner, with 10.5 percent of the desktops in Asia shipping with Linux this year. However, the installed base of Linux will come to only 1.3 percent.
So white boxes and Linux-preinstalled-and-actually-running-Linux boxes have a combined negative market share? That's what it would take for the offsets to negate each other and wind up with a 1.3% installed base. If you take the "Linux runs longer on older boxes" argument at face value, the installed base is even more negative.
Bob Dole thinks you're a big internet meanie. I, Bob Dole, was talking to Bob Dole the other day, and Bob Dole agrees. Bob Dole sees nothing wrong with speaking of Bob Dole in the 3rd person, so why can't this SpaceCanary person do that too? Just IBDHO, of course.
:)
Love,
Bob Dole