I never rant like this. And I'm going to use some harsh words, so those who do not wish to be subjected to my rantings need not read further. But, if you want to know why a pissed off New Yorker feels completely alienated from the "red" states, read on. I've tried to make my rant as entertaining as possible, and hope a couple people will at least glean some fun from it.
I can not believe that Americans were stupid enough to vote for this guy not only once, but TWICE. WTF, people?It boils down, in my mind, to a great quote from a some nameless NASCAR meathead driver when interviewed about who'd he'd vote for:
"I'll vote for Bush because I ain't much on the issues but I know I'll get a firm hand shake from him. A man's hand shake."
Dear god. I'm not kidding. This idiot said that. I'm sorry, but you should have to demonstrate a basic understanding of the issues to vote, and/or have an IQ above 90. If you THEN decide to vote for a dolt like Bush I will at least consider your vote valid. Sure, you'd be voting for a polar opposite ideology from mine, but at least it'd be informed.
I suggest sterilizing this man and his offspring so we're not subjected to this kind of blindingly ignorant crap again. The people who swung the vote were, in majority, people who voted on party lines based on very superficial terms. I wish we had a way to throw their votes out the window.
And while I'm on a ridiculous rant (admittedly), why don't we cover the fact that this a-hole president sent us to war on false pretense and 51% of the country finds that acceptible. Because, I just LOVE it when some ass from Wisconsin says they're going to vote for the president that will keep us SAFER when he's the one that got us attacked in the first place and my apartment was 20 blocks away. I think New York's electoral votes should have counted DOUBLE for this election just because of that. No, it's not fair... but neither was the fact that I saw the twin towers fall with my own eyes. The grain silo down the road from you ain't gonna attract the bombs. And this is coming from a person who grew up in the country and had great respect for rural america. I'm not condeming it. It's just simply not the target of terrorism.
I saw the interviews in exit polls and saw people voting for the "president that will keep us safer." Um, where are the terrorists bombing again? Wisconsin? Nope. Kansas? Wrong again. Ohio? Nope.... f***ing NEW YORK!!! My back yard, dip shit! Not yours. So the next time a president wins a popular vote in part of whole based on the premise that he's making the country safer, let's give him the boot in the ass he deserves. The people who voted for Bush, especially those in a "red" state, are NOT IN ANY DANGER, and they can bite me. The only places attacked... NYC and Washington DC voted 80% Kerry and 90% Kerry, respectively. That's right. The guy that will keep us safer managed an average 15% of the vote in the only 2 places attacked.
Now I'd like to cover the list of stupid things Bush has done, and will continue to do. The reasons why I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENT LIKE BUSH:
Supreme court appointments. We get to look forward to some nice Roe v. Wade decisions when Rhenquist and others are replaced by ultra conservatives. No more 4-3 votes in favor of letting people make their own frickin' reproductive decisions!
National Security. I don't think Bush knows what this means, as he has clearly demonstrated a complete lack of competance here. He waltzes our young men into a country who surely needs humanitarian aid and bombs the f**k out of them. Good job, Dubyah. I'm sure Cheney and Halliburton will be counting their money in hell. I'd also like to thank him for escalating a Jihad against America. Great foreign policy dip shit. Muslims are not evil. They're just not Christians. As an Atheist, I could care less... but I respect people's beliefs and think we should leave cultures alone unless we can positively in
The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't matter if you can do it or not. You have the music on your computer and you can not only listen to it on 4 other computers, but you can burn it unlimited times. However, the advantage of preventing copying OFF the iPod is that it restricts easy piracy to other computers. This, in turn, has allowed the downloadable music industry to flourish. Without this feature, it simply would not exist.
Well, it seems as if Adobe will want to maintain dominance ffor SVG and PDF standards in Linux. Obviously, they won't port creative software to Linux. Maybe Elements or something, but who on earth would use Linux for Illustrator or Photoshop?
I'm sorry, but what other music players allow the easy removal of music from them when they are not removable-media based? Not many... but let's get to the real point: choices.
The iPod is the run away digital hit. Not many people share the author's need to remove music from their iPod. At least not based on their purchasing trends. It's as simple as an analog-out being plugged into a recorder, and always has been.
Apple had to put certain restrictions on the usage of digital music to allow a viable commercial downloading service that most people in the world use. Otherwise, we'd have more Microsoft-esque tactics and/or illegal Napster-like proliferation. Nobody really wants that.
Like it or not, Apple has done a good job of letting use live the digital lifestyle and making it relatively easy to copy your music. You can burn CD's to your heart's content, and authorize your music on 5 computers. Does that sound restrictive to you?
The benefits seen in this optimization are largely parallel with the G5. If Apple can get things optimized for 64bit computing that can take advantage of it, we will see great things. In many cases, they already have...
I just think it's great that AMD is making such strides... for being a Mac guy, I pull for them in the PC world. What can I say? I like the underdog story.
"The entire KDE desktop environment is decked out like this, and as George puts it, 'Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X have a long way to go to catch up with the robust, transparent functionality that KDE has provided since version 2.0.'"
LOL. Is this guy serious? Mac OS X has a long way to catch up with a rag tag open development project? I'm sorry, but some times the lure of open source really clouds the judgement of some people.
I think the conclusions the author comes to are a bit far fetched, but their premise may be accurate. While I'm sure it's true that amateurs are making an impact and performing to "professional" standard, I think the term "professional" is used a bit loosely. There's nothing professional about the lackluster UI slapped on every distro of Linux.
Don't get me wrong, though. That gripe aside, I think what amateurs offer a professional industry is insight and thought that is outside the box. Many professionals in IT, for example, have horse-blinders on. They can't see anything but Microsoft.
But this is nothing new, folks. This has happened throughout history. Almost all great inventors and thinkers have come from a rebellious non-traditional background. There is good reason for this. Their ideas and throughts are not so strictly bound by the instruction they would have received going through normal channels. I'm not advocating we all forget our professional training, but I think we can learn from those who offer "revolutionary" ideas-- not be threatened by them.
"The real issue is control. With GNU/linux et al. I can drill down (or hire someone to drill down) into as much detail as I want, in the quest to make things work the way they need to to get work done. No more hoping that the next release will fix some show stopper, no more wishing that the last patch (and the killer bug it introduced) could be backed out."
This must be a Windows thing. Mac OS X doesn't require you to poke around in the fundamental operation of your computer just to get it to work the way you'd like it to. That's why the Mac is so popular amongst those who give it a try... it just works. In the Mac OS 9 days you could easily say that was at the expense of flexibility, but not anymore. You're getting a UNIX OS that is very secure and even runs Linux API's. Unless you're looking to pay a sum total of $600 for your computer (or therabouts) there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to use Linux.
Thankfully I'm not locked into any Windows apps, and have never been.:-)
I run Mac OS X and have always used a Mac, or previously, Amigas and Commodores. While a lot of people let the Mac "zealot" crowd ruin the opportunity to give Apple's OS X platform a chance (way too fanatical), it is a sad state of affairs. I find that most people with an open mind see the value in a stable, secure OS that can run commercially viable software. That is OS X. OS X has a GUI that is comprehensible and maintainable by an average computer user. Linux is not. Linux is for people who like screwing with their computers. I'm not slamming that-- I'm just saying that's not John Q. Public. I love fiddling with my Mac, too.
I know there are a lot of Linux zealots on Slashdot, but does this really suprise anyone? Certainly not me. There are a couple of things to consider here.
1. The only replacement for Windows on the desktop is Mac OS X. Linux is not that replacement. 2. A lot of people are unwilling to pay for what they want, or have a feeling of entitlement that they don't actually have.
You end up with the people who are willing to switch, and willing to pay, switching to Mac OS X. These are real people using their own computers, not terminals at a travel agency that end up accounting for the vast majority of Windows licenses (commercial terminals.) People who are unwilling to pay for a Win XP software license will buy a cheap PC and not a Mac anyway. Since they don't care about licenseing either, you end up with pirated copies of Windows software run on Linux-shipped PC's.
It makes logical sense to me. It may be a sad state of affairs from a plethora of angles, but it's certainly not a surprise!
"Perhaps we form political affiliations by semiconsciously detecting commonalities with other people, commonalities that ultimately reflect a shared pattern of brain function."
Well, if anyone reading this has EVER taken a psychology course in their life, this statement is as obvious as they come. Almost everything we do is dictated by how our brain developed, which is influenced by many environmental and social factors as a child.
Weather anyone wants to admit it or not, we are largely driven by our biological urges. While it is certainly possible to overcome these urges with your concious mind, it is something most people are not good at.
Our brains are built to take things we see often and begin processing them as patterns. We see patterns and we associate ourselves to ones we find agreeable. The human brain does this to prevent it from having to process redundant information over and over just to come to the same conclusion. In an instinctual way this works exceedingly well, but in social interactions it can be detrimental to healthy conversion of opposing points of view.
"Recent court rulings have held that developers of p2p file sharing software cannot be held liable for 'for any copyright infringement committed by people using their products."
It sounds like the laws pertaining to these rulings will change to be in favor of copyright holders.
I just don't understand why P2P networks, clearly created to pirate copyrighted materials, are NOT held responsible. While I believe that P2P is great, and is beneficial to people. I don't think people should lie to themselves. They're made to get commercial music, porn, and software. Period. Saying that the network that provides this infrastructure is not at least partially to blame seems silly. I liken it to "aiding and abetting a known fellon."
I'm sorry, I love my mac but the next time someone thinks the average Mac user is a "zealot" I'm going to hurl. Seriously. The frickin' title of their article:
"Apple zealots slam Real's iPod campaign"... I've always know their bias against the Mac. It's thoroughly documented. I guess this just goes on the stack with anything by John C. Dvorak.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but doesn't this sound exactly like a backlight keyboard? As in, this is old news... but the speculation that other members have had abotu software customizable external graphics on their boxen sounds sweet.
As much as I like the work of W3C, it's as if they are stuck in a time warp where they could actually effect development patterns. It's not 1994 any more, and there's so much existing infrastructure in HTML 4.0 (or similar) code and horrible Ineternet Explorer interpretation of that code that little will happen for YEARS. The lead time on their final specifications are probably at 5 or 6 years now.
Don't get me wrong-- they're doing the right thing, but it's as if they could shout at the top of their lungs that MathML and SVG should be standard and no one will care. Oh wait, nobody does. How many browsers support either "out of the box?" If you were to add up their market share it would be in the single digits.
It's time we just realize, as web developers and designers, that we are stuck with a horribly inefficient means to share information that is worsened by the lackluster industry movement required for change in the way we get at that information.
I'd say this is a new thing, but it's not. Look at any industry and the same thing always occurs.
Why on earth do these people try to stop us from enjoying their broadcasts? They're either unaware, or don't care, that even without digital copying I can hook up an alaog recorder (VCR) and do whatever I want with their precious broadcast. What's the difference? Electronic distribution? *yay!* Who cares? Do you think I'm going to spend the time to hack a system to send out old sports broadcasts? Old sports broadcasts are probably the least interesting things I can think of to watch after they occur.
I'm sorry, but aside from the electronic process, the technology needed to copy and distribute copies of broadcasts has been in most people's living rooms since the late 70's or earlier.
SVG really is a great standard, and is incorporated into so many good standards-based products.
I'm not against Macromedia by any stretch of the imagination, but SVG really is a breakthrough. I look forward to a day when bitmap graphics are only needed for photographic representations on web sites.
You are a lucky man to have such a nice machine to run it on. My mac is a Quicksilver DP 1GHz with the standard GeForce4MX. Don't think it's gonna play optimally on my machine!
I actually thought it was impossible to hate a name more than "Verizon", "Cingular" or "Lindows".... but "Linspire" clearly takes the cake as the most god-awful name I can think of. Please fire the retarded monkies that came up with that. Please.
Linux does not inspire people. That is awful branding. It may "empower" people, or save them money, or free them from the microsoft tit, but it hardly inspires.
Slashdot Mirror
I never rant like this. And I'm going to use some harsh words, so those who do not wish to be subjected to my rantings need not read further. But, if you want to know why a pissed off New Yorker feels completely alienated from the "red" states, read on. I've tried to make my rant as entertaining as possible, and hope a couple people will at least glean some fun from it.
I can not believe that Americans were stupid enough to vote for this guy not only once, but TWICE. WTF, people?It boils down, in my mind, to a great quote from a some nameless NASCAR meathead driver when interviewed about who'd he'd vote for:
"I'll vote for Bush because I ain't much on the issues but I know I'll get a firm hand shake from him. A man's hand shake."
Dear god. I'm not kidding. This idiot said that. I'm sorry, but you should have to demonstrate a basic understanding of the issues to vote, and/or have an IQ above 90. If you THEN decide to vote for a dolt like Bush I will at least consider your vote valid. Sure, you'd be voting for a polar opposite ideology from mine, but at least it'd be informed.
I suggest sterilizing this man and his offspring so we're not subjected to this kind of blindingly ignorant crap again. The people who swung the vote were, in majority, people who voted on party lines based on very superficial terms. I wish we had a way to throw their votes out the window.
And while I'm on a ridiculous rant (admittedly), why don't we cover the fact that this a-hole president sent us to war on false pretense and 51% of the country finds that acceptible. Because, I just LOVE it when some ass from Wisconsin says they're going to vote for the president that will keep us SAFER when he's the one that got us attacked in the first place and my apartment was 20 blocks away. I think New York's electoral votes should have counted DOUBLE for this election just because of that. No, it's not fair... but neither was the fact that I saw the twin towers fall with my own eyes. The grain silo down the road from you ain't gonna attract the bombs. And this is coming from a person who grew up in the country and had great respect for rural america. I'm not condeming it. It's just simply not the target of terrorism.
I saw the interviews in exit polls and saw people voting for the "president that will keep us safer." Um, where are the terrorists bombing again? Wisconsin? Nope. Kansas? Wrong again. Ohio? Nope.... f***ing NEW YORK!!! My back yard, dip shit! Not yours. So the next time a president wins a popular vote in part of whole based on the premise that he's making the country safer, let's give him the boot in the ass he deserves. The people who voted for Bush, especially those in a "red" state, are NOT IN ANY DANGER, and they can bite me. The only places attacked... NYC and Washington DC voted 80% Kerry and 90% Kerry, respectively. That's right. The guy that will keep us safer managed an average 15% of the vote in the only 2 places attacked.
Now I'd like to cover the list of stupid things Bush has done, and will continue to do. The reasons why I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENT LIKE BUSH:
The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't matter if you can do it or not. You have the music on your computer and you can not only listen to it on 4 other computers, but you can burn it unlimited times. However, the advantage of preventing copying OFF the iPod is that it restricts easy piracy to other computers. This, in turn, has allowed the downloadable music industry to flourish. Without this feature, it simply would not exist.
Well, it seems as if Adobe will want to maintain dominance ffor SVG and PDF standards in Linux. Obviously, they won't port creative software to Linux. Maybe Elements or something, but who on earth would use Linux for Illustrator or Photoshop?
I'm sorry, but what other music players allow the easy removal of music from them when they are not removable-media based? Not many... but let's get to the real point: choices.
The iPod is the run away digital hit. Not many people share the author's need to remove music from their iPod. At least not based on their purchasing trends. It's as simple as an analog-out being plugged into a recorder, and always has been.
Apple had to put certain restrictions on the usage of digital music to allow a viable commercial downloading service that most people in the world use. Otherwise, we'd have more Microsoft-esque tactics and/or illegal Napster-like proliferation. Nobody really wants that.
Like it or not, Apple has done a good job of letting use live the digital lifestyle and making it relatively easy to copy your music. You can burn CD's to your heart's content, and authorize your music on 5 computers. Does that sound restrictive to you?
The benefits seen in this optimization are largely parallel with the G5. If Apple can get things optimized for 64bit computing that can take advantage of it, we will see great things. In many cases, they already have...
I just think it's great that AMD is making such strides... for being a Mac guy, I pull for them in the PC world. What can I say? I like the underdog story.
"The entire KDE desktop environment is decked out like this, and as George puts it, 'Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X have a long way to go to catch up with the robust, transparent functionality that KDE has provided since version 2.0.'"
LOL. Is this guy serious? Mac OS X has a long way to catch up with a rag tag open development project? I'm sorry, but some times the lure of open source really clouds the judgement of some people.
I think the conclusions the author comes to are a bit far fetched, but their premise may be accurate. While I'm sure it's true that amateurs are making an impact and performing to "professional" standard, I think the term "professional" is used a bit loosely. There's nothing professional about the lackluster UI slapped on every distro of Linux.
Don't get me wrong, though. That gripe aside, I think what amateurs offer a professional industry is insight and thought that is outside the box. Many professionals in IT, for example, have horse-blinders on. They can't see anything but Microsoft.
But this is nothing new, folks. This has happened throughout history. Almost all great inventors and thinkers have come from a rebellious non-traditional background. There is good reason for this. Their ideas and throughts are not so strictly bound by the instruction they would have received going through normal channels. I'm not advocating we all forget our professional training, but I think we can learn from those who offer "revolutionary" ideas-- not be threatened by them.
"The real issue is control. With GNU/linux et al. I can drill down (or hire someone to drill down) into as much detail as I want, in the quest to make things work the way they need to to get work done. No more hoping that the next release will fix some show stopper, no more wishing that the last patch (and the killer bug it introduced) could be backed out."
This must be a Windows thing. Mac OS X doesn't require you to poke around in the fundamental operation of your computer just to get it to work the way you'd like it to. That's why the Mac is so popular amongst those who give it a try... it just works. In the Mac OS 9 days you could easily say that was at the expense of flexibility, but not anymore. You're getting a UNIX OS that is very secure and even runs Linux API's. Unless you're looking to pay a sum total of $600 for your computer (or therabouts) there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to use Linux.
Thankfully I'm not locked into any Windows apps, and have never been. :-)
I run Mac OS X and have always used a Mac, or previously, Amigas and Commodores. While a lot of people let the Mac "zealot" crowd ruin the opportunity to give Apple's OS X platform a chance (way too fanatical), it is a sad state of affairs. I find that most people with an open mind see the value in a stable, secure OS that can run commercially viable software. That is OS X. OS X has a GUI that is comprehensible and maintainable by an average computer user. Linux is not. Linux is for people who like screwing with their computers. I'm not slamming that-- I'm just saying that's not John Q. Public. I love fiddling with my Mac, too.
I know there are a lot of Linux zealots on Slashdot, but does this really suprise anyone? Certainly not me. There are a couple of things to consider here.
1. The only replacement for Windows on the desktop is Mac OS X. Linux is not that replacement.
2. A lot of people are unwilling to pay for what they want, or have a feeling of entitlement that they don't actually have.
You end up with the people who are willing to switch, and willing to pay, switching to Mac OS X. These are real people using their own computers, not terminals at a travel agency that end up accounting for the vast majority of Windows licenses (commercial terminals.) People who are unwilling to pay for a Win XP software license will buy a cheap PC and not a Mac anyway. Since they don't care about licenseing either, you end up with pirated copies of Windows software run on Linux-shipped PC's.
It makes logical sense to me. It may be a sad state of affairs from a plethora of angles, but it's certainly not a surprise!
Yes, this one is real. I don't expect anyone to believe me nor will I offer additional proof, but it's genuine. No, I am not the author.
.... and it does work with the iTMS or have the Ipod interface, thus negating any other benefits in my mind.
Next.
"Perhaps we form political affiliations by semiconsciously detecting commonalities with other people, commonalities that ultimately reflect a shared pattern of brain function."
Well, if anyone reading this has EVER taken a psychology course in their life, this statement is as obvious as they come. Almost everything we do is dictated by how our brain developed, which is influenced by many environmental and social factors as a child.
Weather anyone wants to admit it or not, we are largely driven by our biological urges. While it is certainly possible to overcome these urges with your concious mind, it is something most people are not good at.
Our brains are built to take things we see often and begin processing them as patterns. We see patterns and we associate ourselves to ones we find agreeable. The human brain does this to prevent it from having to process redundant information over and over just to come to the same conclusion. In an instinctual way this works exceedingly well, but in social interactions it can be detrimental to healthy conversion of opposing points of view.
"Recent court rulings have held that developers of p2p file sharing software cannot be held liable for 'for any copyright infringement committed by people using their products."
It sounds like the laws pertaining to these rulings will change to be in favor of copyright holders.
I just don't understand why P2P networks, clearly created to pirate copyrighted materials, are NOT held responsible. While I believe that P2P is great, and is beneficial to people. I don't think people should lie to themselves. They're made to get commercial music, porn, and software. Period. Saying that the network that provides this infrastructure is not at least partially to blame seems silly. I liken it to "aiding and abetting a known fellon."
I'm sorry, I love my mac but the next time someone thinks the average Mac user is a "zealot" I'm going to hurl. Seriously. The frickin' title of their article:
... I've always know their bias against the Mac. It's thoroughly documented. I guess this just goes on the stack with anything by John C. Dvorak.
"Apple zealots slam Real's iPod campaign"
Maybe I'm wrong here, but doesn't this sound exactly like a backlight keyboard? As in, this is old news... but the speculation that other members have had abotu software customizable external graphics on their boxen sounds sweet.
I take it he didn't bother to compare it to the Mac, since it has a cheaper TCO than Windows.
4 -m ac-tco.phtml
http://www.architosh.com/news/2004-01/2004c-012
I'm sorry, were you talking about people's fixation on stock price, horsepower, or MHz? :-)
The world is filled with meaningless measurements that are usually pushed by those that benefit from everyone else's ignorance.
Sad, but true.
Touche' my friend.
As much as I like the work of W3C, it's as if they are stuck in a time warp where they could actually effect development patterns. It's not 1994 any more, and there's so much existing infrastructure in HTML 4.0 (or similar) code and horrible Ineternet Explorer interpretation of that code that little will happen for YEARS. The lead time on their final specifications are probably at 5 or 6 years now.
Don't get me wrong-- they're doing the right thing, but it's as if they could shout at the top of their lungs that MathML and SVG should be standard and no one will care. Oh wait, nobody does. How many browsers support either "out of the box?" If you were to add up their market share it would be in the single digits.
It's time we just realize, as web developers and designers, that we are stuck with a horribly inefficient means to share information that is worsened by the lackluster industry movement required for change in the way we get at that information.
I'd say this is a new thing, but it's not. Look at any industry and the same thing always occurs.
Why on earth do these people try to stop us from enjoying their broadcasts? They're either unaware, or don't care, that even without digital copying I can hook up an alaog recorder (VCR) and do whatever I want with their precious broadcast. What's the difference? Electronic distribution? *yay!* Who cares? Do you think I'm going to spend the time to hack a system to send out old sports broadcasts? Old sports broadcasts are probably the least interesting things I can think of to watch after they occur.
I'm sorry, but aside from the electronic process, the technology needed to copy and distribute copies of broadcasts has been in most people's living rooms since the late 70's or earlier.
SVG really is a great standard, and is incorporated into so many good standards-based products.
I'm not against Macromedia by any stretch of the imagination, but SVG really is a breakthrough. I look forward to a day when bitmap graphics are only needed for photographic representations on web sites.
You are a lucky man to have such a nice machine to run it on. My mac is a Quicksilver DP 1GHz with the standard GeForce4MX. Don't think it's gonna play optimally on my machine!
I actually thought it was impossible to hate a name more than "Verizon", "Cingular" or "Lindows".... but "Linspire" clearly takes the cake as the most god-awful name I can think of. Please fire the retarded monkies that came up with that. Please.
Linux does not inspire people. That is awful branding. It may "empower" people, or save them money, or free them from the microsoft tit, but it hardly inspires.
Ao on Agugst 5th I can officially start waiting for the Mac OS X port? *yeah!*