No, he associates with black liberation theology nutcases, which are much worse. By the way, Jerry Falwell is dead.
Funny, the only ones still beating on the "black liberation theology" drums is Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and their listeners.
Jerry Falwell being dead is irrelevant. Despite the fact that he fathered the Religious Right, plenty of his followers are still around to maintain his views, including the Republican candidate for Vice President!!
The rest of your comment is simply an amalgam of McCain's hijacking of Obama's general message and all the right-wing talking points that made Hannity and Limbaugh very, very rich.
It has to do with an increased enforcement of the "verifiability" policy over there-- only 3rd-party sources. They were fairly lax about it until a year or two ago, because they needed to encourage content growth, but IIRC Jimbo wanted to make it more, well, encyclopedic.
That, and the whole "notability" guideline (I think it's policy now) really started a veritable witch-hunt of rogue content. In order for an article to remain, you had to be famous or well-known to a certain degree.
Now....analysis is a different beast. FOSS might have a place there. I don't know but I see no reason to reinvent the wheel when there are FAR better solutions already out there.
If Linus Torvalds, Steve Wozniak, or Richard M. Stallman had this attitude, the computing world would be a very different place. Don't write off FOSS just because better solutions are out there.
You know you're doing something right when your opponents try to cheat to win; you know you're really making progress when they start attacking you directly.
(Run some bazouki music in the background for authenticity)
"Now then, some evidence, please, my good man." "Certainly, sir. What would you like?" "Well, eh, how about a little hearing?" "I'm afraid we're fresh out of hearings, sir." "Oh, never mind, how are you on documents?" "I'm afraid we never have that at the end of the week, sir, we get it fresh on Monday." "Tish-tish, no matter. Well, stout yeoman, some staff members for depositions, if you please." "Ah! They've been on order, sir, for two weeks. Was expecting them this morning." "Not my lucky day, is it? Ahh, phone records?" "Sorry, sir." "Emails?" "Normally, sir, yes. Today the van broke down."...
"Ah, how about giving us your testimony?" "Not much call for that."
I'll take your surveillance and raise you a speculation about political corruption.
Who wants to bet that the incumbent party wants to set up a system where they can easily monitor, harass, and inhibit the actions of political enemies? They did a similar thing in the 50s under Senator McCarthy.
They purged the Department of Justice, and the investigation into that is largely going nowhere, i.e. they got away with it for years. That's only the beginning-- the objective of people like Rove is to rid the government of anyone that does not share his ideology. The only way to do that and keep it going is to rid the entire country of anyone that does not share his ideology.
According to SoundExchange's Ades, the problem is that Pandora's user-friendly service isn't really designed to make the money it should. "They're giving away music for free. Who's not going to want that?" Ades says. "The question is: 'What is Pandora doing to raise revenue?' They're attracting listeners with the music, but they're not requiring listeners to pay for the music. Pandora's failure to monetize their business is why they can't afford the rates."
Translation: "Why are they providing what the users want? Are they morons who don't want to make money? Why can't they do things our way?"
To those of you still wondering why they're seizing data at airports...
Ever consider that copyrighted materials are available as bootlegs overseas, esp. East Asia?
The only legit reason I can fathom is detecting child pornography. So that's 2 really loud and paranoid lobbies, the concerned parents and the 3 media industries (software, motion pictures, sound recordings).
Now the illegitimate reasons can take a while, and I haven't had my caffeine yet. But don't put "searching for political affiliation" past the Bush administration, who used that as a basis for hiring or firing U.S. attorneys and also actively searched for political enemies' information with "terrorists" as a cover in its domestic spying operations.
An analogy to sum up what you've said about taxation and spending policies:
Democrats : "Tax and Spend":: Republicans : "Take Out a Subprime Mortgage and Spend"
I wasn't surprised to see the libertarian slant of the Slashdot community agree wholeheartedly with Adams' characterization of the Democrats, and his giving the Republicans a free pass. I guess 8 years of reduced taxes under Bush probably meant something.
But where's the fabled "trickle-down" effect that the Reaganomics Republicans insist is happening? Last I checked, unemployment is at a record high, while some companies enjoy $11 billion-a-quarter profits. Inflation is, well, inflating the price of goods, while most Americans' spending power is diminished. At this point, the only "trickle-down" that's going to happen is if the super-wealthy 1% of Americans all gave a hundred bucks to every citizen-- and even then, we wouldn't see much of a "wealth redistribution" that the Republicans are complaining about.
Oh, but the economy is growing with the reduced tax burden, and it's more competitive than ever thanks to deregulation, right? If it really is, someone should share some of that secret competitive sauce with the ISPs, the telecoms, the entertainment industries, EA, Microsoft. In a playground without rules, the most intimidating bullies dominate.
Now it's election season again, and as usual the Republicans accuse the Democrats of "TAX AND SPEND LIBERAL MORON!!"
And the libertarians eat it up, hook, line, and sinker.
My own recommendation: vote for gridlock. Since Congress is in the hands of the Democrats, vote for the Republican candidate, just to put some quicksand under the wheels of big government. So you'll vote for the Republican regardless of his/her overall qualification to be elected to the post and regardless of whether he/she toes the loyalist party line that is leaning more and more towards fascism every year?
Grand. If the Republican happens to be relatively clean, you got lucky. If he/she's anything like the McCain campaign, you voted for a prick. Same goes for Democrats, btw.
And if the person you elected is great at working across the aisle and starts getting stuff done, well your hopes for gridlock are dashed.
I would stick to principles and just vote 3rd-party, if you despise the mainstream parties enough to shut down Washington.
1. They admit their biases like newspapers of old did. I want to see "Wolf Blitzer (D)" on the screen. Then he would be freed from the transparent lie that he is objective and could get on with it. We as viewers could then accept what he does and where he is coming from when he is 'reporting.'
Oh, please, no. The first thing the right-wing talking heads will do is say, "AHA! I knew it! You !@%!$s were all part of the liberal conspiracy!!"
They'll say it even if the right-wing nuts are actually a majority.
Welcome to "How to ruin an economy 101: Start by taking away everything from those who know how to make and invest money, then give it to the worst investors you can."
So everyone making less than six figures are simply the worst possible investors, and guys like you who make millions are investment geniuses?
<sarcasm> So the guys like Vanguard and the Gardner brothers who say that ordinary joes like me can invest in the stock market and make a reasonable return are full of it! I should tell the teeming masses to move to Mexico and get the hell out of the US market. </sarcasm>
Talking points and taglines sound neat, but they paint with a brush that's far too broad. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that your fears are really justified, with all the means at your disposal to reduce your tax burden.
And Gramm called the ordinary folks the "whiners"? After 8 years of reduced taxes to your income bracket by the most corporation-friendly government in recent history?
Take some time and learn about Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and who ran the "corporation" since 2000. Add to that, researching the 2005 bill that forced FM/FM to give out loans based on racial profiles instead of financial stability, and you'll have a good idea who to blame. Using teaser lines and forcing the reader to do the bulk of the research is the hallmark of a bad marketer. Either you're very confident that a Google search on your paragraphs will turn up the information you want, or you're trying to push an agenda.
Actual arguments of this nature come with citations to verifiable sources. Never present a claim without support unless you're Karl Rove.
For those too lazy to find out, consider that Obama, despite being in the Senate for only 2 years, is the #1 recipient of donations from FM/FM at $112,000. IIRC, this was personal donations by employees (complete with the "the views of the employees do not necessarily reflect the views of the corporation..." disclaimer shtick), and I'm pretty sure, as someone else in this thread mentioned, lobbying dollars for a corporation of this size would easily dwarf that six-figure donation to Obama. Still, it's an impressive number compared to the other candidates.
And who is Franklin Raines? Why, Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget under Bill Clinton. The only connection you are able to provide among all of the stuff you presented is "They're all Democrats!" The problem is, Democrats are pretty diverse, and some are even-- gasp-- conservative! We call 'em "Blue Dogs", unless my caffeine-riddled memory is shot. My point is, you're going to need further evidence to prove a conspiracy happened rather than try to equate correlations with causality.
Sorry, your reasoning is on par with 9/11 Truth Movement conspiracy theorists: A loosely-connected series of factoids whose "conclusion" sounds catchy and plausible, but with no real evidence or whistle-blowers proving the connections or the conclusion. My money's still on Phil Gramm neutering the regulatory bodies using submarine bills attached to omnibus spending bills.
Although the Presidential election is the context, those stats don't reflect the various Congressional sessions that were in power; Congress has a lot more to say in budget matters such as spending than the President does, although the President often lays out a plan for the nation. It would be interesting to see if the Congressional Democrats fared as well as their counterparts in the executive in matters of fiscal responsibility.
Okay, maybe Pilate's question isn't the right one for this scheme. How about: "Who gets to decide which is 'truthful' and which isn't?" "How do you go about making sure your ratings matter outside of political arenas?"
Sure, a well-meaning oversight body can brand, say, Scientology as not "truthful". But all they have to do to neutralize that is to intimidate or take control of the oversight body.
Beware those who propose solutions to nonexistent or insignificant problems, that create more problems than it is supposed to solve.
Perhaps they don't/can't ship to Australia? I do see an.au domain in TFA.
But thanks for the link. Been looking for a gaming lappy since the MBP's video chip is likely doomed to fry (GF 8600M), and I didn't want to build yet another badass tower (the one I have is for retro games).
(and... 4 minutes since posting? I know spam's a problem, but seriously, isn't that discriminating against those who write like Hemingway?)
Slashdot Mirror
No, he associates with black liberation theology nutcases, which are much worse. By the way, Jerry Falwell is dead.
Funny, the only ones still beating on the "black liberation theology" drums is Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and their listeners.
Jerry Falwell being dead is irrelevant. Despite the fact that he fathered the Religious Right, plenty of his followers are still around to maintain his views, including the Republican candidate for Vice President!!
The rest of your comment is simply an amalgam of McCain's hijacking of Obama's general message and all the right-wing talking points that made Hannity and Limbaugh very, very rich.
Are you saying that you were able to alter the boot time by putting the machine in motion?
That's quite a kick you got there.
You mean like the (fake) Microsoft iPod?
The current hot trend in personal computing is notebooks, and Apple has made big gains there. They now have about 10% of the notebook market.
Ballmer must be sweating bullets.
It has to do with an increased enforcement of the "verifiability" policy over there-- only 3rd-party sources. They were fairly lax about it until a year or two ago, because they needed to encourage content growth, but IIRC Jimbo wanted to make it more, well, encyclopedic.
That, and the whole "notability" guideline (I think it's policy now) really started a veritable witch-hunt of rogue content. In order for an article to remain, you had to be famous or well-known to a certain degree.
If Linus Torvalds, Steve Wozniak, or Richard M. Stallman had this attitude, the computing world would be a very different place. Don't write off FOSS just because better solutions are out there.
You know you're doing something right when your opponents try to cheat to win; you know you're really making progress when they start attacking you directly.
You forgot: Smarter than your average bear.
The lack of opposable thumbs meant that the chronic pick-a-nick basket thief wasn't well suited to gaming.
(Run some bazouki music in the background for authenticity)
"Now then, some evidence, please, my good man." ...
"Certainly, sir. What would you like?"
"Well, eh, how about a little hearing?"
"I'm afraid we're fresh out of hearings, sir."
"Oh, never mind, how are you on documents?"
"I'm afraid we never have that at the end of the week, sir, we get it fresh on Monday."
"Tish-tish, no matter. Well, stout yeoman, some staff members for depositions, if you please."
"Ah! They've been on order, sir, for two weeks. Was expecting them this morning."
"Not my lucky day, is it? Ahh, phone records?"
"Sorry, sir."
"Emails?"
"Normally, sir, yes. Today the van broke down."
"Ah, how about giving us your testimony?"
"Not much call for that."
... and if you wanted Rails, it's: rubyonrails.org
In case no one's posted them yet:
Ruby home page, for starters.
RubyDoc, especially the Pragmatic Programmer's Guide with some excellent examples for those getting started.
Why's Poignant Guide, an offbeat way to get started.
I'll take your surveillance and raise you a speculation about political corruption.
Who wants to bet that the incumbent party wants to set up a system where they can easily monitor, harass, and inhibit the actions of political enemies? They did a similar thing in the 50s under Senator McCarthy.
They purged the Department of Justice, and the investigation into that is largely going nowhere, i.e. they got away with it for years. That's only the beginning-- the objective of people like Rove is to rid the government of anyone that does not share his ideology. The only way to do that and keep it going is to rid the entire country of anyone that does not share his ideology.
Didn't you get the memo? Under the Bush administration, the FOIA is "Forbidden Outside Internal Affairs".
Translation: "Why are they providing what the users want? Are they morons who don't want to make money? Why can't they do things our way?"
So the minor versions go 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13...?
("One... two... FIVE!" "Three, sir!" "Three!")
To those of you still wondering why they're seizing data at airports...
Ever consider that copyrighted materials are available as bootlegs overseas, esp. East Asia?
The only legit reason I can fathom is detecting child pornography. So that's 2 really loud and paranoid lobbies, the concerned parents and the 3 media industries (software, motion pictures, sound recordings).
Now the illegitimate reasons can take a while, and I haven't had my caffeine yet. But don't put "searching for political affiliation" past the Bush administration, who used that as a basis for hiring or firing U.S. attorneys and also actively searched for political enemies' information with "terrorists" as a cover in its domestic spying operations.
An analogy to sum up what you've said about taxation and spending policies:
Democrats : "Tax and Spend" :: Republicans : "Take Out a Subprime Mortgage and Spend"
I wasn't surprised to see the libertarian slant of the Slashdot community agree wholeheartedly with Adams' characterization of the Democrats, and his giving the Republicans a free pass. I guess 8 years of reduced taxes under Bush probably meant something.
But where's the fabled "trickle-down" effect that the Reaganomics Republicans insist is happening? Last I checked, unemployment is at a record high, while some companies enjoy $11 billion-a-quarter profits. Inflation is, well, inflating the price of goods, while most Americans' spending power is diminished. At this point, the only "trickle-down" that's going to happen is if the super-wealthy 1% of Americans all gave a hundred bucks to every citizen-- and even then, we wouldn't see much of a "wealth redistribution" that the Republicans are complaining about.
Oh, but the economy is growing with the reduced tax burden, and it's more competitive than ever thanks to deregulation, right? If it really is, someone should share some of that secret competitive sauce with the ISPs, the telecoms, the entertainment industries, EA, Microsoft. In a playground without rules, the most intimidating bullies dominate.
Now it's election season again, and as usual the Republicans accuse the Democrats of "TAX AND SPEND LIBERAL MORON!!"
And the libertarians eat it up, hook, line, and sinker.
My own recommendation: vote for gridlock. Since Congress is in the hands of the Democrats, vote for the Republican candidate, just to put some quicksand under the wheels of big government.
So you'll vote for the Republican regardless of his/her overall qualification to be elected to the post and regardless of whether he/she toes the loyalist party line that is leaning more and more towards fascism every year?
Grand. If the Republican happens to be relatively clean, you got lucky. If he/she's anything like the McCain campaign, you voted for a prick. Same goes for Democrats, btw.
And if the person you elected is great at working across the aisle and starts getting stuff done, well your hopes for gridlock are dashed.
I would stick to principles and just vote 3rd-party, if you despise the mainstream parties enough to shut down Washington.
1. They admit their biases like newspapers of old did. I want to see "Wolf Blitzer (D)" on the screen. Then he would be freed from the transparent lie that he is objective and could get on with it. We as viewers could then accept what he does and where he is coming from when he is 'reporting.'
Oh, please, no. The first thing the right-wing talking heads will do is say, "AHA! I knew it! You !@%!$s were all part of the liberal conspiracy!!"
They'll say it even if the right-wing nuts are actually a majority.
Welcome to "How to ruin an economy 101: Start by taking away everything from those who know how to make and invest money, then give it to the worst investors you can."
So everyone making less than six figures are simply the worst possible investors, and guys like you who make millions are investment geniuses?
<sarcasm> So the guys like Vanguard and the Gardner brothers who say that ordinary joes like me can invest in the stock market and make a reasonable return are full of it! I should tell the teeming masses to move to Mexico and get the hell out of the US market. </sarcasm>
Talking points and taglines sound neat, but they paint with a brush that's far too broad. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that your fears are really justified, with all the means at your disposal to reduce your tax burden.
And Gramm called the ordinary folks the "whiners"? After 8 years of reduced taxes to your income bracket by the most corporation-friendly government in recent history?
I'm not sure if I should be outraged or amazed.
Take some time and learn about Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and who ran the "corporation" since 2000. Add to that, researching the 2005 bill that forced FM/FM to give out loans based on racial profiles instead of financial stability, and you'll have a good idea who to blame.
Using teaser lines and forcing the reader to do the bulk of the research is the hallmark of a bad marketer. Either you're very confident that a Google search on your paragraphs will turn up the information you want, or you're trying to push an agenda.
Actual arguments of this nature come with citations to verifiable sources. Never present a claim without support unless you're Karl Rove.
For those too lazy to find out, consider that Obama, despite being in the Senate for only 2 years, is the #1 recipient of donations from FM/FM at $112,000.
IIRC, this was personal donations by employees (complete with the "the views of the employees do not necessarily reflect the views of the corporation..." disclaimer shtick), and I'm pretty sure, as someone else in this thread mentioned, lobbying dollars for a corporation of this size would easily dwarf that six-figure donation to Obama.
Still, it's an impressive number compared to the other candidates.
And who is Franklin Raines? Why, Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget under Bill Clinton.
The only connection you are able to provide among all of the stuff you presented is "They're all Democrats!" The problem is, Democrats are pretty diverse, and some are even-- gasp-- conservative! We call 'em "Blue Dogs", unless my caffeine-riddled memory is shot. My point is, you're going to need further evidence to prove a conspiracy happened rather than try to equate correlations with causality.
Sorry, your reasoning is on par with 9/11 Truth Movement conspiracy theorists: A loosely-connected series of factoids whose "conclusion" sounds catchy and plausible, but with no real evidence or whistle-blowers proving the connections or the conclusion. My money's still on Phil Gramm neutering the regulatory bodies using submarine bills attached to omnibus spending bills.
Although the Presidential election is the context, those stats don't reflect the various Congressional sessions that were in power; Congress has a lot more to say in budget matters such as spending than the President does, although the President often lays out a plan for the nation. It would be interesting to see if the Congressional Democrats fared as well as their counterparts in the executive in matters of fiscal responsibility.
Okay, maybe Pilate's question isn't the right one for this scheme.
How about: "Who gets to decide which is 'truthful' and which isn't?"
"How do you go about making sure your ratings matter outside of political arenas?"
Sure, a well-meaning oversight body can brand, say, Scientology as not "truthful". But all they have to do to neutralize that is to intimidate or take control of the oversight body.
Beware those who propose solutions to nonexistent or insignificant problems, that create more problems than it is supposed to solve.
Perhaps they don't/can't ship to Australia? I do see an .au domain in TFA.
But thanks for the link. Been looking for a gaming lappy since the MBP's video chip is likely doomed to fry (GF 8600M), and I didn't want to build yet another badass tower (the one I have is for retro games).
(and... 4 minutes since posting? I know spam's a problem, but seriously, isn't that discriminating against those who write like Hemingway?)
Mod parent up! Being able to play the latest and greatest shouldn't mean being forced into the upgrade arms race of the gaming industry.
Now, get off our lawns! We're going to play some retro games. :)