Obama is catching flack because of the crazy shit the dems in congress have done over health care and other legislation.
True.
Obama is catching flack over Bush's wall street bail out plan.
Only TARP was Bush's plan - everything since has been well under the auspices of Congress and the current White House. Certainly there has been essentially no repercussions for the execs of Goldman Sachs, etc., and the new financial rules are a JOKE.
Obama is catching flack over the republicans in congress resisting, blocking and obstructing any and all economic recovery for the nation.
Obama and the Congressional Democrats are bending over backwards to accomodate Republicans they know will not support anything they propose, even if those proposals were originally Republican proposals not so long ago (like single-payer health care, end of life counselling ('death panels'), etc., probably because they know they then have an excuse for not actually improving anything.
Obama will catch flack because it snows next winter Obama will catch flack because it rains
Hardly. Obama is catching flack for continuing SO MANY of Bush's fucked-up politicies, including vast problems with civil rights. Things that he was elected specifically to FIX. I campaigned for him, donated the max I could to his campaign, etc, but I consider him a total traitor to the vast majority of what he promised during his campaign.
At least with Bush, as a Republican, you KNEW he was going to screw over everyone but the wealthy.
You may have a point about Reagan EXCEPT that he dropped taxes and spent more.... because he had more to spend. It turns out, lower taxes encourages private sector growth. Private sector growth means more revenue being taxed. More revenue being taxed means more tax money being brought in.
Reagan dropped taxes on the wealthy. Lowering taxes on the wealthy really doesn't do that much for the economy as the rich just sock that money away; they already HAVE everything they want. Dropping taxes on the middle class actually DOES stimulate the economy, as when they get that tax money back, they go spend it on things. The lie that lowering the taxes on the wealthy spurs the economy is called 'Trickle-down Economics', and has been disproven pretty decisively for a couple of decades now. FOX News is not going to actually educate you on any economic or political topics. I can see lowering taxes on _small business_, since that's where most of our jobs are, but that's never what the GOP seems to try to do. I don't understand why people always falls for the GOP line of 'lowering taxes' when all they REALLY want (and have ever DONE, in my lifetime), is raise taxes on the middle class so they can lower them for the wealthy.
Then you believe in a total fantasy - there is no such thing as a free market. It's gamed from end to end, and neither party is going to do anything about it.
I was happy with the Republican's being the party of no because it slowed down legislation, which to me is a good thing. The news has been saying how good it is that congress has been passing so much legislation this session. To me that is a bad thing, there needs to be much more thinking and debate about laws and less actual writing of laws. Congress was designed to be slow because passing knee jerk legislation has consequences.
That's a great intellectual argument, but it's hardly the reason the Republicans oppose everything the Democrats do. They also oppose things that _Republicans_ propose (even the same Republican politicians!) when it winds up in a Democrat-sponsored bill. Single payer health care? That used to be a Republican thing not so long ago, along with the 'death panels' (end of life counseling).
I think the party system (no matter how many parties) is the absolute worst thing about our system of government. The politicians become beholden not to their constituents, but to their party.
>> Bush got treated badly because of the way he mismanaged the office of President. Obama is being treated badly because he's part-black, because he's not a wacko
> No. He's being treated badly because he's Bush Part 2. Bush increased the national debt +0.5 trillion per year, while > Obama made it jump +1.5 trillion in just. The CBO projects +1 trillion every year until 2020. So Obama is increasing the > debt at double the rate Bush did.
Wow, way to remove what I said: >> Obama is being treated badly because he's part-black, because he's not a wacko religious crazy right winger, AND because he's mismanaging the office of President
I'm not sure what the point of this was. You agree with me, but then take my quote out of context and tell me I'm wrong?
They also had some argument about the type of birth documentation that was needed, and the piece they were looking for was never given. Some lesser piece was.
Incorrect. Each state can name their 'birth certificate' document anything they want. What was supplied was what the state of Hawaii gives out. There were also birth notices in the newspapers of the time. Completely insane to think this was ever even a possibility of being true.
The core of the tea party was fiscal responsibility.
The CLAIMS of the core of the tea party being fiscal responsibility don't line up with the history of the people in the tea party. If those people had ever been concerned with size of government or government spending, they would've been up in arms (literally, like now) at what Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 did. They're all out of their mind. And then there's the simple fact that taxes are lower now than they've been in 50 years. This is not only a non-issue, it's a flat-out LIE. And then compare our low taxes with those of European nations who have a substantially higher standard of living. To think this is a problem is to have a complete disconnect with reality.
Anyway. I don't fit anywhere politically anymore. I grew up republican, but can't stand their imperialistic foreign policy, stance on gay and abortion rights, position on the war on drugs, etc; but I do think they understand economics better in word, but not in deed. They talk like fiscal conservatives, but they spend as much as the democrats. So where does that put someone who wants to download unlimited media at under $20 a month, drink a beer on Sunday after mowing the lawn, smoke a joint when on vacation, go to a gay friends wedding, and stop getting raped on my income taxes?
Well, you certainly don't fit in the Republican party, and, at age 43, I can say that the Republican party I know of has never in my lifetime been one in which you would've belonged. You're WAAAAY closer to a modern Democrat than a Republican of any modern era. Democrats don't like taxes either, you know, but realize that the bills have to be paid if we want services from government. I don't know why Republicans think paying the bills is a 'liberal' thing. Fiscal responsibility certainly doesn't describe the GOP.
>> They invite it, though, with [left] wing politicians calling [Bush] a [chimpanzee], a 'secret [Nazi] or [fascist], not [properly elected] in the U.S. because he [bribed the Supreme Court and stole the election]. Talking about death panels in the [secret prison camps] and [Guantanamo Bay], etc. And that's in the [DNC] itself, not just in the [Green] Party.
> Fixed that for you. > I guess you forgot about that. > Or else you endorse it.
I don't recall Democrat politicians calling Bush a Nazi or a chimp or saying he bribed the Supreme Court. Lots of that going on in the populace, of course. And if you think people weren't killed in Gitmo or Abu Ghraib, you're kidding yourself. And there WERE massive voting machine irregularities during the 2000 election, for sure, in addition to ridiculous amounts of gerrymandering. There's a difference between reality and fantasy.
> POINT = There are idiots in both parties.
Absolutely.
The way Obama's been treated these past two years is no different than how Bush was treated the previous eight.
Bush got treated badly because of the way he mismanaged the office of President. Obama is being treated badly because he's part-black, because he's not a wacko religious crazy right winger, AND because he's mismanaging the office of President (though the valid complaints of his mismanagement seem to be coming from the Left, not the Right).
-slam the right. It's practically a new passtime to slashdot.
They invite it, though, with right wing politicians calling Obama a socialist, a 'secret Muslim', not born in the U.S., talking about death panels in the healthcare bill, etc. And that's in the GOP itself, not just in the TEA Party.
Some combination that measures both how many operations per second, and how much power it's going to take to do said operations (i.e. Watts/computing unit). I don't know if even FLOPS is sufficient anymore to describe current computing tasks. Heck, I'd be happy with any sort of standardization.
Someone wanna translate this into units of measurement used by, oh I dunno, the entire rest of the world?
How about you convert the unit via the search engine used by oh, I dunno, the entire rest of the world? (except for China)
Or how about this - land a person on the Moon and return them safely, and we'll bitch about your using metric. Now go back to playing your vuvuzela and watching SOCCER.
Is that the main cause of climate change? That is what the real arguments are about.
There is no real argument among the people who are actually professionals in that particular field. The only arguments I hear are from the aggressively ignorant who claim that anything that is not in the Bible isn't real, and therefore is anti-American. Even claiming that "we don't know" is a lie perpetrated by these wackos.
The unfortunate part of all this is, it IS too late to stop it. WAY too late. The ending of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" was interesting, where he said something along the lines of, he wanted to make sure people didn't come away from his documentary thinking it was too late to stop it. He also didn't talk about a lot of things that made his scenario much worse. The permafrost melting in Siberia, which makes things MUCH worse, and several other things around Earth that are happening far faster than even some of the nightmare scenarios climatologists have been talking about. It's WAY too late.
The problem then becomes, can we use technology to reverse it? Probably so, if we were willing to invest in some sort of global Manhattan-scale project to do something with nanotechnology or some other grandiose not-yet-there technology. But with the current climate of people being misled into thinking that this is even not real, that's NEVER going to happen. It's just not; that's a total fantasy. This may be the Fermi Paradox at work, though I doubt it'll get that bad. We can probably adapt to any Man-made disaster short of total nuclear annihilation. But the population left over may be quite a small fraction of what we have now. Not that Mother Nature would consider that a bad thing. It seems it's time to cull the herd. I'd just rather not be one of the ones culled.
The original design--The Capsule--was the right idea! Why not build a re-usable capsule?
You're assuming that all spacecraft have the same mission requirements. The Space Shuttle was originally intended, IIRC, to be able to take things to orbit, and OPTIONALLY RETURN THINGS FROM ORBIT. A space capsule will only be able to return humans and -very small items-. No going to orbit, picking up a broken or obsolete satellite or space telescope, bringing it back for fixes or refurbishment, and returning it to orbit on another flight. If all you're doing is sending stuff up, and then returning only people, then yeah, a capsule can do that job; but that's not the only job that needs doing.
Yeah, apps are where it's at, and fortunately for Apple, the iPhone has like 45 fart apps available versus the pathetic 15 or so for Android. Yessirree, Apple is WAY ahead of Google!
Do people often associate the word 'wisdom' along with the word 'Fark'? From HIS point of view, I'm sure he's absolutely correct. Depends on the crowd, though. If you go to a TED conference, the crowd is going to be substantially more wise than the crowd on Fark.
It also depends on the subject. Religion and politics can overwhelm even the most wise person. (see also: the 'Conservative Right' in the U.S.)
> Obama is not a liberal, as many on the left have discovered to their consternation since the election....and as many others on the left knew long before the election.
True, and I knew that, too, but I didn't know he was going to go all 'Bush Lite' on so MANY issues.
I wonder if she still does that at the beginning of her program? It seemed that when Bush was in office, the left screamed bloody murder when it came to the war(s). Now that their guy is in office, you can hear chirping from crickets.
She doesn't do that on her tv show on MSNBC, but she goes after Obama all the time on lots of other stuff, as does Keither Olbermann, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. To think that 'the left' doesn't go after Obama for anything is to completely ignore some of the biggest names of the left media. Obama is not a liberal, as many on the left have discovered to their consternation since the election.
That's some nice eye candy. But will Firefox stay relevant?
There are multiple aspects to this question:
1) Extensions. If Chrome's base of extensions approaches a usable level (not comparable to FF - most people don't use that many extensions), then FF's advantage in this area goes away completely. Chrome's extensions are much less painful to install.
2) UI. Chrome's interface is generally less capable than that of FF. Chrome keeps improving, true, but it's not changing the UI much at all, so I don't think this is going to go in Chrome's favor any time soon, unless FF screws itself up. This one is FF's to lose.
3) Stability. Chrome wins here by a mile. FF recently added the out of process plugin feature in 3.6.4, which, when Flash crashes, only takes out all instances of Flash instead of the whole browser, but the problem is - it didn't help FF otherwise. Loading another tab can STILL lock up the entire browser, which is completely unacceptable in software in this decade (or the previous decade). Seriously amaturish, and I'm beyond amazed this is still an issue. Hopefully fixed in FF 4. I'll check out the beta later.
Based on recent performance, I'd say that Google knows how to push Chrome better than Mozilla knows how to push FF, but we'll see. Either way, I think we'll all win. And if MS finally pulls their collective head out of their ass, maybe IE9 will start to correctly support the standards web developers have been clamoring for for YEARS. Not that we won't still have to deal with the older problem children for years.
Slashdot Mirror
Obama is catching flack because of the crazy shit the dems in congress have done over health care and other legislation.
True.
Obama is catching flack over Bush's wall street bail out plan.
Only TARP was Bush's plan - everything since has been well under the auspices of Congress and the current White House. Certainly there has been essentially no repercussions for the execs of Goldman Sachs, etc., and the new financial rules are a JOKE.
Obama is catching flack over the republicans in congress resisting, blocking and obstructing any and all economic recovery for the nation.
Obama and the Congressional Democrats are bending over backwards to accomodate Republicans they know will not support anything they propose, even if those proposals were originally Republican proposals not so long ago (like single-payer health care, end of life counselling ('death panels'), etc., probably because they know they then have an excuse for not actually improving anything.
Obama will catch flack because it snows next winter
Obama will catch flack because it rains
Hardly. Obama is catching flack for continuing SO MANY of Bush's fucked-up politicies, including vast problems with civil rights. Things that he was elected specifically to FIX. I campaigned for him, donated the max I could to his campaign, etc, but I consider him a total traitor to the vast majority of what he promised during his campaign.
At least with Bush, as a Republican, you KNEW he was going to screw over everyone but the wealthy.
You may have a point about Reagan EXCEPT that he dropped taxes and spent more.... because he had more to spend. It turns out, lower taxes encourages private sector growth. Private sector growth means more revenue being taxed. More revenue being taxed means more tax money being brought in.
Reagan dropped taxes on the wealthy. Lowering taxes on the wealthy really doesn't do that much for the economy as the rich just sock that money away; they already HAVE everything they want. Dropping taxes on the middle class actually DOES stimulate the economy, as when they get that tax money back, they go spend it on things. The lie that lowering the taxes on the wealthy spurs the economy is called 'Trickle-down Economics', and has been disproven pretty decisively for a couple of decades now. FOX News is not going to actually educate you on any economic or political topics. I can see lowering taxes on _small business_, since that's where most of our jobs are, but that's never what the GOP seems to try to do. I don't understand why people always falls for the GOP line of 'lowering taxes' when all they REALLY want (and have ever DONE, in my lifetime), is raise taxes on the middle class so they can lower them for the wealthy.
I believe in the free market, with a safety net.
Then you believe in a total fantasy - there is no such thing as a free market. It's gamed from end to end, and neither party is going to do anything about it.
I was happy with the Republican's being the party of no because it slowed down legislation, which to me is a good thing. The news has been saying how good it is that congress has been passing so much legislation this session. To me that is a bad thing, there needs to be much more thinking and debate about laws and less actual writing of laws. Congress was designed to be slow because passing knee jerk legislation has consequences.
That's a great intellectual argument, but it's hardly the reason the Republicans oppose everything the Democrats do. They also oppose things that _Republicans_ propose (even the same Republican politicians!) when it winds up in a Democrat-sponsored bill. Single payer health care? That used to be a Republican thing not so long ago, along with the 'death panels' (end of life counseling).
I think the party system (no matter how many parties) is the absolute worst thing about our system of government. The politicians become beholden not to their constituents, but to their party.
>> Bush got treated badly because of the way he mismanaged the office of President. Obama is being treated badly because he's part-black, because he's not a wacko
> No. He's being treated badly because he's Bush Part 2. Bush increased the national debt +0.5 trillion per year, while
> Obama made it jump +1.5 trillion in just. The CBO projects +1 trillion every year until 2020. So Obama is increasing the
> debt at double the rate Bush did.
Wow, way to remove what I said:
>> Obama is being treated badly because he's part-black, because he's not a wacko religious crazy right winger, AND because he's mismanaging the office of President
I'm not sure what the point of this was. You agree with me, but then take my quote out of context and tell me I'm wrong?
They also had some argument about the type of birth documentation that was needed, and the piece they were looking for was never given. Some lesser piece was.
Incorrect. Each state can name their 'birth certificate' document anything they want. What was supplied was what the state of Hawaii gives out. There were also birth notices in the newspapers of the time. Completely insane to think this was ever even a possibility of being true.
The core of the tea party was fiscal responsibility.
The CLAIMS of the core of the tea party being fiscal responsibility don't line up with the history of the people in the tea party. If those people had ever been concerned with size of government or government spending, they would've been up in arms (literally, like now) at what Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 did. They're all out of their mind. And then there's the simple fact that taxes are lower now than they've been in 50 years. This is not only a non-issue, it's a flat-out LIE. And then compare our low taxes with those of European nations who have a substantially higher standard of living. To think this is a problem is to have a complete disconnect with reality.
Anyway. I don't fit anywhere politically anymore. I grew up republican, but can't stand their imperialistic foreign policy, stance on gay and abortion rights, position on the war on drugs, etc; but I do think they understand economics better in word, but not in deed. They talk like fiscal conservatives, but they spend as much as the democrats. So where does that put someone who wants to download unlimited media at under $20 a month, drink a beer on Sunday after mowing the lawn, smoke a joint when on vacation, go to a gay friends wedding, and stop getting raped on my income taxes?
Well, you certainly don't fit in the Republican party, and, at age 43, I can say that the Republican party I know of has never in my lifetime been one in which you would've belonged. You're WAAAAY closer to a modern Democrat than a Republican of any modern era. Democrats don't like taxes either, you know, but realize that the bills have to be paid if we want services from government. I don't know why Republicans think paying the bills is a 'liberal' thing. Fiscal responsibility certainly doesn't describe the GOP.
>> They invite it, though, with [left] wing politicians calling [Bush] a [chimpanzee], a 'secret [Nazi] or [fascist], not [properly elected] in the U.S. because he [bribed the Supreme Court and stole the election]. Talking about death panels in the [secret prison camps] and [Guantanamo Bay], etc. And that's in the [DNC] itself, not just in the [Green] Party.
> Fixed that for you.
> I guess you forgot about that.
> Or else you endorse it.
I don't recall Democrat politicians calling Bush a Nazi or a chimp or saying he bribed the Supreme Court. Lots of that going on in the populace, of course. And if you think people weren't killed in Gitmo or Abu Ghraib, you're kidding yourself. And there WERE massive voting machine irregularities during the 2000 election, for sure, in addition to ridiculous amounts of gerrymandering. There's a difference between reality and fantasy.
> POINT = There are idiots in both parties.
Absolutely.
The way Obama's been treated these past two years is no different than how Bush was treated the previous eight.
Bush got treated badly because of the way he mismanaged the office of President. Obama is being treated badly because he's part-black, because he's not a wacko religious crazy right winger, AND because he's mismanaging the office of President (though the valid complaints of his mismanagement seem to be coming from the Left, not the Right).
-slam the right. It's practically a new passtime to slashdot.
They invite it, though, with right wing politicians calling Obama a socialist, a 'secret Muslim', not born in the U.S., talking about death panels in the healthcare bill, etc. And that's in the GOP itself, not just in the TEA Party.
Some combination that measures both how many operations per second, and how much power it's going to take to do said operations (i.e. Watts/computing unit). I don't know if even FLOPS is sufficient anymore to describe current computing tasks. Heck, I'd be happy with any sort of standardization.
bogomips per core. Done and done!
Someone wanna translate this into units of measurement used by, oh I dunno, the entire rest of the world?
How about you convert the unit via the search engine used by oh, I dunno, the entire rest of the world? (except for China)
Or how about this - land a person on the Moon and return them safely, and we'll bitch about your using metric. Now go back to playing your vuvuzela and watching SOCCER.
Is that the main cause of climate change? That is what the real arguments are about.
There is no real argument among the people who are actually professionals in that particular field. The only arguments I hear are from the aggressively ignorant who claim that anything that is not in the Bible isn't real, and therefore is anti-American. Even claiming that "we don't know" is a lie perpetrated by these wackos.
The unfortunate part of all this is, it IS too late to stop it. WAY too late. The ending of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" was interesting, where he said something along the lines of, he wanted to make sure people didn't come away from his documentary thinking it was too late to stop it. He also didn't talk about a lot of things that made his scenario much worse. The permafrost melting in Siberia, which makes things MUCH worse, and several other things around Earth that are happening far faster than even some of the nightmare scenarios climatologists have been talking about. It's WAY too late.
The problem then becomes, can we use technology to reverse it? Probably so, if we were willing to invest in some sort of global Manhattan-scale project to do something with nanotechnology or some other grandiose not-yet-there technology. But with the current climate of people being misled into thinking that this is even not real, that's NEVER going to happen. It's just not; that's a total fantasy. This may be the Fermi Paradox at work, though I doubt it'll get that bad. We can probably adapt to any Man-made disaster short of total nuclear annihilation. But the population left over may be quite a small fraction of what we have now. Not that Mother Nature would consider that a bad thing. It seems it's time to cull the herd. I'd just rather not be one of the ones culled.
But on those rare occasions when I'm not developing for unicorns, I have to consider the real world.
I hate developing for unicorns - they always prefer Opera.
The original design--The Capsule--was the right idea! Why not build a re-usable capsule?
You're assuming that all spacecraft have the same mission requirements. The Space Shuttle was originally intended, IIRC, to be able to take things to orbit, and OPTIONALLY RETURN THINGS FROM ORBIT. A space capsule will only be able to return humans and -very small items-. No going to orbit, picking up a broken or obsolete satellite or space telescope, bringing it back for fixes or refurbishment, and returning it to orbit on another flight. If all you're doing is sending stuff up, and then returning only people, then yeah, a capsule can do that job; but that's not the only job that needs doing.
For a web 2.0 company ... They sure have an ugly web page.
Okay, two jokes come to mind right away:
1) That's why _Google_ bought them!
2) You already said 'web 2.0'; you don't need to say 'ugly' when you've said that.
Can't wait for all the CrAppTastic crApps!
Yeah, apps are where it's at, and fortunately for Apple, the iPhone has like 45 fart apps available versus the pathetic 15 or so for Android. Yessirree, Apple is WAY ahead of Google!
The problem is we trusted a british oil company to know what they were doing. Silly us.
Oh, fuck them!
Why not leave user interface design to people who know that there are a lot of colorblind people out there?
...we are Russia's Bitch!
That's one way to look at it, or, Russia is simply our limo driver. Take us to orbit, Jeeves.
Do people often associate the word 'wisdom' along with the word 'Fark'? From HIS point of view, I'm sure he's absolutely correct. Depends on the crowd, though. If you go to a TED conference, the crowd is going to be substantially more wise than the crowd on Fark.
It also depends on the subject. Religion and politics can overwhelm even the most wise person. (see also: the 'Conservative Right' in the U.S.)
> Obama is not a liberal, as many on the left have discovered to their consternation since the election. ...and as many others on the left knew long before the election.
True, and I knew that, too, but I didn't know he was going to go all 'Bush Lite' on so MANY issues.
Because they're charging for stuff that used to be free. That's why.
This does not replace regular Hulu. Go read up on this before you fly off the handle.
I wonder if she still does that at the beginning of her program? It seemed that when Bush was in office, the left screamed bloody murder when it came to the war(s). Now that their guy is in office, you can hear chirping from crickets.
She doesn't do that on her tv show on MSNBC, but she goes after Obama all the time on lots of other stuff, as does Keither Olbermann, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. To think that 'the left' doesn't go after Obama for anything is to completely ignore some of the biggest names of the left media. Obama is not a liberal, as many on the left have discovered to their consternation since the election.
That's some nice eye candy. But will Firefox stay relevant?
There are multiple aspects to this question:
1) Extensions. If Chrome's base of extensions approaches a usable level (not comparable to FF - most people don't use that many extensions), then FF's advantage in this area goes away completely. Chrome's extensions are much less painful to install.
2) UI. Chrome's interface is generally less capable than that of FF. Chrome keeps improving, true, but it's not changing the UI much at all, so I don't think this is going to go in Chrome's favor any time soon, unless FF screws itself up. This one is FF's to lose.
3) Stability. Chrome wins here by a mile. FF recently added the out of process plugin feature in 3.6.4, which, when Flash crashes, only takes out all instances of Flash instead of the whole browser, but the problem is - it didn't help FF otherwise. Loading another tab can STILL lock up the entire browser, which is completely unacceptable in software in this decade (or the previous decade). Seriously amaturish, and I'm beyond amazed this is still an issue. Hopefully fixed in FF 4. I'll check out the beta later.
Based on recent performance, I'd say that Google knows how to push Chrome better than Mozilla knows how to push FF, but we'll see. Either way, I think we'll all win. And if MS finally pulls their collective head out of their ass, maybe IE9 will start to correctly support the standards web developers have been clamoring for for YEARS. Not that we won't still have to deal with the older problem children for years.
Socrates was the teacher of Plato who drank Hemlock after being sentenced to death the by the Athenians.
"I drank what?"
Methinks you haven't been reading the news lately - VP8 (i.e. WebM) will be supported by most browsers.