"Add to that the fact that it was explicitly created by Moon to create an 'alternative' to the Post that was more in line with his own opinions. Which is just a wonderful premise to start a quality newspaper on. Not."
It's long been established in journalistic history that newspapers always reflect the thoughts, passions and leanings of their publishers. Hell, many of the great papers of the western world were formed for that very reason, and the Post is no exception, though I do believe it's far more of a house organ for the ruling class of D.C. than for any one political viewpoint.
Complaining that the Times is not a "quality newspaper" just because its publisher influences (or used to influence) its coverage... well, maybe you should be complaining that Slashdot is incredibly biased against Microsoft and for *nix. I mean, it was created to be more in line with its editors' opinions.
Are you implying that of the whole iPod audience, a "decent amount" are fooled by apple, and another "decent amount" are just fanbois who will buy anything...
So, in reality, only a small percentage have a need for an iPod product?
Every fucking thing you said about the blogosphere can be atrributed to "trusted" news sources you so blindingly believe in.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
At least I usually know what biases a blog is operating under and within. I can filter accordingly. But the illusion of "objectivity" makes mainstream sources very, very hard to stomach.
Yes, So much so to show that they are willing to use dirty tactics to supress the first amendment.
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
Please educate yourself on the differences between Congress -- a branch of the United States Government -- and Apple Computer, Inc. -- a public corporation.
Apple can and will do what it feels is legally viable and permissable in this arena. When Jobs gets Congress to pass a law, and the President to sign it, then we can talk about Apple "suppressing the first amendment."
Actually, Quicktime definitely does do fullscreen. What doesn't is the free version of Apple's Quicktime player - though for $25 US you get fullscreen and a lot more handy features.
Here's a handy AppleScript droplet that will give you full-screen QT movies...
on open fileName
tell application "QuickTime Player"
open fileName
present movie 1
end tell end open
Save it as an Application to make it a droplet. Drop your movie on it and... fullscreen pr0n!
They're a complete mess, have no prices anywhere for anything, no catalog, no displays, just ask some weird-looking guy, or his wife (or... whatever she is) whom you can ask how much something is, then they make a few calls to "someone" and tell you how much it is... which is always at least 4 times more than I can get it elsewhere. When I can get something cheaper at a CompUSA than a mac reseller... that is sad...
You don't happen to live in St. Louis, do you? 'Cause that sure sounds like one Mac reseller I know (or, rather, knew, because I left that town as soon as I could) there.
i welcome our new ... uh ... wait ...
on
Fix a Troubled Mac
·
· Score: 2, Funny
As someone who makes his living fixing such problems for similarly situated companies:
Can't we get the religious right to find some sort of sinful part of this book that they can use to get it banned?
I started a new job in January and my supervisor is a big AppleScript guy. From that, I've started learning AppleScript Studio in Xcode. There isn't much I can't do with AppleScript and shell scripts, and that's led me to write my own little apps in the past month or so.
Every user has the power to make his own software. How cool is that?
Does America really have an inequality problem? Statistically, the answer is "Yes, but".
By whatever measure you use, the richest Americans have done very well over the past few decades. According to the Census Bureau, the share of national income going to those in the top fifth of earners rose from 44% in 1973 to 50% in 2000. The share going to the top 1% rose to 15% in 1998, higher than it has ever been since the second world war, according to a recent study of tax returns by two economists, Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.
Take wealth rather than income, and America's disparity is even more startling. The wealthiest 1% of all households controls 38% of national wealth, while the bottom 80% of households holds only 17%, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). Around 85% of stockmarket wealth is held by a lucky 20%.
If the rich have been doing much better than other Americans in relative terms, the poor have failed to improve their lot as they did in the 1950s and 1960s. The wage incomes of the bottom 20% of households have barely grown in real terms since the mid-1970s. As for wealth, the bottom fifth has debts that exceed its assets, making its wealth a negative number. The bottom fifth's percentage of national wealth worsened from -0.3% in 1983 to -0.6% in 1998.
These depressing statistics, though, come with two caveats. First, poorer Americans are better off than they once were. The proportion of Americans in poverty now stands at 12%; in Mr Krugman's supposedly golden 1950s, it reached 22%.
Meanwhile, although real wages appear stagnant, poor people can buy far more with them. The combination of technology and globalisation--the very thing that has depressed some manufacturing wages--has put many more erstwhile luxuries within the grasp of poorer Americans. They now own better-quality cars and washing machines than rich ones did a generation ago; mobile phones and computers are now mass-market items.
Second, America is a remarkably mobile society. As this year's Economic Report of the President points out, 50-80% of the unfortunates in America's bottom quintile push themselves into a higher quintile after 10 years. There are worries about mobility; Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute complains that marriage patterns may now be reinforcing inequalities, since yuppies marry yuppies these days. Yet, in broad terms, the idea that America is a land of opportunity still stands.
Relying on anecdotal evidence to bolster your argument... does nothing to bolster your argument.
Perhaps you could cite some hard numbers -- unemployment rates in 1973 vs. 2003; inflation rates for each year; etc.
Anecdotally, I'd say that the "poor" are less "poor" than they were precisely because of technological advances that allow us all to purchase better TVs, cars, etc. -- that the productivity gains of the past 15 years have benefited all strata of society.
Again, though, my argument, as yours does, relies on anecdotal evidence. Hard facts, please.
I think it hit SBC in the St. Louis, Missouri, area Sunday. I was having a hell of a time with my "Yahoo!" DSL (just typing that name makes me ashamed) going down every... well, every minute, basically.
YOUR HOME TOWN (AP) -- You were not "the most handsome boy in school," contrary to what your mother may have said at the time, officials today announced.
"Mothers always say things like that to their gangly, awkward teenage children," one official said on condition of anonymity. ---- Point is... no shiat! Apple marketing spins things; Dell marketing spins things... everyone spins. Don't take it so seriously.
"Republicans Hand Wealthy Americans Large Tax Break" vs. "American Citizens Will Pay Less in Taxes" gives a pretty good impression of what the writer thinks of the tax breaks --
Unless, of course, the truth is BOTH AT THE SAME TIME, in which case I guess I'd... what... listen to both sides?
GOP_in_48 writes "Today's Chicago Tribune has an article that claims that Gov. Dewey actually defeated President Truman. It's hard to believe since DuMontNBC just cited exit polls showing Truman the winner. Could this be a turning point in the election?"
Point is... don't believe it, if it's in the Chicago Trib.
Slashdot Mirror
Even given that it's your native language, your spelling still sucks, "Amercia" ...
From a language standpoint, I picked the low-hanging fruit and strategized into a win-win position for myself and my clients.
Wait. What was the question again?
"Add to that the fact that it was explicitly created by Moon to create an 'alternative' to the Post that was more in line with his own opinions. Which is just a wonderful premise to start a quality newspaper on. Not."
... well, maybe you should be complaining that Slashdot is incredibly biased against Microsoft and for *nix. I mean, it was created to be more in line with its editors' opinions.
It's long been established in journalistic history that newspapers always reflect the thoughts, passions and leanings of their publishers. Hell, many of the great papers of the western world were formed for that very reason, and the Post is no exception, though I do believe it's far more of a house organ for the ruling class of D.C. than for any one political viewpoint.
Complaining that the Times is not a "quality newspaper" just because its publisher influences (or used to influence) its coverage
Fewer buttons than a IntelliMouse. No Bluetooth.
LAME.
No doubt!
...
This, plus Dvorak maybe possibly predicting something
I don't know about you, but this is like Y2K times a thousand.*
* for "Team America" fans
Are you implying that of the whole iPod audience, a "decent amount" are fooled by apple, and another "decent amount" are just fanbois who will buy anything ...
So, in reality, only a small percentage have a need for an iPod product?
News flash, Dave:
...
Every fucking thing you said about the blogosphere can be atrributed to "trusted" news sources you so blindingly believe in.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
At least I usually know what biases a blog is operating under and within. I can filter accordingly. But the illusion of "objectivity" makes mainstream sources very, very hard to stomach.
Congress shall make no law
Please educate yourself on the differences between Congress -- a branch of the United States Government -- and Apple Computer, Inc. -- a public corporation.
Apple can and will do what it feels is legally viable and permissable in this arena. When Jobs gets Congress to pass a law, and the President to sign it, then we can talk about Apple "suppressing the first amendment."
this is not accurate ...
the LC III -- i owned one. it was a great little box.
Here's a handy AppleScript droplet that will give you full-screen QT movies
on open fileName
tell application "QuickTime Player"
open fileName
present movie 1
end tell
end open
Save it as an Application to make it a droplet. Drop your movie on it and
Yeah, but I was unemployed at the time! I didn't know any better!
You don't happen to live in St. Louis, do you? 'Cause that sure sounds like one Mac reseller I know (or, rather, knew, because I left that town as soon as I could) there.
As someone who makes his living fixing such problems for similarly situated companies:
Can't we get the religious right to find some sort of sinful part of this book that they can use to get it banned?
"Installing the RAM," maybe?
I agree wholeheartedly.
I started a new job in January and my supervisor is a big AppleScript guy. From that, I've started learning AppleScript Studio in Xcode. There isn't much I can't do with AppleScript and shell scripts, and that's led me to write my own little apps in the past month or so.
Every user has the power to make his own software. How cool is that?
a practical Reality Distortion Field? try e-mailing this guy -- he may be able to help you a bit more.
(see what a mac-addled brain turns Slashdot stories into on first glance?)
Taken from The Economist:
Does America really have an inequality problem? Statistically, the answer is "Yes, but".
By whatever measure you use, the richest Americans have done very well over the past few decades. According to the Census Bureau, the share of national income going to those in the top fifth of earners rose from 44% in 1973 to 50% in 2000. The share going to the top 1% rose to 15% in 1998, higher than it has ever been since the second world war, according to a recent study of tax returns by two economists, Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.
Take wealth rather than income, and America's disparity is even more startling. The wealthiest 1% of all households controls 38% of national wealth, while the bottom 80% of households holds only 17%, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). Around 85% of stockmarket wealth is held by a lucky 20%.
If the rich have been doing much better than other Americans in relative terms, the poor have failed to improve their lot as they did in the 1950s and 1960s. The wage incomes of the bottom 20% of households have barely grown in real terms since the mid-1970s. As for wealth, the bottom fifth has debts that exceed its assets, making its wealth a negative number. The bottom fifth's percentage of national wealth worsened from -0.3% in 1983 to -0.6% in 1998.
These depressing statistics, though, come with two caveats. First, poorer Americans are better off than they once were. The proportion of Americans in poverty now stands at 12%; in Mr Krugman's supposedly golden 1950s, it reached 22%.
Meanwhile, although real wages appear stagnant, poor people can buy far more with them. The combination of technology and globalisation--the very thing that has depressed some manufacturing wages--has put many more erstwhile luxuries within the grasp of poorer Americans. They now own better-quality cars and washing machines than rich ones did a generation ago; mobile phones and computers are now mass-market items.
Second, America is a remarkably mobile society. As this year's Economic Report of the President points out, 50-80% of the unfortunates in America's bottom quintile push themselves into a higher quintile after 10 years. There are worries about mobility; Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute complains that marriage patterns may now be reinforcing inequalities, since yuppies marry yuppies these days. Yet, in broad terms, the idea that America is a land of opportunity still stands.
Relying on anecdotal evidence to bolster your argument ... does nothing to bolster your argument.
Perhaps you could cite some hard numbers -- unemployment rates in 1973 vs. 2003; inflation rates for each year; etc.
Anecdotally, I'd say that the "poor" are less "poor" than they were precisely because of technological advances that allow us all to purchase better TVs, cars, etc. -- that the productivity gains of the past 15 years have benefited all strata of society.
Again, though, my argument, as yours does, relies on anecdotal evidence. Hard facts, please.
for the love of God, don't let it be The Union!
I think it hit SBC in the St. Louis, Missouri, area Sunday. I was having a hell of a time with my "Yahoo!" DSL (just typing that name makes me ashamed) going down every ... well, every minute, basically.
Weird.
Have you ever sat down with a good pair of headphones and listened to "Independent Women (Pt. 1)" by Destiny's Child?
Obviously not. If so, you would have heard (1) insane production, and (2) an incredibly creative song.
And yes, Beyonce is hot hot hot. But that song, at least, kicks ass.
YOUR HOME TOWN (AP) -- You were not "the most handsome boy in school," contrary to what your mother may have said at the time, officials today announced.
... no shiat! Apple marketing spins things; Dell marketing spins things ... everyone spins. Don't take it so seriously.
"Mothers always say things like that to their gangly, awkward teenage children," one official said on condition of anonymity.
----
Point is
I was able to share my USB Brother laser printer with my Win2K box via CUPS.
Well?
i used my palm. a lot.
...
there was this one chick who lived down the hall from me and
wait. you mean Palm the PDA?, not palm?
sorry. forget i said anything.
"Republicans Hand Wealthy Americans Large Tax Break" vs. "American Citizens Will Pay Less in Taxes" gives a pretty good impression of what the writer thinks of the tax breaks --
... what ... listen to both sides?
Unless, of course, the truth is BOTH AT THE SAME TIME, in which case I guess I'd
GOP_in_48 writes "Today's Chicago Tribune has an article that claims that Gov. Dewey actually defeated President Truman. It's hard to believe since DuMontNBC just cited exit polls showing Truman the winner. Could this be a turning point in the election?"
... don't believe it, if it's in the Chicago Trib.
Point is