On the other hand, if there weren't people with 80-hour commutes, your $400 extra would have been $4000 a month, or you'd live in a very tiny appartment indeed.
Believe it or not, "living close to work" is what has been done for most of history, and was abandoned (mostly) for good reasons. And those that abandoned the close to work thing never looked back.
And if you think hugely densely populated areas are good for the environment... I suggest you go visit some historical sites where that was tried.
There's a balance to be made here. Yes, perhaps an 80 mile commute is over the top, but everyone living close enough to walk or bike (or even short commute) would be a disaster in itself.
Obviously, were this Bush, we would have pointed out that the president of the US can now go to his campaign donors and ask them who looked at what section of the whitehouse.gov site.
Since he's going to spend over a trillion dollars which will have no effect whatsoever on the economy, this will come in very handy.
But it's the "messiah", so it's all just perfectly normal. As if the whitehouse is not capable of hosting it's own videos WITHOUT tracking...
No we were discussing "tolerance" to people who massacre gays, jews and others. Who do not just say this, but actually do so in many parts of the world.
Muslims today are what the nazi's were in 1939. The "miserable" and "oppressed" "victims" (read some newspapers from the era), who've started the crimes that our children will - if they're not killed by them - forever hold against any politician they don't like, and a headscarf will be about as socially accepted as naming your kid "adolf" and having the "socialist moustache" (which was very popular in the 1930's to show how "you cared")
You were discussing how we should tolerate "islam". Now obviously this means tolerating honor-killings. Tolerating racism. Tolerating religious genocide (and celebrating religious genocide). Tolerating slavery. Tolerate the descrution of the church-state barrier. Tolerate a totalitarian ideology. Tolerate muslims killing ex-muslims. They're all part of the definition of that word.
That's what you're discussing. The only argument that you have is that "islam" is something completely different than history, and their own holy texts, and their behavior around the world, and even in america itself.
"Most religions" : you sound like you would be hard-pressed to even name 3 of them, and their central figures.
So christianity and islam are the same ? I'll phone Osama and tell him the pope thinks he should stop. Since it's "all the same" he will stop immediately. Clearly no other course of action would be reasonable given that they're the same thing.
Now obviously the above won't happen, and I'll tell you why it won't happen : it's a lie.
In the VERY best case you're argument is a "tu quoque", and nothing more. But since it's also a fallacy by itself, it's just you excusing massacring behavior on the part of muslims, just because it's politically correct.
Why don't you ask those "not at all different muslims" how they feel about the many religious genocides comitted by their prophet, or those by saladin, or those by khomeini, or... Then ask a few christians about the behavior of the (christian) hitler. Or any other massacrer figure out of christian history.
All are massacrers. You will however note the difference : Christians will not accept a massacrer's behavior as good, and worthy of imitation, no matter who he is, no matter what country or system he created. Muslims will accept massacring behavior because if they didn't, they wouldn't be muslims at all.
Go ahead, ask them about the religious genocides their "prophet" comitted. You will see, VERY clearly, the differences between muslims and christians.
That's of course the problem : massacring innocents was a central part of islam from day 1. Jesus didn't hurt a fly, in fact quite the opposite.
Conclusion : they are not the same.
And you can make the same argument about Hinduism : it cannot be seriously argued that it is an "accident" or "cultural thing" that so many muslims are massacrers.
If you really did visit one, and actually went to the trouble of actually asking some questions you wouldn't say something like that. You wouldn't even dare do that of course. Intimidation and nice words are all it takes to tell a delusional mind, afraid to examine it's own thinking, to check it's own assumptions.
Why don't you go to a mosque and ask what 5:51 means in the quran... why there is a "divine punishment" (and a worldly one, which could mean execution) for any muslim that doesn't act racist to anyone not sharing their ideology...
Why don't you ask their opinion of the slave driving nature of a certain prophet. Of his many wars, and his many religious genocides. Is this man to be admired, or is he a monster ?
And when the inevitable answer comes about admiration, why don't you ask them whether the specific acts of religious genocide are admirable or not.
Clearly you are VERY comfortable asking these kinds of questions to Christians. So let's not kid ourselves about your motivations here : you're a coward. Nothing more. A weak, delusional coward, able but entirely unwilling to critically examine his assumptions about the world and about it's people.
That type of attitude is, of course, the very definition of racism. But it's also very politically correct.
Let's not kid ourselves that there's anything tolerant about your attitude. It's just "popular" racism : you avoid all the difficult questions about the guys that openly kill the most little girls.
I'm just frustrated... I feel played by Obama. He promised all sorts of things, many he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of delivering.
And tons of people weren't happy with Bush. I'm starting to think that there were very good reasons why he did what he did. Perhaps not even ideological.
Something's profoundly changing worldwide, and Bush had to interfere with some developments, no matter the cost. This change could end very well (defeat of the muslims entire ideology basically) or it could en very, very badly (e.g. another euro country with a muslim civil war like kosovo and a subsequent collapse).
The stakes are just too high to have a delusional demagogue at the helm. I should have realized that 3 months ago.
So democrats never do any name calling ? Yeah I remember that. It's just that when pointing out the many (expensive) flaws of obama, you need to keep remembering :
Dissent is the highest form of patriottism (warranted or not, though of course with lets-spend-3-billion-this-week obama it's not that hard to have warrranted criticism)
"Bush was the highest increase ever for the public debt"... until the first day in office of obama, of course. obama spends in one day what suffices bush for nearly a year. And the problem I have with him spending ? He's going to print the money, in other words, he's de-facto lowering the value of the dollars in anyone's pocket, but mostly the ones in your paycheck. Every dollar he spends is de-facto another tax on all of us.
Silverlight also requires an install on just about any system.
And I don't care about any patents that I can safely use. So let's keep the mpeg standard in there. The only problems are for hardware manufacturers and there's no open hardware at all yet.
So Obama's been using proprietary software straight from the beginning, and now they would have high costs due to the lock in generated ?
Now there's something that he could not possibly have foreseen, after all, that never happened before.
And the lock-in affecting his "users" is also becoming obvious. There's just one problem. He's going to be the president and we're ALL users of the organization he's going to lead (and lock into microsoft).
It's also called LOCK in for a reason. And, on top of that, obama took heaps of money from both the RIAA and the MPAA. So it won't be restricted to some stupid website.
You're afraid of the question, but you do answer it : when your ideology conflicts with another one, you use violence to enforce your "vision on life":
I consider hypothetical questions like that of little use. Anyone trying to harm me or my kids in a serious way would certainly not be tolerated to do so. I think most people would agree on that.
I suggest you do not go into a mosque and listen to what they're saying there. You won't like it, and one look at the crowd will tell you that the violence islam so clearly calls for will not stay nice and theoretical in their books.
Why do you have to beat around the bush so badly ? You would use violence to defend your view of life. Simple as that.
You would even (try to) use said violence against them in "their countries".
First of all, it's s/US/my country/. But otherwise - no, I do not attack them physically (well, I will do so to those who physically attack others), but I certainly do fight against their ideology, and the attempts to enshrine it as law or enforce it otherwise (i.e. some places have Muslim "morality squads" raping women who "asked for it by dressing immodestly").
You might want to watch what's happening in Europe... in "the most tolerant country on earth" (the Netherlands) gays are killed in public parks in the capital city by muslims.
They are literally using babies as a weapon. And without direct violence against them, your convincing doesn't stand a chance.
You know, when you make conspiracy theories... at LEAST have the govt be the bad guy.
I mean nobody's claiming "the US army saved earth from alien invasion by cutting open all martian babies and killing their family with bombs launched at Roswell" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
You don't get it... the actual images are free... the software REQUIRED to watch them isn't.
It's like you're saying "the program that landed the apollo on the moon is public domain, so anybody can land on the moon !".
I suppose one might even conceed that it's technically not entirely wrong...
Bullshit = what obama offered for votes. Freedom of you&me = what obama offered to the highest bidder (to MS, RIAA, MPAA, etc so we'll hear a lot more from him soon enough).
Unless they'd DROP silverlight, which only runs on expensive licenced windows server. And they need a LOT of servers to be at least somewhat sure of having a decent chance to withstand a DDOS.
Getting 5 sufficiently licenced silverlight streaming servers costs more than the contents of Al Gore's garage. And it's a VERY nice garage (although perhaps a bit high on that utterly dangerous polluting "inconvenient truth" gas there).
Bullshit = what obama offered for votes. Kicking people in the teeth ala RIAA = what obama offered for money.
omfg! I'd better accelerate my plans to rebuild Atlantis. *sends out emails frantically*[/sarcasm] I can't believe they actually said that. Remember people: promises made by politicians (of any party, standing, or otherwise) probably won't be kept. Don't trust them.
Then allow me to give you some detail on this issue : even Bush kept his main campaign promise.
Obama already announced he wouldn't keep his (neither the withdrawal from Iraq promise, nor even the closure of guantanamo bay). And he's going to lower taxes AND spend over 3 times bush has ever spent. (I'm not sure what to think about the CRA starting this crisis, but if it did, Obama's deserves a hefty helping of blame and responsability for the mess. AND both Bush and McCain tried to stop it multiple times BEFORE the crash, only to have democrats just shout "racist" at them).
The problem is simple : people ate up Obama campaign promises and elected him. Expecting him to keep his promises is NOT "delusional". I give money to the baker, I expect a bread. I gave a vote to Bush, and I actually got dollars back. I gave a vote to Obama to close guantanamo, and it seems he puts up a big smile and throws a sickening extremely-rich-only-please in a time when half america is losing their jobs.
He will get what's coming to him. And hopefully reid and pelosi too.
HIGHER taxes ? Have you priced the DRM server licence fees lately ? You need those even if you don't have any limitations.
+ the streaming servers + "backup" installations
All those need at least windows 2003 server licences, in addition to all other costs. Given that you need servers with 5000 CALs, that's over 100.000 of your tax dollars right there. And that's just the operating software.
I'd do it for 10.000. Easily.
Streaming open formats would be cheaper, not more expensive. It's just that he... got money from microsoft.
And don't worry, the RIAA paid him lots more than microsoft ever did. So we'll be hearing more Obama related "details" soon enough.
But of course we'll always have obamatons. Like those elvis people.
Java is an open standard and CAN be made to run on any operating system. The source is open, and anyone can modify it to run on any system. With java speed might be a problem though.
So can many streaming protocols. Or open streaming stacks. What's wrong with an Ogg Theora stream ? Or streaming an MPEG video stream, MPEG2 or MPEG4.
Video streaming is great because there are hardly any really closed options. But Obama took large amounts of cash from microsoft.
But really Obama's a hero. Campaign promises set world speed records when he's around, after all so many of them have dropped like flies and murdered out with such a steady hand. 20/1 : the "9/11 of campaign promises".
Besides, Obama took over 150 times as much from the RIAA, so it'll hardly be the last time we hear from Obama here.
You see : promises demagogues make to people are cheap. Promises made to money, now THOSE mean something.
Oh! the injustice. Having to load a browser plug-in! You think Adobe would handle a monopoly in any market differently than Microsoft? You must not use their products, then.
Unless, of course, you haven't paid the microsoft tax.
Then you're simply excluded from "the most open inauguration in history".
What makes America great, is that human freedom, and the right to be, outweighs fear, and prejudice, and ignorance. You have the right not to agree with what people say or do... If you find pork or shellfish unclean, don't eat them. That doesn't give you the right, to go around...
In other words, what makes America great is the enforcement of a Christian (protestant to be exact) ruleset, not just on the inhabitants of America where a big part of that specific ideology is enforced, but on the inhabitants of the whole world a part of it is enforced (what do you think the American fleet is doing all around the world) (and no I don't disagree with it's presence, quite the opposite, I believe that without that fleet there would hardly be any international trade at all).
If we're going to live on the same planet, we can't go around paving our beliefs over the bodies of others. That's how wars start, and I'd be very happy to end the global conversation "I'm right and I'm perfectly willing to kill you to prove it" once and for all.
This runs afoul of one of the basic principles of our world : evolution. After all, everybody knows that due to the basic economic problem (everybody wants everything, but the only things available are those made available by other humans, and therefore not everybody can have everything), there is NO way to end wars (not having wars requires people VOLUNTARY starving due to being outcompeted for scarce resources, what are the chances of that happening any time soon ?).
Unless that voluntary starvation starts occuring in a big way, it would be foolish in the extreme to wait for resources to actually run out before starting wars. In order to conquer as big a part of the available resources as possible, you'd want to start wars as soon as you could possibly win them (let's put it this way : "hamas-style").
If there is enough food, well distributed, evolution states that the population will increase until it meets the limits of the food availability (this certainly happened, and is continuing, in Gaza). Therefore the human population is always a few tiny percentage points away from letting at least a few people starve, but in practice quite a number of people would starve.
As demonstrated in the past. Massive economic growth (outpacing human population growth, ie. the worst performing region must have an annual growth > 1.5%) can temporarily end wars. Some 10-30 years or so. After that, wars restart.
But hey... suppose we don't have kids, which would prevent the above necessity ? Then we die alone and forgotten of hunger, unable to care for ourselves. The space we occupy on earth would quickly be "conquered" or "settled" by a group that DOES have kids.
Do we voluntarily end population growth ? Then we will be outcompeted by another group of humans who does not do so, and we'll VERY quickly find ourselves a minority, that is exposed to the wars the other group creates anyway. (this is essentially what happened to the Serbs in Kosovo, or the Jews in Gaza)
Let the state control population ? We all know what sort of laws are necessary for doing that (after all, it has to involve killing babies because they're not "approved" by the state). Those laws would NOT be part of "what makes america great".
For me, tolerance is about tolerating different beliefs, no matter how much I may disagree with them. It's about letting other people lead their lives as they wish. As long as they don't harm anyone else against their will.
It has nothing to do with sweeping generalisations of others.
Muslims harm others against their will all the time. So do Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Jews and every last flying spaghetti monster believer. So does every other ideology. And even when ideologies are not involved, one can find trivial examples of people who do not follow your rule : So does the police. So does the army. So do parents with their children.
And if they (parents/army/police) didn't, the only law that would carry any weight is the law of the jungle.
Do you understand the problem with the answer you've given ? It does not provide an actual course of action in any meaningful sense of the word, and does not survive even a basic analysis.
Obviously one can make generalizations about others. If we couldn't do that we couldn't have science at all. All muslims believe islam is just, therefore all muslims believe slavery is just. Let's not forget that mohamed is not, at all, like Jesus. Today, in ANY state, muslim or not, he would be shot on sight, he was a massacring thief, guilty of half a dozen religious genocides, hundreds of stealings and killings. Nobody, not even ahmadinejad would tolerate that kind of behavior in anyone. Muslims, however find his conduct praiseworthy. Why ? Because he won (well, mostly, and obviously it stopped when he got older, but...). Such a statement is the same as saying that cherries are red. It's stating the properties of a known, well-defined object, nothing more.
Allow me to ask you a question. Suppose you have a daughter. A muslim kidnaps her and puts her "to work" in a brothel. What is the correct course of action ? (note that this does not qualify as "harm" in sharia, after all, nothing illegal happened, so there cannot be harm)
1) use whatever means and whatever violence necessary to enforce YOUR ideas about the treatment of people on them. Calling the police is obviously in this category.
But make no mistake about what you're doing. You're using (potentially lethal) violence against someone who did something that's perfectly okay by his own standards.
2) you work within the boundaries of his ideology to recover her, and give up on your own ideology. A practical application would be that you do not tell anyone, certainly not tell the police, and attempt to buy her back.
3) you do nothing.
Obviously the only marginally tolerant course of action is 2 or 3.
Do tell what you do in this case. Are you tolerant ? Or are you violently intolerant ? Do you enlist the aid of the largest army in the world in forcing your rules, your beliefs, on others or not ?
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, if there weren't people with 80-hour commutes, your $400 extra would have been $4000 a month, or you'd live in a very tiny appartment indeed.
Believe it or not, "living close to work" is what has been done for most of history, and was abandoned (mostly) for good reasons. And those that abandoned the close to work thing never looked back.
And if you think hugely densely populated areas are good for the environment ... I suggest you go visit some historical sites where that was tried.
There's a balance to be made here. Yes, perhaps an 80 mile commute is over the top, but everyone living close enough to walk or bike (or even short commute) would be a disaster in itself.
Obviously, were this Bush, we would have pointed out that the president of the US can now go to his campaign donors and ask them who looked at what section of the whitehouse.gov site.
Since he's going to spend over a trillion dollars which will have no effect whatsoever on the economy, this will come in very handy.
But it's the "messiah", so it's all just perfectly normal. As if the whitehouse is not capable of hosting it's own videos WITHOUT tracking ...
Just like microsoft ... and look ... the first proprietary inauguration in the history of the nation.
No we were discussing "tolerance" to people who massacre gays, jews and others. Who do not just say this, but actually do so in many parts of the world.
Muslims today are what the nazi's were in 1939. The "miserable" and "oppressed" "victims" (read some newspapers from the era), who've started the crimes that our children will - if they're not killed by them - forever hold against any politician they don't like, and a headscarf will be about as socially accepted as naming your kid "adolf" and having the "socialist moustache" (which was very popular in the 1930's to show how "you cared")
You were discussing how we should tolerate "islam". Now obviously this means tolerating honor-killings. Tolerating racism. Tolerating religious genocide (and celebrating religious genocide). Tolerating slavery. Tolerate the descrution of the church-state barrier. Tolerate a totalitarian ideology. Tolerate muslims killing ex-muslims. They're all part of the definition of that word.
That's what you're discussing. The only argument that you have is that "islam" is something completely different than history, and their own holy texts, and their behavior around the world, and even in america itself.
"Most religions" : you sound like you would be hard-pressed to even name 3 of them, and their central figures.
So christianity and islam are the same ? I'll phone Osama and tell him the pope thinks he should stop. Since it's "all the same" he will stop immediately. Clearly no other course of action would be reasonable given that they're the same thing.
Now obviously the above won't happen, and I'll tell you why it won't happen : it's a lie.
In the VERY best case you're argument is a "tu quoque", and nothing more. But since it's also a fallacy by itself, it's just you excusing massacring behavior on the part of muslims, just because it's politically correct.
Why don't you ask those "not at all different muslims" how they feel about the many religious genocides comitted by their prophet, or those by saladin, or those by khomeini, or ... Then ask a few christians about the behavior of the (christian) hitler. Or any other massacrer figure out of christian history.
All are massacrers. You will however note the difference : Christians will not accept a massacrer's behavior as good, and worthy of imitation, no matter who he is, no matter what country or system he created. Muslims will accept massacring behavior because if they didn't, they wouldn't be muslims at all.
Go ahead, ask them about the religious genocides their "prophet" comitted. You will see, VERY clearly, the differences between muslims and christians.
That's of course the problem : massacring innocents was a central part of islam from day 1. Jesus didn't hurt a fly, in fact quite the opposite.
Conclusion : they are not the same.
And you can make the same argument about Hinduism : it cannot be seriously argued that it is an "accident" or "cultural thing" that so many muslims are massacrers.
If you really did visit one, and actually went to the trouble of actually asking some questions you wouldn't say something like that. You wouldn't even dare do that of course. Intimidation and nice words are all it takes to tell a delusional mind, afraid to examine it's own thinking, to check it's own assumptions.
Why don't you go to a mosque and ask what 5:51 means in the quran ... why there is a "divine punishment" (and a worldly one, which could mean execution) for any muslim that doesn't act racist to anyone not sharing their ideology ...
Why don't you ask their opinion of the slave driving nature of a certain prophet. Of his many wars, and his many religious genocides. Is this man to be admired, or is he a monster ?
And when the inevitable answer comes about admiration, why don't you ask them whether the specific acts of religious genocide are admirable or not.
Clearly you are VERY comfortable asking these kinds of questions to Christians. So let's not kid ourselves about your motivations here : you're a coward. Nothing more. A weak, delusional coward, able but entirely unwilling to critically examine his assumptions about the world and about it's people.
That type of attitude is, of course, the very definition of racism. But it's also very politically correct.
Let's not kid ourselves that there's anything tolerant about your attitude. It's just "popular" racism : you avoid all the difficult questions about the guys that openly kill the most little girls.
I'm just frustrated ... I feel played by Obama. He promised all sorts of things, many he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of delivering.
And tons of people weren't happy with Bush. I'm starting to think that there were very good reasons why he did what he did. Perhaps not even ideological.
Something's profoundly changing worldwide, and Bush had to interfere with some developments, no matter the cost. This change could end very well (defeat of the muslims entire ideology basically) or it could en very, very badly (e.g. another euro country with a muslim civil war like kosovo and a subsequent collapse).
The stakes are just too high to have a delusional demagogue at the helm. I should have realized that 3 months ago.
So democrats never do any name calling ? Yeah I remember that. It's just that when pointing out the many (expensive) flaws of obama, you need to keep remembering :
Dissent is the highest form of patriottism (warranted or not, though of course with lets-spend-3-billion-this-week obama it's not that hard to have warrranted criticism)
"Bush was the highest increase ever for the public debt" ... until the first day in office of obama, of course. obama spends in one day what suffices bush for nearly a year.
And the problem I have with him spending ? He's going to print the money, in other words, he's de-facto lowering the value of the dollars in anyone's pocket, but mostly the ones in your paycheck. Every dollar he spends is de-facto another tax on all of us.
Silverlight also requires an install on just about any system.
And I don't care about any patents that I can safely use. So let's keep the mpeg standard in there. The only problems are for hardware manufacturers and there's no open hardware at all yet.
So Obama's been using proprietary software straight from the beginning, and now they would have high costs due to the lock in generated ?
Now there's something that he could not possibly have foreseen, after all, that never happened before.
And the lock-in affecting his "users" is also becoming obvious. There's just one problem. He's going to be the president and we're ALL users of the organization he's going to lead (and lock into microsoft).
It's also called LOCK in for a reason. And, on top of that, obama took heaps of money from both the RIAA and the MPAA. So it won't be restricted to some stupid website.
You're afraid of the question, but you do answer it : when your ideology conflicts with another one, you use violence to enforce your "vision on life" :
I consider hypothetical questions like that of little use. Anyone trying to harm me or my kids in a serious way would certainly not be tolerated to do so. I think most people would agree on that.
I suggest you do not go into a mosque and listen to what they're saying there. You won't like it, and one look at the crowd will tell you that the violence islam so clearly calls for will not stay nice and theoretical in their books.
Why do you have to beat around the bush so badly ? You would use violence to defend your view of life. Simple as that.
You would even (try to) use said violence against them in "their countries".
First of all, it's s/US/my country/. But otherwise - no, I do not attack them physically (well, I will do so to those who physically attack others), but I certainly do fight against their ideology, and the attempts to enshrine it as law or enforce it otherwise (i.e. some places have Muslim "morality squads" raping women who "asked for it by dressing immodestly").
You might want to watch what's happening in Europe ... in "the most tolerant country on earth" (the Netherlands) gays are killed in public parks in the capital city by muslims.
They are literally using babies as a weapon. And without direct violence against them, your convincing doesn't stand a chance.
Clearly Obama does. And he's about to become the most powerfull man on the planet.
So why does Obama still believe microsoft ? He's stupid ? He's gotten bought by m$ dollars ? You tell us.
You know, when you make conspiracy theories ... at LEAST have the govt be the bad guy.
I mean nobody's claiming "the US army saved earth from alien invasion by cutting open all martian babies and killing their family with bombs launched at Roswell" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
That's why we brought in "hope and change".
I would say "disappointment and reruns" is more like it, but he probably patented it.
You don't get it ... the actual images are free ... the software REQUIRED to watch them isn't.
It's like you're saying "the program that landed the apollo on the moon is public domain, so anybody can land on the moon !".
I suppose one might even conceed that it's technically not entirely wrong ...
Bullshit = what obama offered for votes. Freedom of you&me = what obama offered to the highest bidder (to MS, RIAA, MPAA, etc so we'll hear a lot more from him soon enough).
Unless they'd DROP silverlight, which only runs on expensive licenced windows server. And they need a LOT of servers to be at least somewhat sure of having a decent chance to withstand a DDOS.
Getting 5 sufficiently licenced silverlight streaming servers costs more than the contents of Al Gore's garage. And it's a VERY nice garage (although perhaps a bit high on that utterly dangerous polluting "inconvenient truth" gas there).
Bullshit = what obama offered for votes. Kicking people in the teeth ala RIAA = what obama offered for money.
You can download youtube movies and watch them on your PPC system just fine.
But of course, there are better options.
omfg! I'd better accelerate my plans to rebuild Atlantis. *sends out emails frantically*[/sarcasm] I can't believe they actually said that. Remember people: promises made by politicians (of any party, standing, or otherwise) probably won't be kept. Don't trust them.
Then allow me to give you some detail on this issue : even Bush kept his main campaign promise.
Obama already announced he wouldn't keep his (neither the withdrawal from Iraq promise, nor even the closure of guantanamo bay). And he's going to lower taxes AND spend over 3 times bush has ever spent. (I'm not sure what to think about the CRA starting this crisis, but if it did, Obama's deserves a hefty helping of blame and responsability for the mess. AND both Bush and McCain tried to stop it multiple times BEFORE the crash, only to have democrats just shout "racist" at them).
The problem is simple : people ate up Obama campaign promises and elected him. Expecting him to keep his promises is NOT "delusional". I give money to the baker, I expect a bread. I gave a vote to Bush, and I actually got dollars back. I gave a vote to Obama to close guantanamo, and it seems he puts up a big smile and throws a sickening extremely-rich-only-please in a time when half america is losing their jobs.
He will get what's coming to him. And hopefully reid and pelosi too.
HIGHER taxes ? Have you priced the DRM server licence fees lately ? You need those even if you don't have any limitations.
+ the streaming servers
+ "backup" installations
All those need at least windows 2003 server licences, in addition to all other costs. Given that you need servers with 5000 CALs, that's over 100.000 of your tax dollars right there. And that's just the operating software.
I'd do it for 10.000. Easily.
Streaming open formats would be cheaper, not more expensive. It's just that he ... got money from microsoft.
And don't worry, the RIAA paid him lots more than microsoft ever did. So we'll be hearing more Obama related "details" soon enough.
But of course we'll always have obamatons. Like those elvis people.
Java is an open standard and CAN be made to run on any operating system. The source is open, and anyone can modify it to run on any system. With java speed might be a problem though.
So can many streaming protocols. Or open streaming stacks. What's wrong with an Ogg Theora stream ? Or streaming an MPEG video stream, MPEG2 or MPEG4.
Video streaming is great because there are hardly any really closed options. But Obama took large amounts of cash from microsoft.
But really Obama's a hero. Campaign promises set world speed records when he's around, after all so many of them have dropped like flies and murdered out with such a steady hand. 20/1 : the "9/11 of campaign promises".
Besides, Obama took over 150 times as much from the RIAA, so it'll hardly be the last time we hear from Obama here.
You see : promises demagogues make to people are cheap. Promises made to money, now THOSE mean something.
Oh! the injustice. Having to load a browser plug-in! You think Adobe would handle a monopoly in any market differently than Microsoft? You must not use their products, then.
Unless, of course, you haven't paid the microsoft tax.
Then you're simply excluded from "the most open inauguration in history".
You can check how much this favor was worth (not much).
We can look forward to the future. After all the RIAA paid over 150 times the amount microsoft bought this with.
What makes America great, is that human freedom, and the right to be, outweighs fear, and prejudice, and ignorance. You have the right not to agree with what people say or do... If you find pork or shellfish unclean, don't eat them. That doesn't give you the right, to go around ...
In other words, what makes America great is the enforcement of a Christian (protestant to be exact) ruleset, not just on the inhabitants of America where a big part of that specific ideology is enforced, but on the inhabitants of the whole world a part of it is enforced (what do you think the American fleet is doing all around the world) (and no I don't disagree with it's presence, quite the opposite, I believe that without that fleet there would hardly be any international trade at all).
If we're going to live on the same planet, we can't go around paving our beliefs over the bodies of others. That's how wars start, and I'd be very happy to end the global conversation "I'm right and I'm perfectly willing to kill you to prove it" once and for all.
This runs afoul of one of the basic principles of our world : evolution. After all, everybody knows that due to the basic economic problem (everybody wants everything, but the only things available are those made available by other humans, and therefore not everybody can have everything), there is NO way to end wars (not having wars requires people VOLUNTARY starving due to being outcompeted for scarce resources, what are the chances of that happening any time soon ?).
Unless that voluntary starvation starts occuring in a big way, it would be foolish in the extreme to wait for resources to actually run out before starting wars. In order to conquer as big a part of the available resources as possible, you'd want to start wars as soon as you could possibly win them (let's put it this way : "hamas-style").
If there is enough food, well distributed, evolution states that the population will increase until it meets the limits of the food availability (this certainly happened, and is continuing, in Gaza). Therefore the human population is always a few tiny percentage points away from letting at least a few people starve, but in practice quite a number of people would starve.
As demonstrated in the past. Massive economic growth (outpacing human population growth, ie. the worst performing region must have an annual growth > 1.5%) can temporarily end wars. Some 10-30 years or so. After that, wars restart.
But hey ... suppose we don't have kids, which would prevent the above necessity ? Then we die alone and forgotten of hunger, unable to care for ourselves. The space we occupy on earth would quickly be "conquered" or "settled" by a group that DOES have kids.
Do we voluntarily end population growth ? Then we will be outcompeted by another group of humans who does not do so, and we'll VERY quickly find ourselves a minority, that is exposed to the wars the other group creates anyway. (this is essentially what happened to the Serbs in Kosovo, or the Jews in Gaza)
Let the state control population ? We all know what sort of laws are necessary for doing that (after all, it has to involve killing babies because they're not "approved" by the state). Those laws would NOT be part of "what makes america great".
For me, tolerance is about tolerating different beliefs, no matter how much I may disagree with them. It's about letting other people lead their lives as they wish. As long as they don't harm anyone else against their will.
It has nothing to do with sweeping generalisations of others.
Muslims harm others against their will all the time. So do Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Jews and every last flying spaghetti monster believer. So does every other ideology. And even when ideologies are not involved, one can find trivial examples of people who do not follow your rule : So does the police. So does the army. So do parents with their children.
And if they (parents/army/police) didn't, the only law that would carry any weight is the law of the jungle.
Do you understand the problem with the answer you've given ? It does not provide an actual course of action in any meaningful sense of the word, and does not survive even a basic analysis.
Obviously one can make generalizations about others. If we couldn't do that we couldn't have science at all. All muslims believe islam is just, therefore all muslims believe slavery is just. Let's not forget that mohamed is not, at all, like Jesus. Today, in ANY state, muslim or not, he would be shot on sight, he was a massacring thief, guilty of half a dozen religious genocides, hundreds of stealings and killings. Nobody, not even ahmadinejad would tolerate that kind of behavior in anyone. Muslims, however find his conduct praiseworthy. Why ? Because he won (well, mostly, and obviously it stopped when he got older, but ...). Such a statement is the same as saying that cherries are red. It's stating the properties of a known, well-defined object, nothing more.
Allow me to ask you a question. Suppose you have a daughter. A muslim kidnaps her and puts her "to work" in a brothel. What is the correct course of action ? (note that this does not qualify as "harm" in sharia, after all, nothing illegal happened, so there cannot be harm)
1) use whatever means and whatever violence necessary to enforce YOUR ideas about the treatment of people on them. Calling the police is obviously in this category.
But make no mistake about what you're doing. You're using (potentially lethal) violence against someone who did something that's perfectly okay by his own standards.
2) you work within the boundaries of his ideology to recover her, and give up on your own ideology. A practical application would be that you do not tell anyone, certainly not tell the police, and attempt to buy her back.
3) you do nothing.
Obviously the only marginally tolerant course of action is 2 or 3.
Do tell what you do in this case. Are you tolerant ? Or are you violently intolerant ? Do you enlist the aid of the largest army in the world in forcing your rules, your beliefs, on others or not ?