Why trade, when Bush's federal expansionist policies coupled with a runaway congress has allowed for the kind of government bloat which would allow them to do both?
There's a huge difference between a "reasonable restriction" on the government (which is what the Constitution as a whole and in part details) and a "reasonable restriction" decreed by the government upon the people.
Long story short, they're not even supposed to have the power to do that, and it's pretty reasonable to expect them to not have it.
The Amendment after the one you posted was supposed to - according to the founding fathers - prevent this shit from happening. But we're at least a handful of generations past the expiration on that one, I think.
Why don't you go read up on the Nazi party of Germany, and how they came to power? Namely, how they got rapid popular support through promises of providing welfare support to the 'middle class' - in Germany's case, Aryans.
The difference between hard left and hard right political systems is only the degree reserved for governments which are in utter totalitarianism.
Your mention of the CPLA isn't really appropriate. Yes, you can have democratically elected dictatorships: there are many in the world. (Democracy is a mistaken cure-all for political ills, and is flaunted as something it is not.) However,
As far as Obama goes and this nomination... he really had people fooled. And no, he's not really a "neocon" or "conservative" at heart. He's a hard-line Marxist in philosophy and upbringing - an egotist and totalitarian who has pursued power and control from a very young age.
It absolutely confounds me how many saps there are who think that just because they voted for a democrat, or someone with "green" or "progressive" platform points that they're voting for a good person, or for that matter voting for someone who has benevolent goals. "Hope" and "change" have been the theme songs for tyrants since the beginning of time.
I'm sorry to say, but Obama's personal, social and economic strains all rolled into one picture looks a lot like what Germany was looking at the 1930s.:(
I'm confused. Are you calling Obama a republican or an ultra-conservative?
From where I'm sitting, both Obama and McCain sit on the far opposite side of the political spectrum from either those classifications. Though they could both be described as corporate-owned reactionaries, I suppose.
Sweetheart, we're pregnant and haven't even kissed yet. We just got a 'shopped photo on the internet and promises of sweet loving, and *wham* - pregnant.
And what's worse, we're a man, making that pregnancy all the more disconcerting.
You know what? They also said they were going to change the corruption and (lots of indistinct rhetorical platitudes go here). But the only thing we're seeing promised to us now that they actually have the ability t odo anything is bad. Very bad.
Not only is it "more of the same" but it promises to turn out worse than Bush and Cheney's little romp.
I'm surprised anyone of intelligence would consider change.gov anything but the meaningless token patronage of a tyrant-in-training. Thats how the whole game is played these days.
The sick thing is that you really don't want a bloated JRE which sits there 90% the time doing nothing but gobbling resources trying to sell you anything. Or rather, as a proponent of OOo, it makes me uneasy to have that thing on my "side". It's like the fat smelly guy from the back of the room who tries to help you give your speech...
I've not tried Chrome yet, really - aside from installing it and looking at one or two sites. I have no idea how it performs for most general web browsing and on social networks.
99% (ok, maybe a bit lower) of the users out there do not use any of those extensions. Most do not know what an extension is, and many 'knowledgeable' people are still not yet using extensions to a significant degree.
For the average user, they want *drum roll* a browser which just works. In today's world, that means it's able to visit sites without barraging them with text ads, offers some security/phishing preventative measures enough to make them comfortable, and hopefully has a password portfolio. That, and basic 'plugin' functionality, and most people are in hog heaven.
No, it's probably not going to be up to par all that soon. There are specific extensions I could not live without, personally. But I know that's not true for many, if not most, people.
As for the flag in the background... have you ever NOT seen a portrait of someone in the military, in uniform, which was not staged in front of a flag (either before or after the photo was taken)?
Yep. Odds are that it was a candid photo and she, liking how she looked in the photo, told someone to "fix the photo up and use it as my publicity headshot".
The AP then probably asked her office for a photo of the General. The General's office then provided said photo.
This kind of thing likely happens daily, and the AP is only making bones because it's something they can sell articles about. You know, slow news period - after the election and before anything else actually happening, and all. Plus, controversial topic (female General), so it garners bonus news points.
Well, it appears to be a political barrier. I recall several dozen instances over the last couple years of AP and Reuters photojournalists and/or editors altering photos of the fighting in Israel and Iraq.
There's a lot more out there of this kind of thing. If it's not altered photographs, it's lying captions or inaccurate information in the articles when it comes to "political" topics which
Which is more dishonest: using photographs which have been altered to improve the appearance of the subject (such as a media headshot as this photo is) or changing something which matters? Or, for that matter, favoring ugly, angry, or stupid looking photos of politicians your organization has ideological differences with, while using favorable photography of those you prefer?
Plenty of evidence there of the AP behaving badly - not just "using" altered photos, but seemingly encouraging it when it suits their political agenda. (In the above cases, that agenda appears to be "destroy Israel".)
The reason they make such a big deal about something like this general's photo is (at least) two fold:
1) They want to provide a smoke screen for when they make photo alterations themselves/use altered photos from their journalists unknowingly. 2) They want to penalize the military (due to ideological differences, apparently)
The AP hasn't been a serious, honest news organization to any significant degree since shortly after World War II. Or, if you prefer not using moral platitudes, they were at least not attacking their own culture and country(s).
The AP, or any other news organization for that matter, taking the Army to task for this is beyond asinine, given their recent (past 10-years) record.
It wasn't a hard question. It was just a question which Obama had a hard time answering due to he nature of his (polarizing) answer. A simple question which a simple person wanted clarification on. I highly doubt he intended for it to throw him into the national spotlight; he likely just wanted to know if he'd be financially hosed by the purchase, and whether he should go forward.
The thing that makes it such a "hard" question is because Obama's answer was halting and not planned for - it was ad lib. He didn't have a script to read by, and the true nature of his policy had a little light shone on it.
This is hardly the first or only example of how or why Obama is a socialist. There is hardly any evidence available to support that he isn't; he's been involved in far-left socialist - dare I say marxist? - agendas since he was a teenager, and his rhetoric reflects that.
All I can say is that, despite his 'privacy' being violated, I hope this phone number list makes it "out". Despite all of Obama's high-and-mighty posturing, he now appears to be playing the "same old cronyism" game with his appointments.
It'd be nice to have actual proof of the backroom dealings so we might be able to bright it to light. If things keep going this way they are, he's going to leave Bush's cronyism in the rearview mirror.
I also still think Kirk looks like a preppy douche, not a skilled (if overly testosterone-driven) starship captain. Rest of the cast still looks fine.
Uhh, have you seen ST:TOS? This sure looks like a "preppy douche" plus 5-10 years of experience. Hell, Shatner (who basically manifested himself in Kirk) is pushing 77+ (!) years old, and he's still a bit of a progressed "preppy douche".
Google for "James T Kirk" and tell me the resulting images do not look like a 1970s version of a "preppy douche". The similarity is, indeed, uncanny. The difference is that back then, that - being cocksure of yourself and your ability in life and with women - was an aspiration, not a character flaw.
The OP article was, if anything, bashing on Macs for problems which don't truly exist, and - if anything - are more prevalent in the Windows world than anywhere else (especially with Vista). Many of the posts in this thread have spent a great deal of time trying to correct the inaccuracies, ignorance and outright negativity expressed towards OS X in the original article.
As for your post.... 8 years with Windows? So you're pretty new to the scene and don't remember the 'good old days' of Windows dominance. I take by your 'drivers in Ubuntu' bitching that you've never tried to a) install Windows or b) install OS X. Let me level with you: Windows has historically had the most infuriating driver installation process, and unless you slipstream drivers into the install yourself, you will likely have to have drivers for your hardware available and on hand before attempting a Windows install.
If by "Windows just works", I take it to mean you've never had to contend with: * necessary reinstalls brought on by spyware infection * any sort of end user support * necessary reinstalls brought on by the slow but eventual corruption and fragmentation of 1) the registry or 2) the filesystem * you've never been frustrated with, or likely even experienced, a spontaneous or inexplicable reboot/freeze/BSOD in Windows (something which is rarely experienced elsewhere except with beta drivers and/or flaky hardware)... and I'll stop there, but could go on for quite a while. I'm not an Apple/OS X fan by any stretch of the imagination, but you're simply not coming to the table with a full deck of cards. Try to foment a little informed criticism before frothing at the mouth.
By the way: the last couple 'lines' of your post are completely incomprehensible.
It's Unix-ish. Try compiling X11 (or any of hundreds of other POSIX compliant software packages) from source on a Mac. I'll wait.
Seriously?
Have you tried compiling X11 (let's call it Xorg) on Linux, BSD, or any other architectures of late? HEADACHE.
There's a reason why essential and commonly used software often comes as a binary package for Linux, *BSD, and yes, OS X. Especially if it's a PITA to build.
Ever hear of the NFS options to squash root access? It'll map to the user 'nobody' if you do it right. Presto, instant client root limitations.
Granted, I'll give you that NFS isn't all that secure. Or, for that matter, refined. But it's simple and useful enough for a small and/or development network - and works better than SMB/CIFS when dealing with Unix to Unix and permissions.
Yes, and the United States is a Constitutional Republic. And Nazi Germany was a democracy. But these are just names and labels, and don't really speak for the true nature of the state.
A communist party working in within a republic/democracy is entirely plausible, as communism has always been an insurgent governmental ideal: get into the government and take it over from the inside. You're going to have vestiges of whatever came before for quite a while. And what actually is never is the same as what is being presented (see: Soviet Russia and the difference between the strength/power/unity propaganda and the mafia-controlled-everything poverty that was the reality).
Sorry, you read that wrong (and I wrote it incorrectly - double negative). Without flash ability, a person is not crippled from most web activities, period. Most ads, sure.
I'm not going to agree with you, because I've noticed this too - since about 1997, it's held true.
The exception I'd like to make is that in the last year or so, I've noticed the number/quality/price of Intel boards has become more favorable, while the inverse is true for AMD boards. You'll pay 50% more for an AMD board of similar quality to a decent Intel board - and with the 'price sweet spot' for a processor being only about $120-$150, paying $50 more for a decent board doesn't seem to balance things out.
AMD dominated the price/performance war with Intel from the time they released their K6 chips - that'd be 1997 (hello, remember the "sub-$1000 PC"? that's thanks to AMD). This was the case until just recently when things started to go multi-core - and even then, AMD had a bit of resurgence while playing leapfrog with Intel.
From about 1999 to 2003 AMD was way, way ahead of Intel; Intel didn't pull ahead of AMD in terms of simple performance (without spending close to a grand for a processor) until the release of their Core based processors. Their performance started to improve quite a bit with the M based processors, but your common desktop price/performance was still dominated by AMD.
Arguably, AMD's memory management is still better. We'll see how this generation hashes out.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you kidding me? Ubuntu has to be one of the worst names for an open source project - largely due to all the derivatives.
Just try saying these 'words' (phonetically or with the 'prefix letter' as such) in polite company and tell me you don't get any sniggers:
- gubuntu ... and so on.
- kubuntu
- xubuntu
- ubuntu
- edubuntu (imo the worst!)
- fluxbuntu
- scibuntu
- ebuntu
Imagine:
You: "I installed ebuntu the other night; I like it a bit better than plain ubuntu".
Them: "Uh, what?"
The whole "prefixing shit in front of an unpronounceable African word, but using English" idea was dumb.
Sure, you can type it... but that's about it.
Why trade, when Bush's federal expansionist policies coupled with a runaway congress has allowed for the kind of government bloat which would allow them to do both?
You're misunderstanding the GP's statement.
There's a huge difference between a "reasonable restriction" on the government (which is what the Constitution as a whole and in part details) and a "reasonable restriction" decreed by the government upon the people.
Long story short, they're not even supposed to have the power to do that, and it's pretty reasonable to expect them to not have it.
The Amendment after the one you posted was supposed to - according to the founding fathers - prevent this shit from happening. But we're at least a handful of generations past the expiration on that one, I think.
.... ok.
Why don't you go read up on the Nazi party of Germany, and how they came to power? Namely, how they got rapid popular support through promises of providing welfare support to the 'middle class' - in Germany's case, Aryans.
The difference between hard left and hard right political systems is only the degree reserved for governments which are in utter totalitarianism.
Your mention of the CPLA isn't really appropriate. Yes, you can have democratically elected dictatorships: there are many in the world. (Democracy is a mistaken cure-all for political ills, and is flaunted as something it is not.) However,
As far as Obama goes and this nomination... he really had people fooled. And no, he's not really a "neocon" or "conservative" at heart. He's a hard-line Marxist in philosophy and upbringing - an egotist and totalitarian who has pursued power and control from a very young age.
It absolutely confounds me how many saps there are who think that just because they voted for a democrat, or someone with "green" or "progressive" platform points that they're voting for a good person, or for that matter voting for someone who has benevolent goals. "Hope" and "change" have been the theme songs for tyrants since the beginning of time.
I'm sorry to say, but Obama's personal, social and economic strains all rolled into one picture looks a lot like what Germany was looking at the 1930s. :(
I'm confused. Are you calling Obama a republican or an ultra-conservative?
From where I'm sitting, both Obama and McCain sit on the far opposite side of the political spectrum from either those classifications. Though they could both be described as corporate-owned reactionaries, I suppose.
Honeymoon?
Sweetheart, we're pregnant and haven't even kissed yet. We just got a 'shopped photo on the internet and promises of sweet loving, and *wham* - pregnant.
And what's worse, we're a man, making that pregnancy all the more disconcerting.
You know what? They also said they were going to change the corruption and (lots of indistinct rhetorical platitudes go here). But the only thing we're seeing promised to us now that they actually have the ability t odo anything is bad. Very bad.
Not only is it "more of the same" but it promises to turn out worse than Bush and Cheney's little romp.
I'm surprised anyone of intelligence would consider change.gov anything but the meaningless token patronage of a tyrant-in-training. Thats how the whole game is played these days.
The sick thing is that you really don't want a bloated JRE which sits there 90% the time doing nothing but gobbling resources trying to sell you anything. Or rather, as a proponent of OOo, it makes me uneasy to have that thing on my "side". It's like the fat smelly guy from the back of the room who tries to help you give your speech...
I've not tried Chrome yet, really - aside from installing it and looking at one or two sites. I have no idea how it performs for most general web browsing and on social networks.
99% (ok, maybe a bit lower) of the users out there do not use any of those extensions. Most do not know what an extension is, and many 'knowledgeable' people are still not yet using extensions to a significant degree.
For the average user, they want *drum roll* a browser which just works. In today's world, that means it's able to visit sites without barraging them with text ads, offers some security/phishing preventative measures enough to make them comfortable, and hopefully has a password portfolio. That, and basic 'plugin' functionality, and most people are in hog heaven.
No, it's probably not going to be up to par all that soon. There are specific extensions I could not live without, personally. But I know that's not true for many, if not most, people.
Yep.
As for the flag in the background... have you ever NOT seen a portrait of someone in the military, in uniform, which was not staged in front of a flag (either before or after the photo was taken)?
Yep. Odds are that it was a candid photo and she, liking how she looked in the photo, told someone to "fix the photo up and use it as my publicity headshot".
The AP then probably asked her office for a photo of the General. The General's office then provided said photo.
This kind of thing likely happens daily, and the AP is only making bones because it's something they can sell articles about. You know, slow news period - after the election and before anything else actually happening, and all. Plus, controversial topic (female General), so it garners bonus news points.
Well, it appears to be a political barrier. I recall several dozen instances over the last couple years of AP and Reuters photojournalists and/or editors altering photos of the fighting in Israel and Iraq.
For instance:
AP, Reuters, etc. alters photos of Lebanon war
There's a lot more out there of this kind of thing. If it's not altered photographs, it's lying captions or inaccurate information in the articles when it comes to "political" topics which
Which is more dishonest: using photographs which have been altered to improve the appearance of the subject (such as a media headshot as this photo is) or changing something which matters? Or, for that matter, favoring ugly, angry, or stupid looking photos of politicians your organization has ideological differences with, while using favorable photography of those you prefer?
Plenty of evidence there of the AP behaving badly - not just "using" altered photos, but seemingly encouraging it when it suits their political agenda. (In the above cases, that agenda appears to be "destroy Israel".)
The reason they make such a big deal about something like this general's photo is (at least) two fold:
1) They want to provide a smoke screen for when they make photo alterations themselves/use altered photos from their journalists unknowingly.
2) They want to penalize the military (due to ideological differences, apparently)
The AP hasn't been a serious, honest news organization to any significant degree since shortly after World War II. Or, if you prefer not using moral platitudes, they were at least not attacking their own culture and country(s).
The AP, or any other news organization for that matter, taking the Army to task for this is beyond asinine, given their recent (past 10-years) record.
No, I'm pretty sure that was just for Bush. Those "rules" will be willfully circumvented/overlooked for Obama.
(tongue in cheek)
Are you sure about that? He appears to be having problems paying most of his other debtors, so why not his phone bill?
Obama not paying campaign workers
And this is just the most recent happening; it went on all throughout the election.
It wasn't a hard question. It was just a question which Obama had a hard time answering due to he nature of his (polarizing) answer. A simple question which a simple person wanted clarification on. I highly doubt he intended for it to throw him into the national spotlight; he likely just wanted to know if he'd be financially hosed by the purchase, and whether he should go forward.
The thing that makes it such a "hard" question is because Obama's answer was halting and not planned for - it was ad lib. He didn't have a script to read by, and the true nature of his policy had a little light shone on it.
This is hardly the first or only example of how or why Obama is a socialist. There is hardly any evidence available to support that he isn't; he's been involved in far-left socialist - dare I say marxist? - agendas since he was a teenager, and his rhetoric reflects that.
All I can say is that, despite his 'privacy' being violated, I hope this phone number list makes it "out". Despite all of Obama's high-and-mighty posturing, he now appears to be playing the "same old cronyism" game with his appointments.
It'd be nice to have actual proof of the backroom dealings so we might be able to bright it to light. If things keep going this way they are, he's going to leave Bush's cronyism in the rearview mirror.
I also still think Kirk looks like a preppy douche, not a skilled (if overly testosterone-driven) starship captain. Rest of the cast still looks fine.
Uhh, have you seen ST:TOS? This sure looks like a "preppy douche" plus 5-10 years of experience. Hell, Shatner (who basically manifested himself in Kirk) is pushing 77+ (!) years old, and he's still a bit of a progressed "preppy douche".
Google for "James T Kirk" and tell me the resulting images do not look like a 1970s version of a "preppy douche". The similarity is, indeed, uncanny. The difference is that back then, that - being cocksure of yourself and your ability in life and with women - was an aspiration, not a character flaw.
^ most certainly a troll.
The OP article was, if anything, bashing on Macs for problems which don't truly exist, and - if anything - are more prevalent in the Windows world than anywhere else (especially with Vista). Many of the posts in this thread have spent a great deal of time trying to correct the inaccuracies, ignorance and outright negativity expressed towards OS X in the original article.
As for your post.... 8 years with Windows? So you're pretty new to the scene and don't remember the 'good old days' of Windows dominance. I take by your 'drivers in Ubuntu' bitching that you've never tried to a) install Windows or b) install OS X. Let me level with you: Windows has historically had the most infuriating driver installation process, and unless you slipstream drivers into the install yourself, you will likely have to have drivers for your hardware available and on hand before attempting a Windows install.
If by "Windows just works", I take it to mean you've never had to contend with: ... and I'll stop there, but could go on for quite a while. I'm not an Apple/OS X fan by any stretch of the imagination, but you're simply not coming to the table with a full deck of cards. Try to foment a little informed criticism before frothing at the mouth.
* necessary reinstalls brought on by spyware infection
* any sort of end user support
* necessary reinstalls brought on by the slow but eventual corruption and fragmentation of 1) the registry or 2) the filesystem
* you've never been frustrated with, or likely even experienced, a spontaneous or inexplicable reboot/freeze/BSOD in Windows (something which is rarely experienced elsewhere except with beta drivers and/or flaky hardware)
By the way: the last couple 'lines' of your post are completely incomprehensible.
It's Unix-ish. Try compiling X11 (or any of hundreds of other POSIX compliant software packages) from source on a Mac. I'll wait.
Seriously?
Have you tried compiling X11 (let's call it Xorg) on Linux, BSD, or any other architectures of late? HEADACHE.
There's a reason why essential and commonly used software often comes as a binary package for Linux, *BSD, and yes, OS X. Especially if it's a PITA to build.
Ever hear of the NFS options to squash root access? It'll map to the user 'nobody' if you do it right. Presto, instant client root limitations.
Granted, I'll give you that NFS isn't all that secure. Or, for that matter, refined. But it's simple and useful enough for a small and/or development network - and works better than SMB/CIFS when dealing with Unix to Unix and permissions.
Yes, and the United States is a Constitutional Republic. And Nazi Germany was a democracy. But these are just names and labels, and don't really speak for the true nature of the state.
A communist party working in within a republic/democracy is entirely plausible, as communism has always been an insurgent governmental ideal: get into the government and take it over from the inside. You're going to have vestiges of whatever came before for quite a while. And what actually is never is the same as what is being presented (see: Soviet Russia and the difference between the strength/power/unity propaganda and the mafia-controlled-everything poverty that was the reality).
Sorry, you read that wrong (and I wrote it incorrectly - double negative). Without flash ability, a person is not crippled from most web activities, period. Most ads, sure.
That's news to me. I wasn't paying that much attention. :P
Guess Intel dropped the ball there!
I'm not going to agree with you, because I've noticed this too - since about 1997, it's held true.
The exception I'd like to make is that in the last year or so, I've noticed the number/quality/price of Intel boards has become more favorable, while the inverse is true for AMD boards. You'll pay 50% more for an AMD board of similar quality to a decent Intel board - and with the 'price sweet spot' for a processor being only about $120-$150, paying $50 more for a decent board doesn't seem to balance things out.
Personally, I think it's a wash right now.
Er, huh?
AMD dominated the price/performance war with Intel from the time they released their K6 chips - that'd be 1997 (hello, remember the "sub-$1000 PC"? that's thanks to AMD). This was the case until just recently when things started to go multi-core - and even then, AMD had a bit of resurgence while playing leapfrog with Intel.
From about 1999 to 2003 AMD was way, way ahead of Intel; Intel didn't pull ahead of AMD in terms of simple performance (without spending close to a grand for a processor) until the release of their Core based processors. Their performance started to improve quite a bit with the M based processors, but your common desktop price/performance was still dominated by AMD.
Arguably, AMD's memory management is still better. We'll see how this generation hashes out.