OK, I read it. Seems that the whole meaning of the Extreme in Quartz Extreme is the opengl backend.
So in that sense you definitely won that argument, although I will make a point that compositing in GL is not necesserily any better than compositing in 2d. The reason why people are moving there is because lots of 2d operations are disappearing off the cards, and also it is easier to do 3d-effects on the rendered applications.
However the compositing of video and 3d is a lot harder. The main problem occurs in that with fast motion, your compositor has to pull the application's hardware-accelerated output back into the compositing engine. There is a huge discussion on X11-devel on how this can be done without involving the cpu. In general this is either incredibly difficult, causes flicker, or makes compositing unavailable. Just that it can be done is not good enough. My linux box can already do this, but I have to do software video scaling. What I want to see to be satisfied is a 50% alpha video playing on top of the 50 % transparent GL game, and another video playing behind it, such that all of these things are hardware accelerated and that there is no flicker.
Personally I do not think that these things can even be accomplished given today's hardware.
Whether you like Apple's implementation or not, X11 is an awful lot like X11. There is X11 and then there is X11. Users of cygwin know what I mean. If X11 does not support modern extensions, it is not useful. I have no clue where Apple's X11 stands.
Apple Remote Desktop -- wondering if it is an API forwarding or framebuffer forwarding. I am looking for an API forwarding solution.
Quartz != "DisplayPDF." I am not of the Mac world, so I did confuse the two. Sorry...
However, I do not understand what the philosophy of Cairo is, and why should it cause a long debate. AFAIK Cairo is essentially the same as Quartz -- a compositing and vector graphics accelaration system.
Only if the icon is ugly to start with. Most of the icons on my dock are quite nice-looking. In general I agree...Except I have seen icons that have text in them, and that becomes a complete mess when it scales.
Do not feel owned. I very much need to have someone bring my terminology into light. I am still not sure if the result of antialiasing is called antialiasing. So you were right to point that out.
Although I disagree about an antialiased scaled image looking worse than a non-antialiased one Careful... what I am saying is that if you take the original source image, antialias it then scale it, it is going to look worse than the image that has been scaled and then antialiased. The artifacts of scaling blurs can be quite extreme...this goes tenfold for the subpixel case.
What I am not saying though is that the image that is antialiased then scaled is going to look worse than the image that has only been scaled.
I am not talking about the "antialiasing, the process", but rather "antialiasing, the result". Perhaps I should have used "blurring of an image" instead.
The problem is that a true bitmap icon looks ragged (see Win95), so it is antialiased to look slick (OS X, XP). The problem is that the blurring as a result of antialiasing gets scaled as well, which causes worse aliasing.
The better way would be to scale the original, not antialiased image, and then apply antialiasing to regain the slick look. But this is not doable for raster images.
Is my terminology more correct now? Most people I know call the blockiness to due scaling up "pixellation".
Interesting, considering that X11 is already 3D accelerated on Mac OS X, and still blows chunks compared to Aqua, which uses the same graphics subsystem.
"X11 for Mac OS X takes advantage of the Mac OS X Quartz graphics system to deliver hardware-accelerated 2D and 3D graphics. Quartz provides snappy scrolling speeds for text, live drag and resize of windows, as well as no-compromise 3D animation through OpenGL Direct Rendering."
Right. So what that means is that the 3d-stuff gets passed through to the GL engine, hence GL performance of X11 is acceptable. However, the 2d-stuff is confusing me. The main question is is their driver doing software framebuffer, which then as a whole goes into the quartz blending engine (this will suck, and is probably what is happening). Or is it doing a passthrough of individual commands into quartz. This means apple has a XAA -> Quartz, RENDER -> QUARTZ, XVIDEO -> QUARTZ, and **ALL** related drivers in place. I am not sure if they do that. If they did that, and it still sucks, then their code is doing something poorly.
Quartz Extreme. Sorta "been there, done that" for three years now (and in 16MB of VRAM, not the 256MB that Vista wants). You should take a look at their compositor architecture. Note how GL sits on top of quartz, not the other way around. That means that instead of quartz rendering to GL (which what glx11 was about), GL is rendering to quartz. This is not a 3d-accelerated compositing, nor is it compositing into GL...it only can be. However, there is no video hardware that can do it perfectly and be accelerated at the same time.
For example can you alpha blend a full screen video, and a full screen 3d game together? If your Mac can do it at full expected framerate, then I will conceed.
Do you think vector graphics look great at all sizes when rendered to a bitmap display? Hell no. Vector graphics look far better at any size other than the original. This is dues to antialiasing in icon bitmaps, which when scaled looks not only ugly, but wrong.
as Aqua does not have the networking capabilities of X11. An important reason to avoid a Mac. Is there anything like X11 or rdesktop/NX that Macs support?
As far as the comment for remote apps goes...in my experience all X11 apps suck on a Mac.
but if you want it to perform better, talk to the xorg guys - it's largely their code in there.
Except the generic part of x.org is already streamlined. All of the slowdown is due to drivers not providing the hooks into accelerated frameworks. Since Apple should be the one writing the driver for the X11 -> displayPDF, they are responsible for the suckage of X11 on a Mac.
Meanwhile, where is an OpenGL-accelerated X11 and windowing system on Linux? Where is it on the Mac? AFAIK displayPDF uses 2d. The answer is -- there is a ton fo framework that needs to be placed...and support for legacy apps is quite hard.
However, if you mean a desktop that renders vectors, similar to displayPDF, then it is already here. It is called Cairo, and gnome/gtk use it.
Not only will it help Linux in the looks department, I think Macs need to graduate in the looks department a bit too. A year ago, they were still using bitmaps on the dock, and when it scales, it looks damn ugly. Where are vector icons?
but it will probably accelerate X11 a lot on host OS's that already have such accelerated windowing systems in place Actually it probably will not. Especially if the driver provided is not allowing a passthrough to the accelerated features. (I do not know if it does, but judging by performance, it either does not or it sucks)
And, more importantly, being able to file.pdfs helps eliminate one of the great threats inherent in.doc files. That is the hidden parts of the document.
WinZip an important tool? You are making me laugh.
The only reason it is an important tool, is because it sounds like the official product for the zip format. The funny part, is that it is not. PkZip is. Thus WinZip is only installed when mandated by clueless CEOs, and when Windows could not handle zip files by itself.
Everyone else has either learned to get by (as Windows handles zip automatically), or they install WinRar or WinAce or 7-zip. All of those products seem to work better than Winzip, and handle more formats.
WinZip is dying. And I do not need netcraft to confirm it.
And if you want to blame the fact that this article is an ad on Linux zealotry, I should really smack you upside the head. This is news for nerds, and nerds are the last people who want to read about a *beta* version of an overcommercialized product. Maybe if this were a new WinRar, I might care. Yes I have a holier-than-thou attitude: I have transcended above using WinZip; you have not.
And Europe is apparently bending over for a fool that is not even an elected official in their country. And then they loudly complain about it.
Seriously, Europe, get off your ass and actually do something. Stop whining about what US is doing. You are sovereign from US, you do not have to follow anything. If you want to show how things should be done, do them.
Sometimes I think that Europe has really nothing to do but complain about the US populace. It is like they have no issues of their own.
Of course what that really means is that politicians outside the US can write all the laws they want, and divert all blame to US. European version of DMCA? Blame the US. And the people actually do, instead of fighting the laws.
Who is more foolish? The fool, or the one who follows the fool.
Yup. I am guessing that a lot of it is due to college students. You will also notice that Mozilla market share slowed down during the summer a year ago as well.
All this means is that firefox usage has hit a plateu. The increase in use is not that great to offset seasonal / whatever variations.
So until businesses start adopting it, I think these are the numbers we will see for a while.
Well...you could go by the multi extension route. Something like file.vorbis.ogg might do.
Alternatively you can use a mime-type...although most file systems have no built in support for mime-type in metadata.
Also most video using Ogg based container is actually using an Ogm container (.ogm extension), but it is actually a fork that is slowly being merged back in to Ogg.
IMO the Matroska (I hate the spelling...is it a doll or a navy t-shirt?) is a better container format. Furthermore, it uses two extensions...mka and mkv to signify audio only or video/audio. Once stuff gets a little more stable, I will be using it with H.264/Vorbis, and once Dirac is available, dirac/vorbis. That is going to be teh cool.
Until the next Windows update, when Microsoft may decide to break that again.
Which nvidia fixes in their next update.
The OpenGL committee doesn't set the standards for OpenGL driver installation on Windows or the DLLs and other system aspects of OpenGL on Windows.
Of course it does not. But it does say which function must be in GL. Even MS can not undermine that without breaking backwards compatability. But once the basics are in place for starting GL, then the rest can be done by vendor supplied drivers. No MS necessary.
Seems to me you are predicting the same thing everybody else is: this move will mean that many software vendors will drop OpenGL or support it poorly. You are simply telling us that you don't give a damn.
I do give a damn. I do not use Windows at all, hence no d3d. However, I am certain that all video card manufacturers will keep putting gl into their cards, as it is not a difficult thing to do. Hence I do not believe the hardware support will die. What may die is software that uses GL on windows. If cards like i910, which use generic drivers, stop supporting GL, then programs like autocad will be targetting d3d instead.
However this still has almost no effect on the high end video cards. Hence I am not worried.
However, what will be interesting is if nvidia / mesa / X11 people release d3d extension for X11, similar to the glx externsion. That would be interesting....as in it will reduce the difficulty of d3d emulation using opengl.
If Microsoft wants to restrict OpenGL in Vista to only their own, outdated generic OpenGL implementation, they most certainly can.
They can try, but NVIDIA will find a way to map MS GL calls to its own calls.
OpenGL vendors would set their own standards.
BS. OpenGL is a comittee, vendors already set up their own standards, called extensions, and then the comittee decides to add them to an official standard.
And even if Microsoft doesn't actively prevent native OpenGL implementations from running, the fact that their generic implementation is stuck at an old level pretty much achieves the same thing.
The only thing this accomplishes is that 3-d packages that do not rely on good video cards will have to stick to gl 1.4 if they want to work on d3d video cards. This may force some manufacturers to switch to d3d. However, I am not good at forecasting the future simply based on version freeze.
I see what you mean. Perhaps there will be some kind of support for async recompositing.
What I am wondering though is how is this different from an equivalent GL compositor. As long as you pull back app framebuffers as textures, you are encountering latency and loss of frames. In fact you end up bound to the WM's frame rate.
I have heard a lot of chatter about this problem on some of the X.org channels about making a gl-based compositing manager. Any clue how this is going to be solved?
If the compositing engine needs to retrieve the gl buffer to render it into a texture for "effects", the engine would need to be able to address the video card correctly. This may have compatibility issues, causing compositing engine to lose the gl area.
My guess is that video card makers will somehow allow Vista's d3d calls to suceed at retrieving GL 2.0 area contents as a d3d texture.
The video card manufacturers have already figured this stuff out. GL inside GL has been done.
Besides, once the D3D or OpenGL is in the video card, it is part of the same pipeline...so there is no difference whether it is GL embedded inside GL, GL embedded inside d3d, or d3d embedded inside GL.
Permitting vendor-installable OpenGL drivers requires an infrastructure and standards from Microsoft. If Microsoft drops that infrastructure, that would make it much harder to support OpenGL on Windows.
Microsoft is not going to drop support for GL areas. If they did, they would not be able to have any GL apps. This means that a lot of old software is going to broken.
The moment there is a way to reserve an area for GL use, all that is drawn in it will be provided by the GL drivers for the specific card.
Hence, GL performance is not dropping for NVidia or ATI users. It will drop for all those that use generic MS drivers.
I am willing to bet that it is just standard USB HID mouse. That means it is already supported in linux, unless Apple decided to put vendor-specific codes / use FEATURE instead of INPUT reports.
What interests me is if they made the squeeze to be a fourth mouse button, or an absolute axis of how hard you are squeezing. It could be interesting if pressure sensitivity reports can actually be read.
But I am not willing to spend $50 for a non-ergonomic mouse with a cord to find out.
That is the same argument that got Bush elected. A lot of people in the Republican party hate Bush, but still vote for him, because he is the "lesser" of two evils.
Eventually this attitude will get us to the point where the only to options will be Bush from Republicans and Bush look-alike from the Democrats, and the only difference between them will be one will be against abortion, the other one for, and everyone will vote based on that alone.
Sadly, most Democrats I know call themselves liberal. All the people who want the living wage, free healthcare, no war in Iraq are planning to vote for Hillary, and all of them call themselves liberal.
So it is not just Rush that calls them "libs"; they call themselves "libs". However, that still does not make them so, I guess.
You are confusing FTC and FCC. FCC has no jursidiction in this case. FTC has minimal, and can only go after things like "truth in advertisement" violation in this case.
I think they need to get laid. NOW. Right now... Seriously... they would work then on world peace... or fighting hunger, poverty... or ice cream that melts in the mouth and not in the hand. I sure hope that FCC is not going to work on this. They will not solve those things, and they have plenty of other work on their hands, like equipment certification.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I read it. Seems that the whole meaning of the Extreme in Quartz Extreme is the opengl backend.
So in that sense you definitely won that argument, although I will make a point that compositing in GL is not necesserily any better than compositing in 2d. The reason why people are moving there is because lots of 2d operations are disappearing off the cards, and also it is easier to do 3d-effects on the rendered applications.
However the compositing of video and 3d is a lot harder. The main problem occurs in that with fast motion, your compositor has to pull the application's hardware-accelerated output back into the compositing engine. There is a huge discussion on X11-devel on how this can be done without involving the cpu. In general this is either incredibly difficult, causes flicker, or makes compositing unavailable. Just that it can be done is not good enough. My linux box can already do this, but I have to do software video scaling. What I want to see to be satisfied is a 50% alpha video playing on top of the 50 % transparent GL game, and another video playing behind it, such that all of these things are hardware accelerated and that there is no flicker.
Personally I do not think that these things can even be accomplished given today's hardware.
Whether you like Apple's implementation or not, X11 is an awful lot like X11.
There is X11 and then there is X11. Users of cygwin know what I mean. If X11 does not support modern extensions, it is not useful. I have no clue where Apple's X11 stands.
Apple Remote Desktop -- wondering if it is an API forwarding or framebuffer forwarding. I am looking for an API forwarding solution.
Quartz != "DisplayPDF."
I am not of the Mac world, so I did confuse the two. Sorry...
However, I do not understand what the philosophy of Cairo is, and why should it cause a long debate. AFAIK Cairo is essentially the same as Quartz -- a compositing and vector graphics accelaration system.
Only if the icon is ugly to start with. Most of the icons on my dock are quite nice-looking.
In general I agree...Except I have seen icons that have text in them, and that becomes a complete mess when it scales.
Do not feel owned. I very much need to have someone bring my terminology into light. I am still not sure if the result of antialiasing is called antialiasing. So you were right to point that out.
Although I disagree about an antialiased scaled image looking worse than a non-antialiased one
Careful... what I am saying is that if you take the original source image, antialias it then scale it, it is going to look worse than the image that has been scaled and then antialiased. The artifacts of scaling blurs can be quite extreme...this goes tenfold for the subpixel case.
What I am not saying though is that the image that is antialiased then scaled is going to look worse than the image that has only been scaled.
I am not talking about the "antialiasing, the process", but rather "antialiasing, the result". Perhaps I should have used "blurring of an image" instead.
The problem is that a true bitmap icon looks ragged (see Win95), so it is antialiased to look slick (OS X, XP). The problem is that the blurring as a result of antialiasing gets scaled as well, which causes worse aliasing.
The better way would be to scale the original, not antialiased image, and then apply antialiasing to regain the slick look. But this is not doable for raster images.
Is my terminology more correct now?
Most people I know call the blockiness to due scaling up "pixellation".
Interesting, considering that X11 is already 3D accelerated on Mac OS X, and still blows chunks compared to Aqua, which uses the same graphics subsystem.
"X11 for Mac OS X takes advantage of the Mac OS X Quartz graphics system to deliver hardware-accelerated 2D and 3D graphics. Quartz provides snappy scrolling speeds for text, live drag and resize of windows, as well as no-compromise 3D animation through OpenGL Direct Rendering."
Right. So what that means is that the 3d-stuff gets passed through to the GL engine, hence GL performance of X11 is acceptable. However, the 2d-stuff is confusing me. The main question is is their driver doing software framebuffer, which then as a whole goes into the quartz blending engine (this will suck, and is probably what is happening). Or is it doing a passthrough of individual commands into quartz. This means apple has a XAA -> Quartz, RENDER -> QUARTZ, XVIDEO -> QUARTZ, and **ALL** related drivers in place. I am not sure if they do that. If they did that, and it still sucks, then their code is doing something poorly.
Quartz Extreme. Sorta "been there, done that" for three years now (and in 16MB of VRAM, not the 256MB that Vista wants).
You should take a look at their compositor architecture. Note how GL sits on top of quartz, not the other way around. That means that instead of quartz rendering to GL (which what glx11 was about), GL is rendering to quartz. This is not a 3d-accelerated compositing, nor is it compositing into GL...it only can be. However, there is no video hardware that can do it perfectly and be accelerated at the same time.
For example can you alpha blend a full screen video, and a full screen 3d game together? If your Mac can do it at full expected framerate, then I will conceed.
Do you think vector graphics look great at all sizes when rendered to a bitmap display? Hell no.
Vector graphics look far better at any size other than the original. This is dues to antialiasing in icon bitmaps, which when scaled looks not only ugly, but wrong.
as Aqua does not have the networking capabilities of X11.
An important reason to avoid a Mac. Is there anything like X11 or rdesktop/NX that Macs support?
As far as the comment for remote apps goes...in my experience all X11 apps suck on a Mac.
but if you want it to perform better, talk to the xorg guys - it's largely their code in there.
Except the generic part of x.org is already streamlined. All of the slowdown is due to drivers not providing the hooks into accelerated frameworks. Since Apple should be the one writing the driver for the X11 -> displayPDF, they are responsible for the suckage of X11 on a Mac.
Meanwhile, where is an OpenGL-accelerated X11 and windowing system on Linux? Where is it on the Mac? AFAIK displayPDF uses 2d. The answer is -- there is a ton fo framework that needs to be placed...and support for legacy apps is quite hard.
However, if you mean a desktop that renders vectors, similar to displayPDF, then it is already here. It is called Cairo, and gnome/gtk use it.
Not only will it help Linux in the looks department,
I think Macs need to graduate in the looks department a bit too. A year ago, they were still using bitmaps on the dock, and when it scales, it looks damn ugly. Where are vector icons?
but it will probably accelerate X11 a lot on host OS's that already have such accelerated windowing systems in place
Actually it probably will not. Especially if the driver provided is not allowing a passthrough to the accelerated features. (I do not know if it does, but judging by performance, it either does not or it sucks)
And, more importantly, being able to file .pdfs helps eliminate one of the great threats inherent in .doc files. That is the hidden parts of the document.
No, they won't.
WinZip an important tool? You are making me laugh.
The only reason it is an important tool, is because it sounds like the official product for the zip format. The funny part, is that it is not. PkZip is. Thus WinZip is only installed when mandated by clueless CEOs, and when Windows could not handle zip files by itself.
Everyone else has either learned to get by (as Windows handles zip automatically), or they install WinRar or WinAce or 7-zip. All of those products seem to work better than Winzip, and handle more formats.
WinZip is dying. And I do not need netcraft to confirm it.
And if you want to blame the fact that this article is an ad on Linux zealotry, I should really smack you upside the head. This is news for nerds, and nerds are the last people who want to read about a *beta* version of an overcommercialized product. Maybe if this were a new WinRar, I might care. Yes I have a holier-than-thou attitude: I have transcended above using WinZip; you have not.
Even better is to split the program into two parts. LGPL the core, and GPL the interface.
So? Your salary is 1.5 times higher as well.
And Europe is apparently bending over for a fool that is not even an elected official in their country. And then they loudly complain about it.
Seriously, Europe, get off your ass and actually do something. Stop whining about what US is doing. You are sovereign from US, you do not have to follow anything. If you want to show how things should be done, do them.
Sometimes I think that Europe has really nothing to do but complain about the US populace. It is like they have no issues of their own.
Of course what that really means is that politicians outside the US can write all the laws they want, and divert all blame to US. European version of DMCA? Blame the US. And the people actually do, instead of fighting the laws.
Who is more foolish? The fool, or the one who follows the fool.
Yup. I am guessing that a lot of it is due to college students. You will also notice that Mozilla market share slowed down during the summer a year ago as well.
All this means is that firefox usage has hit a plateu. The increase in use is not that great to offset seasonal / whatever variations.
So until businesses start adopting it, I think these are the numbers we will see for a while.
Well...you could go by the multi extension route. Something like file.vorbis.ogg might do.
Alternatively you can use a mime-type...although most file systems have no built in support for mime-type in metadata.
Also most video using Ogg based container is actually using an Ogm container (.ogm extension), but it is actually a fork that is slowly being merged back in to Ogg.
IMO the Matroska (I hate the spelling...is it a doll or a navy t-shirt?) is a better container format. Furthermore, it uses two extensions...mka and mkv to signify audio only or video/audio. Once stuff gets a little more stable, I will be using it with H.264/Vorbis, and once Dirac is available, dirac/vorbis. That is going to be teh cool.
Until the next Windows update, when Microsoft may decide to break that again.
Which nvidia fixes in their next update.
The OpenGL committee doesn't set the standards for OpenGL driver installation on Windows or the DLLs and other system aspects of OpenGL on Windows.
Of course it does not. But it does say which function must be in GL. Even MS can not undermine that without breaking backwards compatability. But once the basics are in place for starting GL, then the rest can be done by vendor supplied drivers. No MS necessary.
Seems to me you are predicting the same thing everybody else is: this move will mean that many software vendors will drop OpenGL or support it poorly. You are simply telling us that you don't give a damn.
I do give a damn. I do not use Windows at all, hence no d3d. However, I am certain that all video card manufacturers will keep putting gl into their cards, as it is not a difficult thing to do. Hence I do not believe the hardware support will die. What may die is software that uses GL on windows. If cards like i910, which use generic drivers, stop supporting GL, then programs like autocad will be targetting d3d instead.
However this still has almost no effect on the high end video cards. Hence I am not worried.
However, what will be interesting is if nvidia / mesa / X11 people release d3d extension for X11, similar to the glx externsion. That would be interesting....as in it will reduce the difficulty of d3d emulation using opengl.
If Microsoft wants to restrict OpenGL in Vista to only their own, outdated generic OpenGL implementation, they most certainly can.
They can try, but NVIDIA will find a way to map MS GL calls to its own calls.
OpenGL vendors would set their own standards.
BS. OpenGL is a comittee, vendors already set up their own standards, called extensions, and then the comittee decides to add them to an official standard.
And even if Microsoft doesn't actively prevent native OpenGL implementations from running, the fact that their generic implementation is stuck at an old level pretty much achieves the same thing.
The only thing this accomplishes is that 3-d packages that do not rely on good video cards will have to stick to gl 1.4 if they want to work on d3d video cards. This may force some manufacturers to switch to d3d. However, I am not good at forecasting the future simply based on version freeze.
I see what you mean. Perhaps there will be some kind of support for async recompositing.
What I am wondering though is how is this different from an equivalent GL compositor. As long as you pull back app framebuffers as textures, you are encountering latency and loss of frames. In fact you end up bound to the WM's frame rate.
I have heard a lot of chatter about this problem on some of the X.org channels about making a gl-based compositing manager. Any clue how this is going to be solved?
Oops. Need a correction.
If the compositing engine needs to retrieve the gl buffer to render it into a texture for "effects", the engine would need to be able to address the video card correctly. This may have compatibility issues, causing compositing engine to lose the gl area.
My guess is that video card makers will somehow allow Vista's d3d calls to suceed at retrieving GL 2.0 area contents as a d3d texture.
The video card manufacturers have already figured this stuff out. GL inside GL has been done.
Besides, once the D3D or OpenGL is in the video card, it is part of the same pipeline...so there is no difference whether it is GL embedded inside GL, GL embedded inside d3d, or d3d embedded inside GL.
Permitting vendor-installable OpenGL drivers requires an infrastructure and standards from Microsoft. If Microsoft drops that infrastructure, that would make it much harder to support OpenGL on Windows.
Microsoft is not going to drop support for GL areas. If they did, they would not be able to have any GL apps. This means that a lot of old software is going to broken.
The moment there is a way to reserve an area for GL use, all that is drawn in it will be provided by the GL drivers for the specific card.
Hence, GL performance is not dropping for NVidia or ATI users. It will drop for all those that use generic MS drivers.
I am willing to bet that it is just standard USB HID mouse. That means it is already supported in linux, unless Apple decided to put vendor-specific codes / use FEATURE instead of INPUT reports.
What interests me is if they made the squeeze to be a fourth mouse button, or an absolute axis of how hard you are squeezing. It could be interesting if pressure sensitivity reports can actually be read.
But I am not willing to spend $50 for a non-ergonomic mouse with a cord to find out.
That is the same argument that got Bush elected. A lot of people in the Republican party hate Bush, but still vote for him, because he is the "lesser" of two evils.
Eventually this attitude will get us to the point where the only to options will be Bush from Republicans and Bush look-alike from the Democrats, and the only difference between them will be one will be against abortion, the other one for, and everyone will vote based on that alone.
Wait. We are pretty much already there. Sigh.
Sadly, most Democrats I know call themselves liberal. All the people who want the living wage, free healthcare, no war in Iraq are planning to vote for Hillary, and all of them call themselves liberal.
So it is not just Rush that calls them "libs"; they call themselves "libs". However, that still does not make them so, I guess.
You are confusing FTC and FCC. FCC has no jursidiction in this case. FTC has minimal, and can only go after things like "truth in advertisement" violation in this case.
... Seriously ... they would work then on world peace ... or fighting hunger, poverty ... or ice cream that melts in the mouth and not in the hand.
I think they need to get laid. NOW. Right now
I sure hope that FCC is not going to work on this. They will not solve those things, and they have plenty of other work on their hands, like equipment certification.
She is, however, a liberal in the sense that other liberals will vote for her.
Unfortunately, that is all that will matter in the end.