While I don't disagree in the least with the spirit of the concept of making the system(s) open source, it should be noted that, contrary to popular belief, Diebold asserts that its systems have been scrutinized, including at a source code level, by independent authorities, and that there is also a paper record:
I don't know if the paper record is "voter verified", or what mechanism it uses, but there is apparently a paper record nonetheless.
Notwithstanding Diebold's CEO's extremely inappropriate campaign comments, I really do think they're trying to put out the best electronic voting systems they can, but are suffering from the same problems that any large, proprietary system suffers from when it languishes in the comfort of large government-guaranteed long-term contracts: namely, inattention to the details that need to be addressed, that sometimes get lost in not seeing the forest for the trees.
Perhaps opening the source to these critical systems and having it overseen by an independent election agency would be an idea worth considering...
The sheer fucking arrogance of this leaves me almost at a loss for words...
Almost.
What business is it of yours to tamper with things that don't belong to you? Other people might want to watch, and it sounds like the submitter has a problem with controlling his own actions if he can't talk with his "human companions" in the proximity of a TV. Television is merely a conduit of information; there is nothing inherently evil about it.
And it's the height of arrogance and intellectual elitism to think that it's any of your business to turn off TVs that don't belong to you, in public or private places.
The Wired article talks about "anti-TV activists". For fuck's sake, people...
I know that many here won't believe Diebold, as they believe a campaign statement by its CEO (which I agree to be in very, very, very poor taste) means that a 13,000 employee company is secretly working to "hand" elections to Republicans, but Diebold claims there is a paper trail:
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/375954
"Diebold strongly refutes the existence of any "back doors" or "hidden codes" in its GEMS software. These inaccurate allegations appear to stem from those not familiar with the product, misunderstanding the purpose of legitimate structures in the database. These structures are well documented and have been reviewed (including at a source code level) by independent testing authorities as required by federal election regulations.
In addition to the facts stated above, a paper and an electronic record of all cast ballots are retrieved from each individual voting machine following an election. The results from each individual machine are then tabulated, and thoroughly audited during the standard election canvass process. Once the audit is complete, the official winners are announced. Any alleged changes to a vote count in the election management software would be immediately discovered during this audit process, as this total would not match the true official total tabulated from each machine."
I agree it's very nice, and I use that to connect to Windows machines, but it's not VNC, and doesn't work to connect to hosts other than Windows hosts with MS RDC support.
For Mac OS X, there are several options; what I believe to be the best options are below.
On the server end of things, there's OSXvnc, a nice free VNC server for Mac OS X. (There's even an OS9vnc, on the same page.)
The best free client for Mac OS X, in my opinion, is Chicken of the VNC.
At the commercial end of the spectrum is Apple Remote Desktop 2.1. Apple Remote Desktop is much more than just a remote control solution; it provides desktop and systems management tools, software distribution tools, mass screen sharing, scripted actions, and all sorts of other features. But as of version 2, the remote screen protocol is based on VNC. With one checkbox, any VNC client can connect to any machine running Apple's VNC server software (which it confusingly calls "Remote Desktop Client"), and Apple's client software (which it calls "Remote Desktop Admin") can connect to ordinary VNC servers on any platform. Apple Remote Desktop does automatic resolution scaling, full screen, etc., and as of 2.1, even supports multiple monitors - even when using free VNC clients to connect! The VNC server piece (the one Apple calls "Client") is free, but there's a catch: at least one copy Remote Desktop Admin is required to be "legal", but then Remote Desktop Client can be installed on an unlimited number of machines in your organization.
...and you know it. If you don't care about support/repair/single vendor/etc. then of COURSE almost none of what I said matters to you.
But you represent a ridiculously small portion of the marketplace, and your group will ALWAYS be able to say "lol, I can build a machine for ten times cheaper than any Mac"...if that's your desire, great. As I said in another post, "to each his own".
Explain Apple's consistent #1 ranking, year after year after year, by Consumer Reports for technical support, incidence of repairs, and overall quality, eclipsing all other computer manufacturers by a pretty wide margin.
EVERY SINGLE Consumer Reports report that comes out on this, every year, for many years now, has Apple at #1. And it's not just for tech support: it's for quality and incidence of repairs. No one else comes close.
You're going to tell me that every part in the bottom-of-the-barrel crap case, motherboard, etc., you're going to buy for your build-it-yourself Athlon64 are just as good as what Apple is using in the Power Mac G5? And NO, I'm not talking about things that are predictable and/or identical no matter where you buy them, like the video card and processor...I'm talking about the power supply, case, the RAM you select, the sound capability (Power Mac G5 has optical in and out, etc., so you have to take that into account), no single vendor support (some people actually care about this), no #1 Consumer Reports ranking for tech support, quality, need for repairs, etc. (some people actually care about this), no fantastic industrial design of the case in general (some people actually care about this).
Look, if you want a whitebox homebuilt, that's your business. And YOU might personally consider it "comparable", but it's not.
First off, by using educational Apple prices vs. standard Dell retail, you're comparing, well, Apples and oranges
I'm not. Walt Mossberg was comparing retail.
And as for the education prices, if you add $100, you get retail.
Secondly, from everything I've read, you in no way need to get the best Intel chip available to compare with Apple in terms of speed. Everything I've read says that you need Apple's top processor/memory packages to make OSX zippy.
Well, that's completely and totally wrong, since first, it's subjective, and second, you most certainly do not need the "top processor/memory packages" to make OS X "zippy".
Plus, I have no idea what you're looking at, but Dell's chapest PC is $469 with monitor, while Apple's seems to be $799 with that ridiculous monitor built in, plus with half as much RAM.
Take it up with Walt Mossberg. He's not even an "Apple guy". And someone will ALWAYS come up with some configuration of something else that's "cheaper" than some model of Mac. You can ALWAYS do this. Christ, if you think it's a rip off (it's not), don't buy one (and I imagine you won't).
$150 - Reasonable Athlon64 processor $100 - Motherboard $100 - Radeon 9600-class video card $50 - Case and power supply $60 - 80GB SATA drive $30 - 256MB RAM ----- $490
So you're telling me that this machine is *comparable* to a Power Mac G5? If you don't care about quality assurance, support, dealing with a single vendor, survey-proven reliability, industrial design, or anything else relating to Apple hardware and specifically the Power Mac G5, great...build your own box. But if you CARE about any of those things, you're automatically talking about someone like Dell, and any Dell machine under $1000 is most certainly nowhere near in the same class of construction as a Power Mac G5.
And perhaps you missed Walt Mossberg's recent column (http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20040923.html) where he says:
"If you tried to match the specs of the base iMac G5 in a traditional Dell tower, you'd also pay more. A Dell Dimension 4600, with the best processor, Windows XP Pro, the best 17-inch flat-panel monitor, a CD recorder and the same graphics card, costs $7 more than the 17-inch iMac. And it's much bulkier and uglier."
Of course, you can change a million different options and everything is up for debate, but this idea that "Macs are so expensive" - especially in an institutional setting when TCO is considered - is very, very tired.
Also, with the new 1.2GHz iBook with 256MB RAM, 30GB drive, and 802.11g wireless coming in at $899 (education), and the eMacs and iMac G5s coming in at $599 and $1099 (education), respectively, I fail to see how people continue to say Macs are too expensive. Even Walt Mossberg notes "If you tried to match the specs of the base iMac G5 in a traditional Dell tower, you'd also pay more. A Dell Dimension 4600, with the best processor, Windows XP Pro, the best 17-inch flat-panel monitor, a CD recorder and the same graphics card, costs $7 more than the 17-inch iMac. And it's much bulkier and uglier."
Ah, yes, false balance. The need to find fault on both sides - where one side is egregiously at fault - is another bane of today's media, as well as unBiblical.
So when is it appropriate to find fault? You brought up the Iraqi/hijacker figure; why is it ok to bring that up on its own? Is it only ok for me to bring up the draft statistic in a vacuum? I thought this to be a perfectly appropriate time, considering we're talking about this exact type of media issue.
And one side is "egregiously at fault"? How can you make that statement? That's based in your personal opinion. As I said, the media, the 9-11 Commission, the administration, and dozens of other sources have all said, repeatedly and numerous times, even starting in the days after 9/11, that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. This has been said over and over and over and over, and it's no secret. As to why, then, 44% of Americans think that "some" or "most" of the hijackers were Iraqi, well, yes, that's a problem. But you didn't really address the fact that it's been stated countless times that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi, that Osama bin Laden is Saudi, etc. What is your response to that? Can you cite any news organization or government source that has ever said the hijackers were Iraqi?
To me, the whole "draft" rumor mongering is what's more "egregiously at fault", if I were to compare the two.
Worry about a draft is entirely reasonable; the all-volunteer military is severely overstretched. "Stop-loss" is keeping people in the military longer than they want to be, and even with hefty bonuses, the Army isn't going meet quotas.
Yes, worry about a draft is reasonable; worry about any troubling situation is reasonable. What's not reasonable is the assertion that the Bush administration wants one or is secretly angling for it. Additionally, all branches of the military have variously announced that they're either meeting or exceeding recruitment and retention goals - no branch is behind. Yes, the "stop loss" programs were questionable, as it can be argued that it's a type of "forced" service, and additionally Guard and Reserve forces are being used inappropriately. But you're wrong about the Army: on 26 May 2004, the Army announced it was on track to exceed its retention and recruitment goals for this fiscal year. All other branches are in a similar situation.
I think what motivates people's unease is a gut sense of the numbers - since Dick Cheney gutted the military, we don't have the numbers required for an indefinite occupation of two countries. We're only where we are now thanks to an unprecedented callup of the National Guard and Reserves - if we need more troops, where are they going to come from?
This is the kind of argument I don't know how to respond to...on one hand, it's implied that we "don't have enough troops", ostensibly because not enough people are voluntarily joining, but in the next breath it's stated that Cheney has "gutted the military", as if we would otherwise *have* enough troops. But wait...I thought there weren't enough volunteers...which is it? I'm not trying to be insulting here, but that's where I have the problem.
You also ignored what I said about Kerry. Don't worry; everyone else does too. Problem is, they also seem to ignore what Kerry himself is saying. Kerry's plan for the "war on terror", as it were, would call for far, far more troops than would ever be committed by the current administration. For the record, I agree 100% with Kerry, and would vote for him in a second if I thought he could actually pull off his promises. His calls for escalation, meeting Al Qaeda on multiple fronts, 125,000 to 200,000 additional troops in Iraq, growing the regular Army by 40,000 to 60,000, etc...where are all of THOSE troops going to come from? Again, I *agree* with Kerry...I'm just trying to make the point that if we're "in danger of a draft" und
I hope we can agree that when a significant chunk of the country believes something that is provably not true, the media is not doing its job. 44% of Americans believe that "some" or "most" of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis - don't you agree that shows an inarguable problem?
In case you're reading this, I've got another random thing for you, from this week's issue of TIME magazine. 54% of 18-24 year olds believe that Bush will institute a draft if re-elected (compared to 4% for Kerry) because of the ridiculous draft rumor that's been going around. And yes, it is ridiculous, because it's based in lies (that the government increased the Selective Service Administration's budget by "28 million dollars" when it has in fact not been increased, and its entire budget is only 26 million; or that a defendamerica.mil web page for "How you can help" - one of many - gave people information for volunteering on local draft boards, a capability that the United States has maintained since Vietnam...and NO, they didn't sit "vacant for years" as the chain email states). Or that it was a "secret administration effort" when in reality it was introduced in the House and Senate by all liberal politicians to make a (questionable) point about disproportionate minority percentages in the military.
Then, sites like stopthedraftnow.com trumpet "WE WON" when it was the Republicans who actually forced the vote on the bill to kill the incredibly stupid rumors, and now say "NOW IT'S ON TO THE SENATE", when in fact the Senate has already decided to never vote on this bill, or hear any more discussion about it. Even funnier is that more Republicans than Democrats support the idea of an exclusively all-volunteer military, and there is a Republican-sponsored bill to get rid of the Military Selective Service System altogether.
Not to mention that Kerry's rhetoric about INCREASING troop levels in Iraq by up to *two fold*, increasing the size of the regular Army, and insisting we should be "fighting and winning" against Al Qaeda in *all 60 nations they're operating in* actually means that, if anything, we're closer to the need for a draft under Kerry (IF his rhetoric is true) than we would be under Bush!
My point? It goes both ways. If 54% of supposedly informed college-aged kids think that there is going to be *a fucking draft* under Bush, compared to *4%* under Kerry, when Kerry is actually advocating what would require the greatest escalation of our forces since probably World War II, we've got just as big of a problem as 44% of people thinking some of the hijackers were Iraqis.
And the supposedly non-partisan "Rock the Vote" campaign has been running full page ads showing a kid with long hair getting his head shaved with the caption: "GO TO COLLEGE or GO TO WAR: YOUR CHOICE". The implication is obvious.
I hate to tell you this, but I wasn't trolling. I'm 100% dead serious, and wasn't looking to "troll" responses out of people, especially since what I just said is bound to be unpopular.
The Daily Show is the most watched news program in the 18-25 demographic, but that doesn't mean that's where they get their news.
Ok...and then:
The Daily Show is satire, and it is not Jon Stewart's role to ask tough questions. Unfortunately for him, what started as a comedy program has become the only television news show that is still respected by anyone in my large circle of friends.
Ok, didn't you just completely contradict yourself there? Or are you saying people still get their news elsewhere also, but they only "respect" The Daily Show?
It is respected not because they ask the hard hitting questions or even because it's good journalism. It's respected because they use humor to highlight the sheer depressing nature of the current state of our political system and the media.
Because Jon Stewart so effectively exposes the BS of the system, he gains respect from the people that watch his show. I have been a fan of the Daily Show since Craig Killborn started the thing "When news breaks, we fix it!" Even when Jon Stewart took over, it wasn't a political show. As the media completely de-evolved into spewing talking points right around 9/11/01: the jokes started to become more and more relevant and the Daily Show slowly but surely became the only place where the sheer incredible stupidness of it all was, and continues to be, pointed out.
Yes, yes, I agree with all this! The Daily Show points out the stupidness of it all. And it's funny because it's true. And I'm not saying a lot of people don't agree with that sentiment, correctly. What I'm saying is that if it's SO DAMNED IMPORTANT, he has had clear opportunities to DO IT HIMSELF, which he has passed on, whether it is "his role" or not. Ignoring that point is foolish; that's all I'm saying.
Yes, I agree with what you're saying almost completely.
As for the hijacker figure, I don't dispute it (and I've seen it before), but I am continually floored by it. In the days after 9/11, when many Americans were glued to the TV, it was repeated countless hundreds of times on the various news outlets in print, radio, and television that all, save a few, of the hijackers were Saudi nationals, and that Osama himself was a Saudi expatriate.
These facts were not hidden by the mainstream media, by any stretch. In fact, I'd be curious to see how the question that led to that response was worded...I'm not insinuating it was leading or that there was necessarily impropriety, but anyone who is *that* uninformed - and didn't have it pounded into their heads that 3/4 of the hijackers were Saudi, well, I don't know what else to say. Because the media and the administration certainly didn't say the hijackers were Iraqi. The administration may have wanted to tie 9/11 and Iraq in peoples' minds for its own purposes, but they NEVER SAID Iraq was directly tied to or responsible for 9/11. Anyone who looked even slightly below the surface would find that this whole movement was borne of things like Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia, and there are foreign policy reasons that Saudi Arabia is a hotbed for this - reasons that need to be corrected. But it's a double-edged sword, of course, because even as OPEC contends it's losing pricing controls over the oil markets, Saudi Arabia's pricing controls are absolutely critical. $55 or $60 or even $70 a barrel we can handle. But if we lose pricing control, what little is there, the mini "recession" after 9/11 and the global dip in the economy will seem like a trip to Disneyland.
So yes, I agree we've got problems, regardless, if that many people think, for whatever reason, that "some" or "most" of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi. But those people must never have watched the news or read, or at least comprehended, any article about 9/11 in the days, weeks, and months following the attacks, because the fact that they were almost all Saudis was, and is, no secret.
The state of journalism today is an absolute embarassment. It's all about being servants to the powerful, not comforting the powerless and watching the powerful.
Stewart is concerned about TV news - he parodies it. If the media looked at the funhouse mirror, they might think about what they're doing. He came on to talk seriously about them.
I think this is part of the problem. People mistake opinion-based editorial shows for "news". I'll agree that the op-ed "entertainment" shows are consuming more time on the alleged "news" channels these days, but there are plenty of "hard news" shows and segments on all the major media outlets, both 24x7, and not. Talking about whether or not you think they're "doing their jobs" is really an exercise in futility, because depending on a person's politics, they're going to have varying degrees of disagreement on this. People who think Indymedia is "news", or believe that a 757 didn't really crash into the Pentagon, or who think that the US went to war in Iraq exclusively because of things like ties to the Saudi royal family, greed, and Halliburton will no doubt think that the conventional "news" is not doing its job.
I don't think that "tough questions" was the focus of what Stewart was saying - just that shouting head journalism was hurting America. There is a line between infotainment and disinfotainment, but I'll definitely agree that neither one is truly informative.
Agreed.
But this goes back to what I was just saying: Crossfire is not "journalism". It's not a real news show. It's entertainment. I don't care if some people "present" it as news; it's really not. And to be accurate, it's not that black and white...sure, it's partially journalism, but it's not a straight news show. And there ARE still straight news shows out there.
IMHO, the primary problem with modern US journalism - and this ties into shouting heads - is that no one is willing to say that X is true. The media would much rather say "Well, the Republicans say X, the Democrats say Y", and then punt their responsibilities.
This is where you're getting into dangerous territory. The news does in fact do analysis; they're not only just mouthpieces for the parties. Yes, yes, they're "part of the system" to an extent and all that, but you say "punt their responsibilities"...to me, that implies that you believe there is some universal "truth" that the media should be exposing...forgive me if that's not what you mean. But some people think what the media should be "exposing" are merely opinions, and based in philosophical ideals, not in "fact". There are a lot of people who think the US should or should not be doing various things for all manner of reasons. There are extremely good and bad arguments on both sides of just about every issue. (Just so that I'm not beating around the bush here: the "liberal" or "progressive" side of the argument isn't always the only "correct" or "enlightened" one.)
Some people watch the daily show for news because they like to be infotained; other people realize the layers of BS caking the mainstream media. Me, I don't rely on the US media to tell me what color the sky is. (Although I do have to recommend this article on the faith-based presidentcy.
Agree with the first part of your sentiment. Then you start to get a little cynical implying that the US media is nothing but lies, and then come back full circle to recommending an article - no doubt because you agree with, or want to believe, its contents. See the problem here?
And as an aside, I'm well aware of this fantasy that people seem to have about so-called "dominionists" wanting to take over the US and turn it into some wacko Christian fundamentalist theocracy and that the US is on an honest-to-God (no pun intended) Christian Crusade in the middle east. Yes, people who think along these lines exist. No, it's not Bush. So Bush is a religious man and has a controversial initiative to give money to organizations that happen to be b
I can't believe this. All of the +5 moderated comments are people drooling and fawning over Stewart and how cool he is for having told off Tucker Carlson. Get over yourselves.
Stewart's argument was laughable at best. Yes, I believe he was trying to make a legitimate point...and I agree with him, to an extent. But the two party partisan hack system is what we get with, well, the two party partisan hack system we have. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to make it better. But Stewart's not helping. And don't sit here and say "it's not his job to help". Obviously, he made it clear that it is, if he really cares that much about it.
But if Stewart is so concerned with NO ONE in any organization asking serious questions of the politicians, he has had the opportunity to do it himself! I don't care if his show is on Comedy Central followed by puppets making crank phone calls, he's nothing more than a hypocrite if he can't even ask those "tough questions" himself when given the chance.
For all this talk about "it's a sad state of affairs when so many 18-whatever year olds get their news exclusively from the Daily Show", that's not an indictment of the news. That's an indictment of the people who don't CARE enough to parse through the bullshit. There are plenty of places to get real information about the practical applications of the policy of both of our unfortunate choices this November. And I'm not talking about just the debates, or the soundbites, or the punditry.
Let's face it: Crossfire, Hardball, the O'[Reilly/Franken] Factor, is just as much entertainment for many people as the Daily Show. Personally, I find it absolutely PATHETIC if the Daily Show is where people are getting their news. That doesn't "say something" about the news, it says something about the people.
Slashdot Mirror
While I don't disagree in the least with the spirit of the concept of making the system(s) open source, it should be noted that, contrary to popular belief, Diebold asserts that its systems have been scrutinized, including at a source code level, by independent authorities, and that there is also a paper record:
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/375954
I don't know if the paper record is "voter verified", or what mechanism it uses, but there is apparently a paper record nonetheless.
Notwithstanding Diebold's CEO's extremely inappropriate campaign comments, I really do think they're trying to put out the best electronic voting systems they can, but are suffering from the same problems that any large, proprietary system suffers from when it languishes in the comfort of large government-guaranteed long-term contracts: namely, inattention to the details that need to be addressed, that sometimes get lost in not seeing the forest for the trees.
Perhaps opening the source to these critical systems and having it overseen by an independent election agency would be an idea worth considering...
Or, you can get an iPod mini encrusted in crystals:
http://www.crystalmini.com/crystalmini3.html
The sheer fucking arrogance of this leaves me almost at a loss for words...
Almost.
What business is it of yours to tamper with things that don't belong to you? Other people might want to watch, and it sounds like the submitter has a problem with controlling his own actions if he can't talk with his "human companions" in the proximity of a TV. Television is merely a conduit of information; there is nothing inherently evil about it.
And it's the height of arrogance and intellectual elitism to think that it's any of your business to turn off TVs that don't belong to you, in public or private places.
The Wired article talks about "anti-TV activists". For fuck's sake, people...
I know that many here won't believe Diebold, as they believe a campaign statement by its CEO (which I agree to be in very, very, very poor taste) means that a 13,000 employee company is secretly working to "hand" elections to Republicans, but Diebold claims there is a paper trail:
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/375954
"Diebold strongly refutes the existence of any "back doors" or "hidden codes" in its GEMS software. These inaccurate allegations appear to stem from those not familiar with the product, misunderstanding the purpose of legitimate structures in the database. These structures are well documented and have been reviewed (including at a source code level) by independent testing authorities as required by federal election regulations.
In addition to the facts stated above, a paper and an electronic record of all cast ballots are retrieved from each individual voting machine following an election. The results from each individual machine are then tabulated, and thoroughly audited during the standard election canvass process. Once the audit is complete, the official winners are announced. Any alleged changes to a vote count in the election management software would be immediately discovered during this audit process, as this total would not match the true official total tabulated from each machine."
I agree it's very nice, and I use that to connect to Windows machines, but it's not VNC, and doesn't work to connect to hosts other than Windows hosts with MS RDC support.
Apple has information on how to start Remote Desktop remotely for ARD versions 1.2 and earlier, 1.2.1 to 1.2.4, and 2.0 and newer.
For Mac OS X, there are several options; what I believe to be the best options are below.
On the server end of things, there's OSXvnc, a nice free VNC server for Mac OS X. (There's even an OS9vnc, on the same page.)
The best free client for Mac OS X, in my opinion, is Chicken of the VNC.
At the commercial end of the spectrum is Apple Remote Desktop 2.1. Apple Remote Desktop is much more than just a remote control solution; it provides desktop and systems management tools, software distribution tools, mass screen sharing, scripted actions, and all sorts of other features. But as of version 2, the remote screen protocol is based on VNC. With one checkbox, any VNC client can connect to any machine running Apple's VNC server software (which it confusingly calls "Remote Desktop Client"), and Apple's client software (which it calls "Remote Desktop Admin") can connect to ordinary VNC servers on any platform. Apple Remote Desktop does automatic resolution scaling, full screen, etc., and as of 2.1, even supports multiple monitors - even when using free VNC clients to connect! The VNC server piece (the one Apple calls "Client") is free, but there's a catch: at least one copy Remote Desktop Admin is required to be "legal", but then Remote Desktop Client can be installed on an unlimited number of machines in your organization.
...and you know it. If you don't care about support/repair/single vendor/etc. then of COURSE almost none of what I said matters to you.
But you represent a ridiculously small portion of the marketplace, and your group will ALWAYS be able to say "lol, I can build a machine for ten times cheaper than any Mac"...if that's your desire, great. As I said in another post, "to each his own".
Explain Apple's consistent #1 ranking, year after year after year, by Consumer Reports for technical support, incidence of repairs, and overall quality, eclipsing all other computer manufacturers by a pretty wide margin.
EVERY SINGLE Consumer Reports report that comes out on this, every year, for many years now, has Apple at #1. And it's not just for tech support: it's for quality and incidence of repairs. No one else comes close.
What the hell are you talking about?
You're going to tell me that every part in the bottom-of-the-barrel crap case, motherboard, etc., you're going to buy for your build-it-yourself Athlon64 are just as good as what Apple is using in the Power Mac G5? And NO, I'm not talking about things that are predictable and/or identical no matter where you buy them, like the video card and processor...I'm talking about the power supply, case, the RAM you select, the sound capability (Power Mac G5 has optical in and out, etc., so you have to take that into account), no single vendor support (some people actually care about this), no #1 Consumer Reports ranking for tech support, quality, need for repairs, etc. (some people actually care about this), no fantastic industrial design of the case in general (some people actually care about this).
Look, if you want a whitebox homebuilt, that's your business. And YOU might personally consider it "comparable", but it's not.
I'm not. Walt Mossberg was comparing retail.
And as for the education prices, if you add $100, you get retail.
Secondly, from everything I've read, you in no way need to get the best Intel chip available to compare with Apple in terms of speed. Everything I've read says that you need Apple's top processor/memory packages to make OSX zippy.
Well, that's completely and totally wrong, since first, it's subjective, and second, you most certainly do not need the "top processor/memory packages" to make OS X "zippy".
Plus, I have no idea what you're looking at, but Dell's chapest PC is $469 with monitor, while Apple's seems to be $799 with that ridiculous monitor built in, plus with half as much RAM.
Take it up with Walt Mossberg. He's not even an "Apple guy". And someone will ALWAYS come up with some configuration of something else that's "cheaper" than some model of Mac. You can ALWAYS do this. Christ, if you think it's a rip off (it's not), don't buy one (and I imagine you won't).
I'm well aware of the specs, thank you.
5 64863
Apparently all you're interested in is just the raw numbers of the specifications. Sure; look at my other post here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=126226&cid=10
And you're calling a home-built Athlon64 with the cheapest parts you can get "comparable" to a Power Mac G5?
To each his own, I guess...
$150 - Reasonable Athlon64 processor
) where he says:
$100 - Motherboard
$100 - Radeon 9600-class video card
$50 - Case and power supply
$60 - 80GB SATA drive
$30 - 256MB RAM
-----
$490
So you're telling me that this machine is *comparable* to a Power Mac G5? If you don't care about quality assurance, support, dealing with a single vendor, survey-proven reliability, industrial design, or anything else relating to Apple hardware and specifically the Power Mac G5, great...build your own box. But if you CARE about any of those things, you're automatically talking about someone like Dell, and any Dell machine under $1000 is most certainly nowhere near in the same class of construction as a Power Mac G5.
And perhaps you missed Walt Mossberg's recent column (http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20040923.html
"If you tried to match the specs of the base iMac G5 in a traditional Dell tower, you'd also pay more. A Dell Dimension 4600, with the best processor, Windows XP Pro, the best 17-inch flat-panel monitor, a CD recorder and the same graphics card, costs $7 more than the 17-inch iMac. And it's much bulkier and uglier."
Of course, you can change a million different options and everything is up for debate, but this idea that "Macs are so expensive" - especially in an institutional setting when TCO is considered - is very, very tired.
Very doubtful.
If you had said $1000, I might believe you. Apparently you've not seen a Power Mac G5 before, nor taken a good look at its specs.
The iBook is only $100 more otherwise.
Also, with the new 1.2GHz iBook with 256MB RAM, 30GB drive, and 802.11g wireless coming in at $899 (education), and the eMacs and iMac G5s coming in at $599 and $1099 (education), respectively, I fail to see how people continue to say Macs are too expensive. Even Walt Mossberg notes "If you tried to match the specs of the base iMac G5 in a traditional Dell tower, you'd also pay more. A Dell Dimension 4600, with the best processor, Windows XP Pro, the best 17-inch flat-panel monitor, a CD recorder and the same graphics card, costs $7 more than the 17-inch iMac. And it's much bulkier and uglier."
So when is it appropriate to find fault? You brought up the Iraqi/hijacker figure; why is it ok to bring that up on its own? Is it only ok for me to bring up the draft statistic in a vacuum? I thought this to be a perfectly appropriate time, considering we're talking about this exact type of media issue.
And one side is "egregiously at fault"? How can you make that statement? That's based in your personal opinion. As I said, the media, the 9-11 Commission, the administration, and dozens of other sources have all said, repeatedly and numerous times, even starting in the days after 9/11, that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. This has been said over and over and over and over, and it's no secret. As to why, then, 44% of Americans think that "some" or "most" of the hijackers were Iraqi, well, yes, that's a problem. But you didn't really address the fact that it's been stated countless times that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi, that Osama bin Laden is Saudi, etc. What is your response to that? Can you cite any news organization or government source that has ever said the hijackers were Iraqi?
To me, the whole "draft" rumor mongering is what's more "egregiously at fault", if I were to compare the two.
Worry about a draft is entirely reasonable; the all-volunteer military is severely overstretched. "Stop-loss" is keeping people in the military longer than they want to be, and even with hefty bonuses, the Army isn't going meet quotas.
Yes, worry about a draft is reasonable; worry about any troubling situation is reasonable. What's not reasonable is the assertion that the Bush administration wants one or is secretly angling for it. Additionally, all branches of the military have variously announced that they're either meeting or exceeding recruitment and retention goals - no branch is behind. Yes, the "stop loss" programs were questionable, as it can be argued that it's a type of "forced" service, and additionally Guard and Reserve forces are being used inappropriately. But you're wrong about the Army: on 26 May 2004, the Army announced it was on track to exceed its retention and recruitment goals for this fiscal year. All other branches are in a similar situation.
I think what motivates people's unease is a gut sense of the numbers - since Dick Cheney gutted the military, we don't have the numbers required for an indefinite occupation of two countries. We're only where we are now thanks to an unprecedented callup of the National Guard and Reserves - if we need more troops, where are they going to come from?
This is the kind of argument I don't know how to respond to...on one hand, it's implied that we "don't have enough troops", ostensibly because not enough people are voluntarily joining, but in the next breath it's stated that Cheney has "gutted the military", as if we would otherwise *have* enough troops. But wait...I thought there weren't enough volunteers...which is it? I'm not trying to be insulting here, but that's where I have the problem.
You also ignored what I said about Kerry. Don't worry; everyone else does too. Problem is, they also seem to ignore what Kerry himself is saying. Kerry's plan for the "war on terror", as it were, would call for far, far more troops than would ever be committed by the current administration. For the record, I agree 100% with Kerry, and would vote for him in a second if I thought he could actually pull off his promises. His calls for escalation, meeting Al Qaeda on multiple fronts, 125,000 to 200,000 additional troops in Iraq, growing the regular Army by 40,000 to 60,000, etc...where are all of THOSE troops going to come from? Again, I *agree* with Kerry...I'm just trying to make the point that if we're "in danger of a draft" und
In case you're reading this, I've got another random thing for you, from this week's issue of TIME magazine. 54% of 18-24 year olds believe that Bush will institute a draft if re-elected (compared to 4% for Kerry) because of the ridiculous draft rumor that's been going around. And yes, it is ridiculous, because it's based in lies (that the government increased the Selective Service Administration's budget by "28 million dollars" when it has in fact not been increased, and its entire budget is only 26 million; or that a defendamerica.mil web page for "How you can help" - one of many - gave people information for volunteering on local draft boards, a capability that the United States has maintained since Vietnam...and NO, they didn't sit "vacant for years" as the chain email states). Or that it was a "secret administration effort" when in reality it was introduced in the House and Senate by all liberal politicians to make a (questionable) point about disproportionate minority percentages in the military.
Then, sites like stopthedraftnow.com trumpet "WE WON" when it was the Republicans who actually forced the vote on the bill to kill the incredibly stupid rumors, and now say "NOW IT'S ON TO THE SENATE", when in fact the Senate has already decided to never vote on this bill, or hear any more discussion about it. Even funnier is that more Republicans than Democrats support the idea of an exclusively all-volunteer military, and there is a Republican-sponsored bill to get rid of the Military Selective Service System altogether.
Not to mention that Kerry's rhetoric about INCREASING troop levels in Iraq by up to *two fold*, increasing the size of the regular Army, and insisting we should be "fighting and winning" against Al Qaeda in *all 60 nations they're operating in* actually means that, if anything, we're closer to the need for a draft under Kerry (IF his rhetoric is true) than we would be under Bush!
My point? It goes both ways. If 54% of supposedly informed college-aged kids think that there is going to be *a fucking draft* under Bush, compared to *4%* under Kerry, when Kerry is actually advocating what would require the greatest escalation of our forces since probably World War II, we've got just as big of a problem as 44% of people thinking some of the hijackers were Iraqis.
And the supposedly non-partisan "Rock the Vote" campaign has been running full page ads showing a kid with long hair getting his head shaved with the caption: "GO TO COLLEGE or GO TO WAR: YOUR CHOICE". The implication is obvious.
I hate to tell you this, but I wasn't trolling. I'm 100% dead serious, and wasn't looking to "troll" responses out of people, especially since what I just said is bound to be unpopular.
The Daily Show is the most watched news program in the 18-25 demographic, but that doesn't mean that's where they get their news.
Ok...and then:
The Daily Show is satire, and it is not Jon Stewart's role to ask tough questions. Unfortunately for him, what started as a comedy program has become the only television news show that is still respected by anyone in my large circle of friends.
Ok, didn't you just completely contradict yourself there? Or are you saying people still get their news elsewhere also, but they only "respect" The Daily Show?
It is respected not because they ask the hard hitting questions or even because it's good journalism. It's respected because they use humor to highlight the sheer depressing nature of the current state of our political system and the media.
Because Jon Stewart so effectively exposes the BS of the system, he gains respect from the people that watch his show. I have been a fan of the Daily Show since Craig Killborn started the thing "When news breaks, we fix it!" Even when Jon Stewart took over, it wasn't a political show. As the media completely de-evolved into spewing talking points right around 9/11/01: the jokes started to become more and more relevant and the Daily Show slowly but surely became the only place where the sheer incredible stupidness of it all was, and continues to be, pointed out.
Yes, yes, I agree with all this! The Daily Show points out the stupidness of it all. And it's funny because it's true. And I'm not saying a lot of people don't agree with that sentiment, correctly. What I'm saying is that if it's SO DAMNED IMPORTANT, he has had clear opportunities to DO IT HIMSELF, which he has passed on, whether it is "his role" or not. Ignoring that point is foolish; that's all I'm saying.
...accidentally tab-selected Post Anonymously and then hit return.
So yes, I agree we've got problems, regardless, if that many people think, for whatever reason, that "some" or "most" of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi. But those people must never have watched the news or read, or at least comprehended, any article about 9/11 in the days, weeks, and months following the attacks, because the fact that they were almost all Saudis was, and is, no secret.
Learn the difference between "your" and "you're" and we'll talk.
Stewart is concerned about TV news - he parodies it. If the media looked at the funhouse mirror, they might think about what they're doing. He came on to talk seriously about them.
I think this is part of the problem. People mistake opinion-based editorial shows for "news". I'll agree that the op-ed "entertainment" shows are consuming more time on the alleged "news" channels these days, but there are plenty of "hard news" shows and segments on all the major media outlets, both 24x7, and not. Talking about whether or not you think they're "doing their jobs" is really an exercise in futility, because depending on a person's politics, they're going to have varying degrees of disagreement on this. People who think Indymedia is "news", or believe that a 757 didn't really crash into the Pentagon, or who think that the US went to war in Iraq exclusively because of things like ties to the Saudi royal family, greed, and Halliburton will no doubt think that the conventional "news" is not doing its job.
I don't think that "tough questions" was the focus of what Stewart was saying - just that shouting head journalism was hurting America. There is a line between infotainment and disinfotainment, but I'll definitely agree that neither one is truly informative.
Agreed.
But this goes back to what I was just saying: Crossfire is not "journalism". It's not a real news show. It's entertainment. I don't care if some people "present" it as news; it's really not. And to be accurate, it's not that black and white...sure, it's partially journalism, but it's not a straight news show. And there ARE still straight news shows out there.
IMHO, the primary problem with modern US journalism - and this ties into shouting heads - is that no one is willing to say that X is true. The media would much rather say "Well, the Republicans say X, the Democrats say Y", and then punt their responsibilities.
This is where you're getting into dangerous territory. The news does in fact do analysis; they're not only just mouthpieces for the parties. Yes, yes, they're "part of the system" to an extent and all that, but you say "punt their responsibilities"...to me, that implies that you believe there is some universal "truth" that the media should be exposing...forgive me if that's not what you mean. But some people think what the media should be "exposing" are merely opinions, and based in philosophical ideals, not in "fact". There are a lot of people who think the US should or should not be doing various things for all manner of reasons. There are extremely good and bad arguments on both sides of just about every issue. (Just so that I'm not beating around the bush here: the "liberal" or "progressive" side of the argument isn't always the only "correct" or "enlightened" one.)
Some people watch the daily show for news because they like to be infotained; other people realize the layers of BS caking the mainstream media. Me, I don't rely on the US media to tell me what color the sky is. (Although I do have to recommend this article on the faith-based presidentcy.
Agree with the first part of your sentiment. Then you start to get a little cynical implying that the US media is nothing but lies, and then come back full circle to recommending an article - no doubt because you agree with, or want to believe, its contents. See the problem here?
And as an aside, I'm well aware of this fantasy that people seem to have about so-called "dominionists" wanting to take over the US and turn it into some wacko Christian fundamentalist theocracy and that the US is on an honest-to-God (no pun intended) Christian Crusade in the middle east. Yes, people who think along these lines exist. No, it's not Bush. So Bush is a religious man and has a controversial initiative to give money to organizations that happen to be b
I can't believe this. All of the +5 moderated comments are people drooling and fawning over Stewart and how cool he is for having told off Tucker Carlson. Get over yourselves.
Stewart's argument was laughable at best. Yes, I believe he was trying to make a legitimate point...and I agree with him, to an extent. But the two party partisan hack system is what we get with, well, the two party partisan hack system we have. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to make it better. But Stewart's not helping. And don't sit here and say "it's not his job to help". Obviously, he made it clear that it is, if he really cares that much about it.
But if Stewart is so concerned with NO ONE in any organization asking serious questions of the politicians, he has had the opportunity to do it himself! I don't care if his show is on Comedy Central followed by puppets making crank phone calls, he's nothing more than a hypocrite if he can't even ask those "tough questions" himself when given the chance.
For all this talk about "it's a sad state of affairs when so many 18-whatever year olds get their news exclusively from the Daily Show", that's not an indictment of the news. That's an indictment of the people who don't CARE enough to parse through the bullshit. There are plenty of places to get real information about the practical applications of the policy of both of our unfortunate choices this November. And I'm not talking about just the debates, or the soundbites, or the punditry.
Let's face it: Crossfire, Hardball, the O'[Reilly/Franken] Factor, is just as much entertainment for many people as the Daily Show. Personally, I find it absolutely PATHETIC if the Daily Show is where people are getting their news. That doesn't "say something" about the news, it says something about the people.
No