I'm having a hard time figuring out what parts are sarcasm and what parts aren't. if you're saying these people should be feared and obeyed because they're nuts, then I disagree. that's what the europeans are doing, well at least some of the countries in the EU. if you're being entirely sarcastic, then it's a great post! As far as I'm concerned, free speech is paramount. it's the only way the truth won't get covered up by all the bs.
You mean like the fact that the release of those pictures is almost certainly going to incite violence against the US and its citizens?
you mean like how they march in the streets over there carrying signs with violent anti-US sentiments? how many videos exist of americans being decapitated?
Kind of the definition of 'risk to national security' don'tcha think?
coward. we're supposed to cower in fear of these people? the citizenry should be exposed to the results of war.. we shield them from it too much because it benefits politicians' careers to have a whitewashed presentation. why? because abstract violence is far less likely to cause a loss of support than the gritty details. people bitch about an ignorant american population, yet when it comes to blood and gore (and sex), suddenly it's ok..
bullshit. welcome to life. it's not all happy rainbows and smiling clouds.
An FOIA request will be denied for obvious reasons, its rather silly that AP even would consider pushing the issue.
Your subjective morality is NOT obvious. a transparent government should be showing all it is doing, including relevant details. then the citizenry can decide whether this is acceptable or not and make changes accordingly.
why? who cares? the whole "I'm not censorious I'm just being sensible/decent/protecting the children" routine is getting really old.. release the pics.. we paid for his death, we should be able to verify it. don't like what your tax dollars are going towards? well maybe people like that need to see what it is their politicians are really spending the money on and how they go about business.
. I would send my own daughter there except I don't believe in their insistence on Vegetarianism.
so much for 'open'. right? I mean isn't this one of their methods for enforcing conformity in order to project the kind of culture the school's benefactors wish society to adopt? not that I agree with this as I agree with your post for the most part, but this school sounds like a poor example..especially if they're going to force silly rules about diet.
The article draws a false dichotomy between geeks and bullies. The most successful adults in today's society combine intellect with emotional intelligence. The successful adult, today, is the one in high school who could make the jocks & cheerleaders and the nerds, alike, feel like a million bucks.
these same people are now busily bankrupting the country as politicians and CEOs. How's that for success? success in manipulating people I suppose.. they're successful manipulators. that's all. the term 'emotional intelligence' is itself a copout for those who don't have much of the traditional kind.
whoever has more money gets their way.. it really is that simple. in this case the host will give the name to the one who is most likely to sue and who has the financial backing to do so. I miss the days of first-come-first-serve on the internet.
dailykos, being a political site, is one giant bias on discussion. why even bother to mitigate it? you're only allowed to disagree within a preset popularity-determined sandbox of preset counter-arguments. after that, you're labeled troll and canned.
you ignore the fact that anonymity allows one to express valid positions that aren't popular and/or outright illicit. this is crucial to a discussion being productive. the only thing your platform creates is cliquish conformity. That's hardly discussion. just because there's a 'consequence' for someone posting something, doesn't mean that the subject is incorrect. all the 'consequences' do is protect the feelings of the majority against the opinions of the minority and/or factual, objective truth. this isn't healthy, period.
actually it's the lack of controls that allows innovation to happen in the first place. I'm glad there's no single vendor. this worked fine up until the point where the big players decided to drive players to consoles where they can play with false scarcity a bit more.
Is this a quote from Fox News to promote an agenda that the poster JUST knows is true. This post is not informative, it's purely speculative. Apple has not made a single move to restrict how software is distributed or installed on a Mac. Yes of course Apple would love for you to use their App Store. That Apple would rather you buy from them than from a competitor like Amazon or a retail store, does not mean that they are looking to close off the Mac platform.
and yours is willfully ignorant. we're not talking about right now.. we're talking about how 'right now' is trending the future.
yeah it will, eventually...to all the devices that matter anyway. too bad too as the companies that will do this would be nowhere if their engineers had grown up in a locked era.
Apple doesn't exist to control people (as many of your fellow tinfoil comrades like to claim), the exist to sell hardware.
..and if controlling people will allow them to sell more hardware by creating false scarcity of functionality?
The one and only question you have to ask yourself is this: Does Apple think it will sell more Macs if they close it like iOS?
ok but why should the consumer care what apple wants/needs? that's not his problem. why should the consumer drink corporatist koolaid? what apple does to fatten its bottom line isn't always in the consumer interest. they shouldn't have a right to dictate to consumers how sold hardware is used. if they do, then the politicians who passed such a thing should be shot. it undermines the whole concept of owning property.
By locking down Mac OS X, they would essentially set it up as both an inferior iOS, and an inferior Mac OS. It's irrational.
they can still lock it down and have it provide more advanced applications. the issue is one of control, not of functionality.
This notion makes no sense whatsoever. Unless you hate Apple, and just need to make up some narrative to further justify it (to you) and perhaps help scare other people into joining in with your nonsense.
this makes you sound like one of those with too much emotional investment in apple.
So sure, Apple is the gatekeeper between the software world and their desktop devices. The App Store is that gate. Apple works diligently to prevent malicious code from entering the App Store, push out software updates, etc.
choosing between 'security' and control of one's hardware and software is a false dilemma.
Their system is no longer open / free, and that sucks. Fortunately, we have Linux, FreeBSD, Windows (although I suspect MS will follow in Apple's footsteps), and a host of other operating systems to turn to if we want software freedom, console login, etc.
talking about these issues in public is what helps it (and the vendors) stay aware of product issues as well as vendor behavior relative to consumer interest. telling people to love it or leave it solves nothing. it's a cop out.
If Apple closed off their devices, I would still not rule them out. Obviously I wouldn't use them as a hacking platform, but if Apple allows FOSS into their App Store, I don't see how even my daily usage of their systems would change much. Apple systems would become less suitable for some niche things, like debugging, emulation, penetration testing, etc., but most of the time that's not what people use Apple for.
they are already closed off. i'ts just possible for the moment to get around it. when all vendors are locked out the same way, then what? special pleading for apple has to stop.
The issue comes when / if Apple starts preventing legitimate software from entering their App Store.
they already do this. they also revoke purchased apps at a whim which makes depending on your device to do what you want somewhat unreliable. it also makes your computer devices complicit in enforcing top-down social expectations on your lifestyle. your hardware is yours, it should do what you tell it to, not the vendor.
If Apple makes the App Store the only gateway into their devices, you can bet that there will be a suit of lawsuits from whatever company gets barred, the EFF, etc.; if Apple loses these, then their platform will become open "enough" again. If they win, then that is the day I stop using Apple products, as they are no longer free and flexible enough for my tastes.
what do you think they're trying to do? osx is the black sheep. they're trying to get it in line with ios. why wait for the lawsuit? go ahead, use it until they lock it down or developer laziness drives them all to the app store model, but why cheer this behavior on?
And even then, while Apple systems may not meet my tastes as a developer, the App Store gateway is a perfect model for my parents, grandparents, cousins, and siblings. The less maintenance they have to do, including software vetting and updates, the better.
don't worry, if app stores really become the only way to get applications on most devices, you'll start getting asked to 'repair' the 'missing' apps. have fun with that.
This is a good thing; Apple is defining its market, and through this move it will be far more suitable for the 95% of the population that only ever wanted to use a computer as an appliance.
good for who? apple? the best thing you can say about the 'appliance people' is that 'ignorance is bliss'? what good is an 'appliance' that can have features removed at any time after purchase? computers are not appliances, though they are being put in more appliances nowadays, more often than not making them less reliable and more cumbersome to use than their 1980s/1990s discrete component forebears.
He could've just released the complete document 24hrs after the first questions were asked, and torpedoed the whole thing. he didn't. the interesting question is 'why'.
1. sure, those who are interested in getting non-democrats elected into office. who might those people be? 2. um ok. what lie? basically, a question was asked. he chose not to answer it for months, so the whole thing blew up into a big frenzy. 3. this entire point is an ad hominem. it doesn't matter if this person is white, or hates non-whites or not. the question from him is just as legitimate as it is from anyone else. 4. almost none of them are. even if movements start this way, they are quickly backed by powerful well-established groups if they somehow happen to support their interests.
I do'nt see the difference.. if the long document is the best proof available, release it asap. in fact, this stuff should be checked before the candidates are added to the ballot.
I never said there was a conspiracy, just a lot of bias propping up the stated intentions for the purpose of hiding the real ones. I explained that this is a common program that plagues washington and politics in general, and is one of the big threats liberty faces today. In this particular case, a question was asked. if your boss came upt o you and said there was a question about the legitimacy of your diploma, and thus your continued employment, I'm sure you'd want that cleared up ASAP. Obama should've answered it with the complete document right away.
Yes, I also mentioned that documents prove nothing as they can be faked. No I did not imply that obama's was faked. My post was an attempt to address the specific issue as well as the larger ones at play.
my understanding was that the first document shown was incomplete. he recently showed the complete document. why didn't he do this in the first place? hell, why isn't this checked on before the candidate is put on the ballot??
Please don't haul out technical terms until you understand what they mean.
I did use them correctly. the summary for this story is heavily biased. look at the wording.
I didn't say they weren't legitimate. I said they couldn't be trusted to give the whole picture when that would run counter to their own interests. I said to look out for this when taking in information they dispense.
"I looked at it Obama's birth certificate and it seems fishy to me,"
I never said this. You're right, though, it would be a self-assert of authority assuming no evidence was provided.
"the investigative reporting team of the New York Times looked at the birth certificate and concluded it was valid."
this is also an appeal. the appeal to 'professionalism' is just another way to get out of having to question the 'professional's' output. in politics, there's plenty of emotional clinging to individuals and organizations that are well known to be biased in the way the reader wishes to perceive the world. Just because the NYT 'team' does political commentary for a living doesn't mean they aren't biased, or are automatically closer to the truth than someone who is less emotionally involved. it is likely these people work for the paper in this capacity precisely because of their feelings on the subject matter. this will result in biased output. I picked the NYT as an example, but they're all like this.
I wonder if the irony of that assertion escaped you. Have you never heard of the fallacy of reductio ad ridiculum?
I did not misuse any terms. the 'to reasonable minds' is an ad hominem to those who asked the legitimate question: is obama a US citizen?
hey, it's in the constitution. it's a legitimate question. the president has to be born here. all he has to do is show the proper paperwork, and legally anyway, he's considered legit. No, it doesn't prove anything either. of course there are party trolls on both sides, democrats who defend him to the bitter end regardless of the truth, and republicans who will fling all kinds of shit to see what sticks. to me, it's a simple question with a simple answer. answer it and move on. his behavior on this is a good example of the 'business-as-usual' political nonsense most campaigns claim their candidate is going to change. why? the only reason I can see is that he wanted to make the other side look foolish. to me, that's stooping to their level.
It's not OK to demand unreasonable things and then say that since he didn't immediately comply with your demands, it's a "red flag" that your conspiracy theories are true. Additionally, once he *does* comply with your first demand, what's to stop you from making more and more demands until you get the "red flag" that you want?
nothing. nothing at all. that's a systemic problem of the current political climate. a climate built by the two big parties. They spend more time bullshitting than getting things done. this particular question is easy to answer so I guess there was another motivation for obama to drag this out. the ball was in his court the whole time.
we aren't spoiled. we're more dependent. in the 80s you used your computer to play simplistic video games and maybe type a one page school assignment.. if you were learning programming, you were coding simple routines in assembly, maybe C if you were lucky enough to have a 68000 based machine with sufficient ram to run a full suite of tools..even then you were still coding a lot of assembly.
Today, programmers are pumping out bloated binaries using point-and-stick development environments. this problem is additive, starting from kernelland up to the internet. if your system libs are bloated and laggy, your apps will be too. the reason we're 'impatient' is that most people expect computers today to be fast enough to not lag on basic things like launching a simple application..of course a simple application today is at least 50MB on the disk, with a 100MB commit. that same program in 1998 would be 5MB. both have 99% the same functionality. this code bloat has to do with the way programmers are being trained to think about th ings. I'm sorry but there's no reason a web browser should take 100s of megs of ram to render a few web pages. there is no excuse. the whole stack is a bad design and that's just dhtml. java and.net are another whole example..the latency in those applications is insane.
today it is still possible to find well coded applications that have tiny footprints but offer great functionality. it's just getting harder to do because of said point-and-stick environments that colleges pass off as programming nowadays.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm having a hard time figuring out what parts are sarcasm and what parts aren't. if you're saying these people should be feared and obeyed because they're nuts, then I disagree. that's what the europeans are doing, well at least some of the countries in the EU. if you're being entirely sarcastic, then it's a great post! As far as I'm concerned, free speech is paramount. it's the only way the truth won't get covered up by all the bs.
You mean like the fact that the release of those pictures is almost certainly going to incite violence against the US and its citizens?
you mean like how they march in the streets over there carrying signs with violent anti-US sentiments? how many videos exist of americans being decapitated?
Kind of the definition of 'risk to national security' don'tcha think?
coward. we're supposed to cower in fear of these people? the citizenry should be exposed to the results of war.. we shield them from it too much because it benefits politicians' careers to have a whitewashed presentation. why? because abstract violence is far less likely to cause a loss of support than the gritty details. people bitch about an ignorant american population, yet when it comes to blood and gore (and sex), suddenly it's ok..
bullshit. welcome to life. it's not all happy rainbows and smiling clouds.
An FOIA request will be denied for obvious reasons, its rather silly that AP even would consider pushing the issue.
Your subjective morality is NOT obvious. a transparent government should be showing all it is doing, including relevant details. then the citizenry can decide whether this is acceptable or not and make changes accordingly.
why? who cares? the whole "I'm not censorious I'm just being sensible/decent/protecting the children" routine is getting really old.. release the pics.. we paid for his death, we should be able to verify it. don't like what your tax dollars are going towards? well maybe people like that need to see what it is their politicians are really spending the money on and how they go about business.
just because you worked through it in school doesn't mean you won't forget it later.
A = ESTJ
B = ESFP
C = ISTJ
*shrug*
(the caps filter on this site is annoying)
. I would send my own daughter there except I don't believe in their insistence on Vegetarianism.
so much for 'open'. right? I mean isn't this one of their methods for enforcing conformity in order to project the kind of culture the school's benefactors wish society to adopt? not that I agree with this as I agree with your post for the most part, but this school sounds like a poor example..especially if they're going to force silly rules about diet.
The article draws a false dichotomy between geeks and bullies. The most successful adults in today's society combine intellect with emotional intelligence. The successful adult, today, is the one in high school who could make the jocks & cheerleaders and the nerds, alike, feel like a million bucks.
these same people are now busily bankrupting the country as politicians and CEOs. How's that for success? success in manipulating people I suppose.. they're successful manipulators. that's all. the term 'emotional intelligence' is itself a copout for those who don't have much of the traditional kind.
until those whom that person paid/lobbied for enforce the laws he also lobbied for to come after you..
whoever has more money gets their way.. it really is that simple. in this case the host will give the name to the one who is most likely to sue and who has the financial backing to do so. I miss the days of first-come-first-serve on the internet.
yeah, and the discussions about as interesting as the political commentary on cnn and foxnews.
dailykos, being a political site, is one giant bias on discussion. why even bother to mitigate it? you're only allowed to disagree within a preset popularity-determined sandbox of preset counter-arguments. after that, you're labeled troll and canned.
you ignore the fact that anonymity allows one to express valid positions that aren't popular and/or outright illicit. this is crucial to a discussion being productive. the only thing your platform creates is cliquish conformity. That's hardly discussion. just because there's a 'consequence' for someone posting something, doesn't mean that the subject is incorrect. all the 'consequences' do is protect the feelings of the majority against the opinions of the minority and/or factual, objective truth. this isn't healthy, period.
actually it's the lack of controls that allows innovation to happen in the first place. I'm glad there's no single vendor. this worked fine up until the point where the big players decided to drive players to consoles where they can play with false scarcity a bit more.
or apple's dvds are dual layer discs..
Is this a quote from Fox News to promote an agenda that the poster JUST knows is true. This post is not informative, it's purely speculative. Apple has not made a single move to restrict how software is distributed or installed on a Mac. Yes of course Apple would love for you to use their App Store. That Apple would rather you buy from them than from a competitor like Amazon or a retail store, does not mean that they are looking to close off the Mac platform.
and yours is willfully ignorant. we're not talking about right now.. we're talking about how 'right now' is trending the future.
That day will never, ever come.
yeah it will, eventually...to all the devices that matter anyway. too bad too as the companies that will do this would be nowhere if their engineers had grown up in a locked era.
Apple doesn't exist to control people (as many of your fellow tinfoil comrades like to claim), the exist to sell hardware.
..and if controlling people will allow them to sell more hardware by creating false scarcity of functionality?
The one and only question you have to ask yourself is this: Does Apple think it will sell more Macs if they close it like iOS?
ok but why should the consumer care what apple wants/needs? that's not his problem. why should the consumer drink corporatist koolaid? what apple does to fatten its bottom line isn't always in the consumer interest. they shouldn't have a right to dictate to consumers how sold hardware is used. if they do, then the politicians who passed such a thing should be shot. it undermines the whole concept of owning property.
By locking down Mac OS X, they would essentially set it up as both an inferior iOS, and an inferior Mac OS. It's irrational.
they can still lock it down and have it provide more advanced applications. the issue is one of control, not of functionality.
This notion makes no sense whatsoever. Unless you hate Apple, and just need to make up some narrative to further justify it (to you) and perhaps help scare other people into joining in with your nonsense.
this makes you sound like one of those with too much emotional investment in apple.
your post coupled with your signature projects some nice irony.
So sure, Apple is the gatekeeper between the software world and their desktop devices. The App Store is that gate. Apple works diligently to prevent malicious code from entering the App Store, push out software updates, etc.
choosing between 'security' and control of one's hardware and software is a false dilemma.
Their system is no longer open / free, and that sucks. Fortunately, we have Linux, FreeBSD, Windows (although I suspect MS will follow in Apple's footsteps), and a host of other operating systems to turn to if we want software freedom, console login, etc.
talking about these issues in public is what helps it (and the vendors) stay aware of product issues as well as vendor behavior relative to consumer interest. telling people to love it or leave it solves nothing. it's a cop out.
If Apple closed off their devices, I would still not rule them out. Obviously I wouldn't use them as a hacking platform, but if Apple allows FOSS into their App Store, I don't see how even my daily usage of their systems would change much. Apple systems would become less suitable for some niche things, like debugging, emulation, penetration testing, etc., but most of the time that's not what people use Apple for.
they are already closed off. i'ts just possible for the moment to get around it. when all vendors are locked out the same way, then what? special pleading for apple has to stop.
The issue comes when / if Apple starts preventing legitimate software from entering their App Store.
they already do this. they also revoke purchased apps at a whim which makes depending on your device to do what you want somewhat unreliable. it also makes your computer devices complicit in enforcing top-down social expectations on your lifestyle. your hardware is yours, it should do what you tell it to, not the vendor.
If Apple makes the App Store the only gateway into their devices, you can bet that there will be a suit of lawsuits from whatever company gets barred, the EFF, etc.; if Apple loses these, then their platform will become open "enough" again. If they win, then that is the day I stop using Apple products, as they are no longer free and flexible enough for my tastes.
what do you think they're trying to do? osx is the black sheep. they're trying to get it in line with ios. why wait for the lawsuit? go ahead, use it until they lock it down or developer laziness drives them all to the app store model, but why cheer this behavior on?
And even then, while Apple systems may not meet my tastes as a developer, the App Store gateway is a perfect model for my parents, grandparents, cousins, and siblings. The less maintenance they have to do, including software vetting and updates, the better.
don't worry, if app stores really become the only way to get applications on most devices, you'll start getting asked to 'repair' the 'missing' apps. have fun with that.
This is a good thing; Apple is defining its market, and through this move it will be far more suitable for the 95% of the population that only ever wanted to use a computer as an appliance.
good for who? apple? the best thing you can say about the 'appliance people' is that 'ignorance is bliss'? what good is an 'appliance' that can have features removed at any time after purchase? computers are not appliances, though they are being put in more appliances nowadays, more often than not making them less reliable and more cumbersome to use than their 1980s/1990s discrete component forebears.
He could've just released the complete document 24hrs after the first questions were asked, and torpedoed the whole thing. he didn't. the interesting question is 'why'.
1. sure, those who are interested in getting non-democrats elected into office. who might those people be?
2. um ok. what lie? basically, a question was asked. he chose not to answer it for months, so the whole thing blew up into a big frenzy.
3. this entire point is an ad hominem. it doesn't matter if this person is white, or hates non-whites or not. the question from him is just as legitimate as it is from anyone else.
4. almost none of them are. even if movements start this way, they are quickly backed by powerful well-established groups if they somehow happen to support their interests.
I do'nt see the difference.. if the long document is the best proof available, release it asap. in fact, this stuff should be checked before the candidates are added to the ballot.
I never said there was a conspiracy, just a lot of bias propping up the stated intentions for the purpose of hiding the real ones. I explained that this is a common program that plagues washington and politics in general, and is one of the big threats liberty faces today. In this particular case, a question was asked. if your boss came upt o you and said there was a question about the legitimacy of your diploma, and thus your continued employment, I'm sure you'd want that cleared up ASAP. Obama should've answered it with the complete document right away.
Yes, I also mentioned that documents prove nothing as they can be faked. No I did not imply that obama's was faked. My post was an attempt to address the specific issue as well as the larger ones at play.
my understanding was that the first document shown was incomplete. he recently showed the complete document. why didn't he do this in the first place? hell, why isn't this checked on before the candidate is put on the ballot??
Please don't haul out technical terms until you understand what they mean.
I did use them correctly. the summary for this story is heavily biased. look at the wording.
I didn't say they weren't legitimate. I said they couldn't be trusted to give the whole picture when that would run counter to their own interests. I said to look out for this when taking in information they dispense.
"I looked at it Obama's birth certificate and it seems fishy to me,"
I never said this. You're right, though, it would be a self-assert of authority assuming no evidence was provided.
"the investigative reporting team of the New York Times looked at the birth certificate and concluded it was valid."
this is also an appeal. the appeal to 'professionalism' is just another way to get out of having to question the 'professional's' output. in politics, there's plenty of emotional clinging to individuals and organizations that are well known to be biased in the way the reader wishes to perceive the world. Just because the NYT 'team' does political commentary for a living doesn't mean they aren't biased, or are automatically closer to the truth than someone who is less emotionally involved. it is likely these people work for the paper in this capacity precisely because of their feelings on the subject matter. this will result in biased output. I picked the NYT as an example, but they're all like this.
I wonder if the irony of that assertion escaped you. Have you never heard of the fallacy of reductio ad ridiculum?
I did not misuse any terms. the 'to reasonable minds' is an ad hominem to those who asked the legitimate question: is obama a US citizen?
hey, it's in the constitution. it's a legitimate question. the president has to be born here. all he has to do is show the proper paperwork, and legally anyway, he's considered legit. No, it doesn't prove anything either. of course there are party trolls on both sides, democrats who defend him to the bitter end regardless of the truth, and republicans who will fling all kinds of shit to see what sticks. to me, it's a simple question with a simple answer. answer it and move on. his behavior on this is a good example of the 'business-as-usual' political nonsense most campaigns claim their candidate is going to change. why? the only reason I can see is that he wanted to make the other side look foolish. to me, that's stooping to their level.
It's not OK to demand unreasonable things and then say that since he didn't immediately comply with your demands, it's a "red flag" that your conspiracy theories are true. Additionally, once he *does* comply with your first demand, what's to stop you from making more and more demands until you get the "red flag" that you want?
nothing. nothing at all. that's a systemic problem of the current political climate. a climate built by the two big parties. They spend more time bullshitting than getting things done. this particular question is easy to answer so I guess there was another motivation for obama to drag this out. the ball was in his court the whole time.
we aren't spoiled. we're more dependent. in the 80s you used your computer to play simplistic video games and maybe type a one page school assignment.. if you were learning programming, you were coding simple routines in assembly, maybe C if you were lucky enough to have a 68000 based machine with sufficient ram to run a full suite of tools..even then you were still coding a lot of assembly.
Today, programmers are pumping out bloated binaries using point-and-stick development environments. this problem is additive, starting from kernelland up to the internet. if your system libs are bloated and laggy, your apps will be too. the reason we're 'impatient' is that most people expect computers today to be fast enough to not lag on basic things like launching a simple application..of course a simple application today is at least 50MB on the disk, with a 100MB commit. that same program in 1998 would be 5MB. both have 99% the same functionality. this code bloat has to do with the way programmers are being trained to think about th ings. I'm sorry but there's no reason a web browser should take 100s of megs of ram to render a few web pages. there is no excuse. the whole stack is a bad design and that's just dhtml. java and .net are another whole example..the latency in those applications is insane.
today it is still possible to find well coded applications that have tiny footprints but offer great functionality. it's just getting harder to do because of said point-and-stick environments that colleges pass off as programming nowadays.