However, if you do have an HD set, especially if it's 1080p, I can't see how the PS3 isn't the best deal.
Because the 360 delivers the same level of graphics, immensely better online gaming, and a far larger library of solid fun games at a lower price? (the 'fair' comparison being $400 360 vs. $500 PS3)
No HD: Buy a Wii HD: Buy a 360 (and maybe a Wii too)
Want to pay a premium to watch one of the few HD movies? Buy a PS3... or just go with the 360 and use the video marketplace - it probably has more movies than you can get on BluRay anyway (which isn't saying much, there aren't that many movies on xbox video marketplace, nor are there many BluRay movies)
I'm really surprised that they don't have a genuine solution to the power problem with fiber. Of course, I'm not really not sure that it's technically possible to power something over fiber, but... I'd suppose someone knows more about this than me.
Really bright light, solar panels at the end points in people's houses.
The power company is gonna start shaking in their boots:)
That is an attempt to mitigate the fact that IE is not inherently secure. The problem is that security is like sex... once you're penetrated you're fucked. If an attacker can run code on your computer, even if they protected mode is everything that Microsoft claims (and it isn't), a remote exploit still grants them a beachead to launch further attacks using any resources available to IE... which include the ability to run applications (to attempt a local privilege escalation attack), make network connections (to attempt remote exploits against other systems on the LAN from behind the perimeter firewall), send mail (as part of a spam botnet), and read local resources (to extract security tokens for offline decryption, harvest addresses for secondary attacks, and so on).
Absolutely not! You might want to read up on what protected mode is before you go and claim you understand this. Protected mode is part of what is known as 'defense in depth' - that is, no matter how much you secure the internet browser it is a high risk application by the very nature of what it does (browse complex content created by unknown sources), protected mode adds another layer of security. It is a different credential trust level in very much the same way windows differentiates elevated and non-elevated tasks (in fact, technically the levels are low (protected mode), medium (normal user), and high (elevated)). Protected mode has no access to your documents, and nothing that breaks into IE in protected mode will have access to your documents either. You can completely own the iexplore process and still you can not do any attacks you claim are possible from a protected mode instance of IE (and you have to go way out of your way to create a non protected mode instance).
I have to give Comcast props as well. I haven't used speed test sites, but I've observed my download speed for actual files I want, go from a few hundred KB/sec to over 1MB/sec in the last few years. Ok, I realize that this isn't as dramatic as what some are reporting, but I'm getting what I believe is about 12mbit/sec when I originally signed up for something more like 3-4mbit/sec - and all the while the price has not changed. Sure, it's a little slower in prime time of the evening, but it's still quite fast, certainly a lot better than I ever got with my Verizon DSL.
Frankly, as far as I'm concerned telephone service is just another data service you can get over the internet at this point. I need data; data can provide phone service and in time data will be all you need for video/TV service. I have Vonage; I have a cell phone - both are sufficient to not need a land line for most people.
When people jump up and down about what 'the evil phone company' might do, talking about their peculiar situation where they can't get cable or they can't get cell coverage they are missing the larger point. Verizon can't abuse their position because *most* people have multiple options, and until such day as they decide to start charging higher prices to people who don't have other options (for which they would get smacked down in court very quickly) there isn't that much to worry about here IMO.
The poster child for applications that violate these rules is Internet Explorer. In Internet Explorer, it is possible for a webpage to request an applet it provides be installed and run, through a mechanism called "ActiveX".
(1) It is enabled by default.
By default it will ask users if they want to install controls after first showing them the signature information.
(2) It is not possible to launch IE in a way that prevents access to ActiveX plugins already installed.
Completely false - it is trivial to disable activex controls and it can be done without launching the browser (right click on IE in your start menu, chose internet properties.)
(3) There is only one pool of plugins for IE. Worse, there is one pool of plugins shared among all applications that use the HTML control.
This is true; this is being worked on.
(4) You can't disable it, all you can do is tell IE to avoid "unsafe" controls, and even then the default behavior for "unsafe" controls is risky.
As per above, you certainly can disable it and it's quite easy to do so.
(5) There's no distinct instance of IE... rather there's a set of heuristics for the HTML control to use to try and guess whether the document being viewed should be considered "safe" or not.
I'm not sure I understand your sentences here, but IE does run 'distinct instances' and unless the site in question is on the safe list (user specified sites ONLY) it runs IE instances in protected mode, highly isolated from even the current user account's data, never mind the admin data.
(6) The HTML control makes the decision as to whether to load an object, not the application.
Actually, the user makes the decision and the app hosting IE can not override this - the user will always be prompted - some would call this a security feature.
Let's say Verizon decides to raise the rates on the FiOS service by 800%. What are you going to do then?
Of course I can also get internet access over cable, over the cell network, and quite possibly in time over the power grid - that time will come sooner if Verizon raises their rates 800% (most customers would drop their internet access before they would pay 800% more, and even if *you* consider it essential enough to still pay for it doesn't matter because they would lose money with 90% of their customer base drops it, so they won't do it).
The market is extremely adaptive, up and coming technologies which could replace Verizon's offering will move faster if Verizon handles things badly. Verizon knows this, and they aren't going to handle things that badly.
Having grown up in a era where airlines, power companies, gas companies, the telephone company (there was only one at the time) and the cable companies were all told exactly what they could charge for their services, and what sort of services they could offer, it's impossible for me to avoid laughing when I hear about the claim that such and such a business in the United States is highly regulated. There ain't no more highly regulated entities in these parts, pardner.
Let me get this straight - are you actually suggesting the situation was better back then? We wouldn't even have cell phones if that level of regulation had remained. Over-regulation prevents progress because it takes away any motivation to be innovative.
Canada has one of the lowest mobile phone penetration in the 1st world because of this.
Which just goes to prove YOU DON'T NEED A CELL PHONE. Yes, I have a cell phone, but I didn't have one 10 years ago and if I really had that big of a problem with every single cell provider then I wouldn't have one now, if my employer felt I had to have one then they could pay for one - as it is I WANT one and I am fine with paying Cingular what amounts to a flat rate to get what I want. I fail to see how they are somehow not providing what I agreed to pay for.
Back to the actual article - anyone who calls their cell provider 25 times a month about their monthly bill (yes, that's ONE bill a month) has some problems them need to work through - and maybe less time spent using a cell phone will give them more time to go seek counseling.
Not really, unless you mean to say that any money more than the DVD is "overpriced".
Given that we're supposed to be buying the right to view the intellectual property and not the physical media then yes, anything more than a DVD is overpriced. They didn't remake the movie and have to pay the actors etc again just to release a BluRay version of the movie - and given that many people buying the BluRay versions will already have the DVD version I'm not buying that the cost of any new extra features added really justifies a price increase either. The fact that they can still sell them at a price higher than DVD tells me that they aren't ready to have the primary format change from DVD to anything else, which is fine, I think many of us realize that the winner of the HDDVD vs. BluRay fight will be either DVDs or downloads.
What that means is that all Xbox 360's are at risk. It doesn't matter when you got yours; it has RROD potential today, tomorrow, and every day after that. That's the case because all 360's are designed the same way - there hasn't yet been a significant change.
I am curious to see what the 360's made after this announcement look like, side by side with a pre-announcement system. If there is no change, then I think it's safe to say the flaw still exists - and I sure wouldn't buy such a system. If there *is* a change, though, then I think we'll have a clearer idea of what the flaw was... but it'll still take time to know whether or not the fix was effective.
Either way, I'd put off buying a system for at least six months at this point. Let the old units work their way through the system, wait for the new units to prove themselves.
No one seems to be connecting the dots between this and the articles a month or two back saying that returned 360s were coming back with very different heat sinks inside them. There were some even bigger problems with the 360s sold right around launch - my guess is that MS thought they had already fixed the problem and it took them a while to realize they really didn't. So perhaps a few months ago they acted on this, came up with a fix, started applying the fix to units they repaired (and perhaps new units) and once they were satisfied they had fixed the issue they announced this - knowing that the size of the hit is limited to some percentage of 360s already out there and that new units (and repaired units) are not going to have this high failure rate.
Microsoft might be 3% short of where they want to be, but their sell through is 400,000 units short of what they thought they would sell in fiscal year 2007. That's at least 25% short of their goal for the year (based on having 10.4m sold in 2006).
Microsoft's fiscal year ends at the end of June, that's why we're having this conversation now and not in early January. Are you suggesting that Microsoft sold 10.4m 360s from Nov 05 through June 06 and only sold ~1.5m more from July 06 through June 07. I find that somewhat absurd.
I'd like to know who is selling less crippled music? With Microsoft's solution, to play on the PC, you need Windows Media Player, correct?
Actually, incorrect - there are quit a few players than can play WMDRM, though they may be windows-only (the lower level playback and DRM APIs are documented so that other apps can play the music, but not reach into the decrypted data stream.) Typically purchased music can also play on any plays-for-sure device (though this is configurable by the seller of the media and often to put subscription content onto devices you need to pay a higher subscription rate)
Music from the Zune store only plays on the Zune. Allofmp3 is closed.
Music from the Zune store also plays on windows media player, media center, and other player software (again, probably windows only, works because it's all the same underlying DRM system). It doesn't play on plays-for-sure devices though which sucks.
Apple does let you burn their DRM'd songs to CD, meaning you can play them in any CD player. You can also rerip. It's a crappy solution to get it onto a non-iPod player, but it's possible. Do other solutions offer this?
Yes, as far as I know all WMDRM sold (purchased) songs from any major store (including Zune store) allow burns, though they may limit how many - you can still burn and re-rip. That is NOT true for music acquired through a subscription plan (Zune or otherwise) - for what I hope are obvious reasons.
Maybe knowing the root login is a tiny step in that direction, if you get what I mean. I have the feeling we'll be seeing AT&T disabling remotely phones that have been hacked with custom apps. Same as MS did with modded XBOX360.
MS never disabled 360s remotely for being modded; they cut off access to live. In a way this is comprable to AT&T cutting off access to the cell network - the difference being that an xbox without live is still useful (just less so), a cell phone without cell access... well I guess you can use it as a PDA with 802.11x support. Then there's the fact that there are tons of windows mobile phones on AT&Ts network running custom software and AT&T isn't about to cut them off. That alone makes any argument that the iPhone can't have arbitrary custom software because it's on the cell network a complete joke.
add on content has been sponsored by interested parties. A map pack for Gears of War comes to mind. Then McDonalds sponsored a free 14 day movie rental of Austin Powers off Xbox live. And I like the ads in Crackdown, Intel Core 2 Duo billboards look better than something the art department came up with at 2 am all hopped up on RedBull and adderall.
It's all about what you can do without alienating too much of your audience. Some ads are actually enjoyed by some people. I agree about Crackdown, I particularly liked the billboards on buildings that told me random things about what people on my friends list were doing! Things where the ad is totally out of place - and I feel that way with all the lame sponsored half-times and other arbitrary things in professional sports - are annoying (to me at least.)
Now if a particular company has a real world event or widely known stat their name is tied to, reflecting that in the game is fine (or no worse than the original offense). I saw the achievement list for 'that boxing game', but an achievement with the word 'everlast' in a boxing game hardly struck me as out of place. What the hell pontiac (a car?!) has to do with a sports statistic I'll never know. Pontiac in a racing game maybe...
Leading xbox 360 advertising offense so far: Game demos sponsored by T-Mobile. First of all, what the heck does a cell company have to do with game demos. Second of all, game demos already *ARE* ads for all intents and purposes.
The difference is that virtually all 32-bit windows software works on 64-bit windows (more true for Vista x64 than for XP 64). The only exception at this point is software that requires custom drivers (ala iPhone) - which is rare and consumers are not likely to understand this distinction. Most hardware makers have provided 64-bit drivers at this point (the overall issue of current Vista driver quality aside). Even my Suunto watch has x64 drivers that work on both Vista x64 and XP 64. This is a T6, *not* a SPOT watch which you would expect to have drivers.
In the time when there was only XP vs. XP 64-bit I could understand if something didn't work on x64 and the company selling the software failed to make that distinction. The number of people using XP 64 was/is very small, and it's a hard product to find even if you want it. For Vista this simply isn't true - plenty of machines are sold with Vista x64 and the rate is only increasing. Rumor has it that Windows 7 will be x64 only - and even if this doesn't come to fruition it is a sign that the mainstream version is shifting and there is an expectation that "all software works on the x64 version".
Apple has their own motives here, perhaps they'd like to help derail x64 windows. It's all about what's reasonable given what customers have today and expect to have in the future - sure, the iPhone doesn't need to work on IA64 windows, or windows server for that matter, but x64 is becoming far too mainstream for them to ignore it by mistake.
I called up AT&T to add unlimited smartphone data service to my phone. They said I cant. I asked why and they said that the Samsung is not a smartphone. I then had to explain for 25 minutes how they sell the damned thing as a smartphone on their own website and that it is in fact a smartphone, please charge me $19.99 more a month and turn on the service.
If you followed through their website purchase system further you would see that they do not offer (on the site) the $20/mo data plan you refer to - they want something like $40/mo for a data plan with a different name. Now, all that said, you *can* get the $20/mo plan for the phone - but you need to jump through some hoops. If you were in the store and they were trying to sell you a phone they'd be more interested in jumping through said hoops.
AFAIK the reason they try to get $40/mo is that the thing is actually useful for browsing the web and streaming video, unlike most "smartphones" before it, so they presume you'll use a lot more data - putting you in the same category as PDA phone users instead of "smartphone" users. At the end of the day though it's still running the smartphone version of windows mobile not the full-fledged/touch-screen version.
Actually, Ethiopia is the central air hub in Africa simply because Ethiopian airlines (more modern than you may think) is based there (yes, I've been there).
You have no right to privacy while actively working as a cop and exercizing privilidges that exceed the common citizen. First, because you are working for the government and, as such, the citizens are your employer and they have a right to know what you do with their money. Second, because there must be high visibility into any actions taken which are above the allowed boundaries of normal citizens. I don't see how there could be any right to privately arrest and/or detain someone, excepting cases which truely impact national security (which is it's own slippery slope, but the things cops are being taped for with these ACLU cameras have nothing to do with national security.)
slam dunk antitrust violation in that regard was that they made it impossible to use a different browser to download updates for their OS.... Now how did that get past the DOJ and why hasn't it been nuked out of Windows since then?
It got past the DOJ because it's actually pretty reasonable. You must use our software to update our software. No, we don't support using someone else's software to make updates to our software. This is freakin common sense.
Making it damn hard to use a browser other than IE for general internet browsing is another matter, and is what the actual "slam dunk" was.
In Vista there is a app, part of the OS, that you use to get updates (and not IE). It is not pluggable, you can not replace it, and you can not use someone else's software to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the 360 delivers the same level of graphics, immensely better online gaming, and a far larger library of solid fun games at a lower price? (the 'fair' comparison being $400 360 vs. $500 PS3)
No HD: Buy a Wii
HD: Buy a 360 (and maybe a Wii too)
Want to pay a premium to watch one of the few HD movies? Buy a PS3
Really bright light, solar panels at the end points in people's houses.
The power company is gonna start shaking in their boots
Absolutely not! You might want to read up on what protected mode is before you go and claim you understand this. Protected mode is part of what is known as 'defense in depth' - that is, no matter how much you secure the internet browser it is a high risk application by the very nature of what it does (browse complex content created by unknown sources), protected mode adds another layer of security. It is a different credential trust level in very much the same way windows differentiates elevated and non-elevated tasks (in fact, technically the levels are low (protected mode), medium (normal user), and high (elevated)). Protected mode has no access to your documents, and nothing that breaks into IE in protected mode will have access to your documents either. You can completely own the iexplore process and still you can not do any attacks you claim are possible from a protected mode instance of IE (and you have to go way out of your way to create a non protected mode instance).
I have to give Comcast props as well. I haven't used speed test sites, but I've observed my download speed for actual files I want, go from a few hundred KB/sec to over 1MB/sec in the last few years. Ok, I realize that this isn't as dramatic as what some are reporting, but I'm getting what I believe is about 12mbit/sec when I originally signed up for something more like 3-4mbit/sec - and all the while the price has not changed. Sure, it's a little slower in prime time of the evening, but it's still quite fast, certainly a lot better than I ever got with my Verizon DSL.
Frankly, as far as I'm concerned telephone service is just another data service you can get over the internet at this point. I need data; data can provide phone service and in time data will be all you need for video/TV service. I have Vonage; I have a cell phone - both are sufficient to not need a land line for most people.
When people jump up and down about what 'the evil phone company' might do, talking about their peculiar situation where they can't get cable or they can't get cell coverage they are missing the larger point. Verizon can't abuse their position because *most* people have multiple options, and until such day as they decide to start charging higher prices to people who don't have other options (for which they would get smacked down in court very quickly) there isn't that much to worry about here IMO.
By default it will ask users if they want to install controls after first showing them the signature information.
Completely false - it is trivial to disable activex controls and it can be done without launching the browser (right click on IE in your start menu, chose internet properties.)
This is true; this is being worked on.
As per above, you certainly can disable it and it's quite easy to do so.
I'm not sure I understand your sentences here, but IE does run 'distinct instances' and unless the site in question is on the safe list (user specified sites ONLY) it runs IE instances in protected mode, highly isolated from even the current user account's data, never mind the admin data.
Actually, the user makes the decision and the app hosting IE can not override this - the user will always be prompted - some would call this a security feature.
Of course I can also get internet access over cable, over the cell network, and quite possibly in time over the power grid - that time will come sooner if Verizon raises their rates 800% (most customers would drop their internet access before they would pay 800% more, and even if *you* consider it essential enough to still pay for it doesn't matter because they would lose money with 90% of their customer base drops it, so they won't do it).
The market is extremely adaptive, up and coming technologies which could replace Verizon's offering will move faster if Verizon handles things badly. Verizon knows this, and they aren't going to handle things that badly.
Let me get this straight - are you actually suggesting the situation was better back then? We wouldn't even have cell phones if that level of regulation had remained. Over-regulation prevents progress because it takes away any motivation to be innovative.
Which just goes to prove YOU DON'T NEED A CELL PHONE. Yes, I have a cell phone, but I didn't have one 10 years ago and if I really had that big of a problem with every single cell provider then I wouldn't have one now, if my employer felt I had to have one then they could pay for one - as it is I WANT one and I am fine with paying Cingular what amounts to a flat rate to get what I want. I fail to see how they are somehow not providing what I agreed to pay for.
Back to the actual article - anyone who calls their cell provider 25 times a month about their monthly bill (yes, that's ONE bill a month) has some problems them need to work through - and maybe less time spent using a cell phone will give them more time to go seek counseling.
Given that we're supposed to be buying the right to view the intellectual property and not the physical media then yes, anything more than a DVD is overpriced. They didn't remake the movie and have to pay the actors etc again just to release a BluRay version of the movie - and given that many people buying the BluRay versions will already have the DVD version I'm not buying that the cost of any new extra features added really justifies a price increase either. The fact that they can still sell them at a price higher than DVD tells me that they aren't ready to have the primary format change from DVD to anything else, which is fine, I think many of us realize that the winner of the HDDVD vs. BluRay fight will be either DVDs or downloads.
No one seems to be connecting the dots between this and the articles a month or two back saying that returned 360s were coming back with very different heat sinks inside them. There were some even bigger problems with the 360s sold right around launch - my guess is that MS thought they had already fixed the problem and it took them a while to realize they really didn't. So perhaps a few months ago they acted on this, came up with a fix, started applying the fix to units they repaired (and perhaps new units) and once they were satisfied they had fixed the issue they announced this - knowing that the size of the hit is limited to some percentage of 360s already out there and that new units (and repaired units) are not going to have this high failure rate.
Microsoft's fiscal year ends at the end of June, that's why we're having this conversation now and not in early January. Are you suggesting that Microsoft sold 10.4m 360s from Nov 05 through June 06 and only sold ~1.5m more from July 06 through June 07. I find that somewhat absurd.
If you RTFA you will notice that lasers are in fact one of the "weed-removing attachments" they have.
Actually, incorrect - there are quit a few players than can play WMDRM, though they may be windows-only (the lower level playback and DRM APIs are documented so that other apps can play the music, but not reach into the decrypted data stream.) Typically purchased music can also play on any plays-for-sure device (though this is configurable by the seller of the media and often to put subscription content onto devices you need to pay a higher subscription rate)
Music from the Zune store also plays on windows media player, media center, and other player software (again, probably windows only, works because it's all the same underlying DRM system). It doesn't play on plays-for-sure devices though which sucks.
Yes, as far as I know all WMDRM sold (purchased) songs from any major store (including Zune store) allow burns, though they may limit how many - you can still burn and re-rip. That is NOT true for music acquired through a subscription plan (Zune or otherwise) - for what I hope are obvious reasons.
MS never disabled 360s remotely for being modded; they cut off access to live. In a way this is comprable to AT&T cutting off access to the cell network - the difference being that an xbox without live is still useful (just less so), a cell phone without cell access
It's all about what you can do without alienating too much of your audience. Some ads are actually enjoyed by some people. I agree about Crackdown, I particularly liked the billboards on buildings that told me random things about what people on my friends list were doing! Things where the ad is totally out of place - and I feel that way with all the lame sponsored half-times and other arbitrary things in professional sports - are annoying (to me at least.)
Now if a particular company has a real world event or widely known stat their name is tied to, reflecting that in the game is fine (or no worse than the original offense). I saw the achievement list for 'that boxing game', but an achievement with the word 'everlast' in a boxing game hardly struck me as out of place. What the hell pontiac (a car?!) has to do with a sports statistic I'll never know. Pontiac in a racing game maybe
Leading xbox 360 advertising offense so far: Game demos sponsored by T-Mobile. First of all, what the heck does a cell company have to do with game demos. Second of all, game demos already *ARE* ads for all intents and purposes.
The difference is that virtually all 32-bit windows software works on 64-bit windows (more true for Vista x64 than for XP 64). The only exception at this point is software that requires custom drivers (ala iPhone) - which is rare and consumers are not likely to understand this distinction. Most hardware makers have provided 64-bit drivers at this point (the overall issue of current Vista driver quality aside). Even my Suunto watch has x64 drivers that work on both Vista x64 and XP 64. This is a T6, *not* a SPOT watch which you would expect to have drivers.
In the time when there was only XP vs. XP 64-bit I could understand if something didn't work on x64 and the company selling the software failed to make that distinction. The number of people using XP 64 was/is very small, and it's a hard product to find even if you want it. For Vista this simply isn't true - plenty of machines are sold with Vista x64 and the rate is only increasing. Rumor has it that Windows 7 will be x64 only - and even if this doesn't come to fruition it is a sign that the mainstream version is shifting and there is an expectation that "all software works on the x64 version".
Apple has their own motives here, perhaps they'd like to help derail x64 windows. It's all about what's reasonable given what customers have today and expect to have in the future - sure, the iPhone doesn't need to work on IA64 windows, or windows server for that matter, but x64 is becoming far too mainstream for them to ignore it by mistake.
If you followed through their website purchase system further you would see that they do not offer (on the site) the $20/mo data plan you refer to - they want something like $40/mo for a data plan with a different name. Now, all that said, you *can* get the $20/mo plan for the phone - but you need to jump through some hoops. If you were in the store and they were trying to sell you a phone they'd be more interested in jumping through said hoops.
AFAIK the reason they try to get $40/mo is that the thing is actually useful for browsing the web and streaming video, unlike most "smartphones" before it, so they presume you'll use a lot more data - putting you in the same category as PDA phone users instead of "smartphone" users. At the end of the day though it's still running the smartphone version of windows mobile not the full-fledged/touch-screen version.
Actually, Ethiopia is the central air hub in Africa simply because Ethiopian airlines (more modern than you may think) is based there (yes, I've been there).
You have no right to privacy while actively working as a cop and exercizing privilidges that exceed the common citizen. First, because you are working for the government and, as such, the citizens are your employer and they have a right to know what you do with their money. Second, because there must be high visibility into any actions taken which are above the allowed boundaries of normal citizens. I don't see how there could be any right to privately arrest and/or detain someone, excepting cases which truely impact national security (which is it's own slippery slope, but the things cops are being taped for with these ACLU cameras have nothing to do with national security.)
It got past the DOJ because it's actually pretty reasonable. You must use our software to update our software. No, we don't support using someone else's software to make updates to our software. This is freakin common sense.
Making it damn hard to use a browser other than IE for general internet browsing is another matter, and is what the actual "slam dunk" was.
In Vista there is a app, part of the OS, that you use to get updates (and not IE). It is not pluggable, you can not replace it, and you can not use someone else's software to do it.
C:\>net stop "windows search"
The Windows Search service is stopping.
The Windows Search service was stopped successfully.
C:\>
I kid you not, it's that simple - that's what the freakin service is called. Would you people claiming you can't turn it off shut up already.
Apple's API lets you USE their search feature programatically, not replace it. I think you missed the point.
AJAX has just been superceded by the broader Web 2.0. I'm not sure that's an improvement.
Republicans blame everything on the terrorists.
Democrats blame everything on global warming.
It's probably a pretty good summary of american politics these days.