And the UK along with every one else will become enemies of the US - threats of force only work so far...
Still the point though that a Florida court has absolutely no jurisdiction and I hope Spamhaus tell them to shove their lawsuit where the sun don't shine and don't waste any more time on it.
I agree - a poor quality source will always sound better on a set of B&W Nautilus speakers than on PC speakers.
However, why waste a lot of money on decent speakers to play poor quality source through them? I think MP3 players are great (I've got a iPod that I use all the time) but I still play CDs through the CD player at home where portability is not an issue and sound quality is - I only have to carry a CD across the lounge...
Interesting to hear about the quality of 256kbit mp3 files, however until ARCAM or NAD or any of the decent HiFi manufacturers make an audiophile's mp3 player I still don't think it will match CD.
I'm always a bit sceptical about these ideas and maybe I'm a luddite in this respect. I've always gone for speakers, amps etc. that will give the best sound quality, why I would then want to use an source, such as MP3, that would sound the same on a £50 stereo is beyond me.
Likewise with internet radio, fine for voice, but when it comes to music I would rather listen to an FM radio station with decent sound quality.
Likewise using Cat 5 cables or, even worse, WiFi, for linking parts of the sound system seems pointless. Most speaker, cable and amp manufacturers spend a fortune on R&D to develop their products to produce the best quality sound by reducing interference etc. Using cheap (compared to HiFi) R5 cabling or WiFi would negate any of these benefits.
It may be dificult to do it well but that is like everything - most people can do most things at a pretty basic level. Being good at something (or at least better than most) takes some effort.
Can we not get kids involved, ask to record everything their parents and teachers do and report on anything suspicious - hey why not call it the Hitler, sorry, Bush Youth?
Or at least is targeted at the US - most of the offers I get every day are for cheap dental care, cheap medical care, loans in USD and fake diplomas from US Universities (and of course porn).
This would indicate that most is from the US, so obviously this new law means F**k all, although I guess we could go for extradition or arrest them if they come to Europe on holiday;)
Oh course why not just arrest all orthodox muslims? There must be tens of millions of them worldwide, of which 15 flew planes into the WTC. That is not a particulalry high correlation of militancy is it?
Why not arrest orthodox Jews as well as there is also a "high" correlation between them and shootings of small children by settlers in the West Bank.
Much as I think it looks like Telstra needs a swift kick in the b**locks to force it to sort it's security/spam issues out, I'm not sure that AOL is doing this just to block spam and make it's users' lives easier.
Being cynical I might see this as just another slightly shady business practice in order to gain competitive advantage - AOL might not own the internet but it always seems to act as though it does.
When was the last time someone got arrested for insulting the French Pres? Le Monde does it all the time. Therefore I would suggest that you are talking merde.
I like the example of advocating a Nazi party candidate though. It is a real shame it is illegal to support someone who would want all non-Aryans, gays and mentally and physically handicapped people to the gas chambers isn't it.
Try picking arguments next time that are either true or any sane person would agree with.
Damn FDR eh! Only got the US up and running again and helped it over the great depression.
I guess being a socialist he must be responsible for all the erosions of individual rights that have been implemented by Republicans. Is he also responsible for Bush being a complete f**king idiot as well?
Notice he said the FREE world - i.e. the rest of the West outside of the US, where we are free to criticise our government to a much greater extent than in the US and don't pay 60% tax (except for Norway).
"And actually, I DO consider Fox News to be more balanced than other news."
Wow - I've never seen anyone actually come out and say that before. As far as most people are concerned it's just pandering to nationalism to win ratings.
"They are indeed. Partly because of a tax system which rewards and encourages donations, partly because they have so much more to give than most other countries (higher GDP/capita + lower taxes -> more money to spend on everything, including charity). As for hunger - there are plenty of charities active to feed the homeless, as well as those in other countries. Poverty? Last time I looked, the definition of "poverty" in the US included people with cable TV. That's only "poverty" if you're on drugs."
Indeed, the America does contribute more - in total - charity donations than any other nation. However it also the largest wealthy nation. In terms of per capita contributions European countries contibute more to charity. So, to make sure you understand this, if you took a combination of European countries with 300 million population they donate more money than America.
In addition us Euros don't include ridiculous right wing Christian views with our charity - we let people work out themselves if they want to spend our aid on birth control.
I would address the other points but really can't be bothered.
I think that suggesting that Fox News is either balanced or reasonable would imply that you are neither...
I agree you are correct that attacking all conservatives will not improve the perception of liberals, however, contrary to this, attacking liberals as unpatriotic etc. does seem to be the standard conservative approach.
Does America not remember that it's greatest Presidents were liberals?
And we get a little testy when we get Americans constantly telling us that the US is the home of freedom, democracy and everything wonderful.
I also get a little testy when I see the revisionist history peddled by Hollywood that reinforces that, e.g. Saving Private Ryan with no Brit's in France in WW2, U572 showing Americans retrieving the Enigma machine when it was really some British sailors (some of whom are still alive). So I like to point out these self righteous revisionist postings when I notice them.
I didn't realise that we should all be grateful to the US for that.
Thank you for giving us in the UK freedom of speech. If it wasn't for that we wouldn't have created democracies in Canada, Australia or New Zealand or indeed in the UK - I mean at the time we founded those nations the US wasn't an insignificant country on the world stage was it...
Interestingly (but off topic), and if you read history at all, the US was in a way responsible for the way these countries were set up. Prior to the US revolution all colonies were strictly controlled from London, after that the UK decided to devolve some power to the colonies to prevent it happening again. Even more interestingly though, the central control of London helped to prevent the repeat of the wholesale slaughter of native peoples in those countries - it was the damn colonists who tried to wipe out the natives in all cases, in the US's case the lack of a "civilised" government allowed it to happen on the scale that it did.
So thanks again for the export of freedom (and patronising self-righteousness) to the world.
Can I get a patent that covers the application of coloured "pixels" of coloured compounds to a flat surface to be used as an approximation of my visual interpretation of the world as I see it?
The Jihad (and indeed our translation of it - the Crusade) has been around for centuries as a concept.
The reasons behind it are complex and not as simple as Fox news would have you believe - it is not as simple as jealousy of our freedoms. It also takes into account the fact that western governments and corporations are shafting these populations royally, keeping our affluent lifestyle at the expense of their basic needs. The cost of this war could supply fresh drinking water to everyone on earth - that would do far more to reduce the threat of terrorism. Instead the US wants to keep oil prices low so fat people can cheaply drive cars the size of oil tankers, whilst a third of the world's children are malnourished.
Put yourself in their position - would you be pleased if your kids were starving so other people could gorge themselves to death on cheap beef?
Slashdot Mirror
And the UK along with every one else will become enemies of the US - threats of force only work so far...
Still the point though that a Florida court has absolutely no jurisdiction and I hope Spamhaus tell them to shove their lawsuit where the sun don't shine and don't waste any more time on it.
Absolutely - you can't have digital signals going to speakers without a decoder and then an amp in the speaker.
I agree - a poor quality source will always sound better on a set of B&W Nautilus speakers than on PC speakers.
However, why waste a lot of money on decent speakers to play poor quality source through them? I think MP3 players are great (I've got a iPod that I use all the time) but I still play CDs through the CD player at home where portability is not an issue and sound quality is - I only have to carry a CD across the lounge...
Interesting to hear about the quality of 256kbit mp3 files, however until ARCAM or NAD or any of the decent HiFi manufacturers make an audiophile's mp3 player I still don't think it will match CD.
I'm always a bit sceptical about these ideas and maybe I'm a luddite in this respect. I've always gone for speakers, amps etc. that will give the best sound quality, why I would then want to use an source, such as MP3, that would sound the same on a £50 stereo is beyond me.
Likewise with internet radio, fine for voice, but when it comes to music I would rather listen to an FM radio station with decent sound quality.
Likewise using Cat 5 cables or, even worse, WiFi, for linking parts of the sound system seems pointless. Most speaker, cable and amp manufacturers spend a fortune on R&D to develop their products to produce the best quality sound by reducing interference etc. Using cheap (compared to HiFi) R5 cabling or WiFi would negate any of these benefits.
It may be dificult to do it well but that is like everything - most people can do most things at a pretty basic level. Being good at something (or at least better than most) takes some effort.
Can we not get kids involved, ask to record everything their parents and teachers do and report on anything suspicious - hey why not call it the Hitler, sorry, Bush Youth?
Or at least is targeted at the US - most of the offers I get every day are for cheap dental care, cheap medical care, loans in USD and fake diplomas from US Universities (and of course porn).
;)
This would indicate that most is from the US, so obviously this new law means F**k all, although I guess we could go for extradition or arrest them if they come to Europe on holiday
Oh course why not just arrest all orthodox muslims? There must be tens of millions of them worldwide, of which 15 flew planes into the WTC. That is not a particulalry high correlation of militancy is it?
Why not arrest orthodox Jews as well as there is also a "high" correlation between them and shootings of small children by settlers in the West Bank.
Much as I think it looks like Telstra needs a swift kick in the b**locks to force it to sort it's security/spam issues out, I'm not sure that AOL is doing this just to block spam and make it's users' lives easier.
Being cynical I might see this as just another slightly shady business practice in order to gain competitive advantage - AOL might not own the internet but it always seems to act as though it does.
The freedom to say "nasty" things is a bit diferent to positively encouraging people to go out and ethnically cleanse their neighbourhood.
Really?
When was the last time someone got arrested for insulting the French Pres? Le Monde does it all the time. Therefore I would suggest that you are talking merde.
I like the example of advocating a Nazi party candidate though. It is a real shame it is illegal to support someone who would want all non-Aryans, gays and mentally and physically handicapped people to the gas chambers isn't it.
Try picking arguments next time that are either true or any sane person would agree with.
Outrageous!
Republican fits much better - look at the last two Presidents for God's sake. An intelligent, intellectual Democrat vs. a barely sentient Republican.
Damn FDR eh! Only got the US up and running again and helped it over the great depression.
I guess being a socialist he must be responsible for all the erosions of individual rights that have been implemented by Republicans. Is he also responsible for Bush being a complete f**king idiot as well?
Notice he said the FREE world - i.e. the rest of the West outside of the US, where we are free to criticise our government to a much greater extent than in the US and don't pay 60% tax (except for Norway).
Unfortunately I think they do know and either don't care or have self-interests that benefit from this.
"And actually, I DO consider Fox News to be more balanced than other news."
Wow - I've never seen anyone actually come out and say that before. As far as most people are concerned it's just pandering to nationalism to win ratings.
Hang on a minute - Honda make decent cars. Are you suggesting they make low-tech and vast old bangers?
"They are indeed. Partly because of a tax system which rewards and encourages donations, partly because they have so much more to give than most other countries (higher GDP/capita + lower taxes -> more money to spend on everything, including charity). As for hunger - there are plenty of charities active to feed the homeless, as well as those in other countries. Poverty? Last time I looked, the definition of "poverty" in the US included people with cable TV. That's only "poverty" if you're on drugs."
Indeed, the America does contribute more - in total - charity donations than any other nation. However it also the largest wealthy nation. In terms of per capita contributions European countries contibute more to charity. So, to make sure you understand this, if you took a combination of European countries with 300 million population they donate more money than America.
In addition us Euros don't include ridiculous right wing Christian views with our charity - we let people work out themselves if they want to spend our aid on birth control.
I would address the other points but really can't be bothered.
They don't look that liberal to me!
But what do I know - I'm only a liberal, lefty. I'm sure plenty of you Republicans can point out why I'm wrong.
And since when has supporting gun control been anti-freedom? What about people's rights not to be shot by some gun-toting idiot?
I think that suggesting that Fox News is either balanced or reasonable would imply that you are neither...
I agree you are correct that attacking all conservatives will not improve the perception of liberals, however, contrary to this, attacking liberals as unpatriotic etc. does seem to be the standard conservative approach.
Does America not remember that it's greatest Presidents were liberals?
And we get a little testy when we get Americans constantly telling us that the US is the home of freedom, democracy and everything wonderful.
I also get a little testy when I see the revisionist history peddled by Hollywood that reinforces that, e.g. Saving Private Ryan with no Brit's in France in WW2, U572 showing Americans retrieving the Enigma machine when it was really some British sailors (some of whom are still alive). So I like to point out these self righteous revisionist postings when I notice them.
I didn't realise that we should all be grateful to the US for that.
Thank you for giving us in the UK freedom of speech. If it wasn't for that we wouldn't have created democracies in Canada, Australia or New Zealand or indeed in the UK - I mean at the time we founded those nations the US wasn't an insignificant country on the world stage was it...
Interestingly (but off topic), and if you read history at all, the US was in a way responsible for the way these countries were set up. Prior to the US revolution all colonies were strictly controlled from London, after that the UK decided to devolve some power to the colonies to prevent it happening again. Even more interestingly though, the central control of London helped to prevent the repeat of the wholesale slaughter of native peoples in those countries - it was the damn colonists who tried to wipe out the natives in all cases, in the US's case the lack of a "civilised" government allowed it to happen on the scale that it did.
So thanks again for the export of freedom (and patronising self-righteousness) to the world.
Can I get a patent that covers the application of coloured "pixels" of coloured compounds to a flat surface to be used as an approximation of my visual interpretation of the world as I see it?
How about GIF? Oh hang on doesn't somebody own the patent for that as well?
Er, only in your own version of world history.
The Jihad (and indeed our translation of it - the Crusade) has been around for centuries as a concept.
The reasons behind it are complex and not as simple as Fox news would have you believe - it is not as simple as jealousy of our freedoms. It also takes into account the fact that western governments and corporations are shafting these populations royally, keeping our affluent lifestyle at the expense of their basic needs. The cost of this war could supply fresh drinking water to everyone on earth - that would do far more to reduce the threat of terrorism. Instead the US wants to keep oil prices low so fat people can cheaply drive cars the size of oil tankers, whilst a third of the world's children are malnourished.
Put yourself in their position - would you be pleased if your kids were starving so other people could gorge themselves to death on cheap beef?