Scientology has, IMO, pushed a little hard on the legal end.
Their recent attempt to have Gawker Media remove an edited interview of Tom Cruise failed. Gawker's direct response was to cite fair use. See the thread on Gawker.com from January 15th: "Tom Cruise Indoctrination Video." There are follow-ups on Chilling Effects for the Cease and Desist Letter. Gawker's response to it...etc. etc. Basically, you can still see the thing.
Then some people on 4chan seem to have started the whole Anonymous protests as a direct result of Scientology's attempts to silence Gawker. Those protests have waned recently, but were a definite sign that people do notice this stuff and take it seriously.
The definition of Fair Use is a legal one; yes, the pocketbook factor will always limit the direct legal rights you theoretically have, but if you can get a million people in masks out into the streets....
I mean, it's easy to be cynical, but if you're bored at what you're doing, it's your fault.
Blah blah blah, it's too hard to start my own company. Blah blah blah, it's too tedious to do that thing. Blah Blah Blah.
If it's that hard, that boring, then make something that does that thing for you. Sometimes it's easy (autohotkey script), sometimes it's not so much (lots of things).
You are the master of how you react to what you're doing. If you're bored, sucks for you, and I sympathize, I really do.
But the way "reality" works is that it pays people who come up with better, faster, and cheaper ways of doing stuff. Often times you don't even have to do all three!
Cynicism may win you karma on Slashdot, but it doesn't pay the bills.
While I don't think Podcasting is sidelined, as many here have said, I think it is at an extreme disadvantage to produce due to (an admittedly almost negligible) amount of investment required to, I dunno, not sound like crap. Listening? I've had an iPod for years now, and even those I know without an iPod have other MP3 players, or listen on their PCs, or whatever...
As for twitter. I use it (@danlowlite, and don't make fun of my shirt, I was young and foolish...).
Will it be sidelined? I dunno. It's an investment, and you have to be able to balance it all. I think I am following too many people. I really can't keep track of them. I will have to see who remains most interesting.
I like it because of the track feature. Which allows you to subscribe to certain words and whenever someone twitters those words (following them or not), you get a notification (I use IM). Sometimes it's just coincidence. Sometimes it's a URL or something relevant. It's always something I probably wouldn't have discovered otherwise.
Other people have mentioned the "Mass e-mail" effect. That's useful, except none of my face to face friends are on twitter. Or Pownce (@danlowlite) (a competitor which I also use via one twitter client, twhirl).
I really enjoy science, even as a person whose science learning is entirely directed by myself.
Part of me thinks that scientists really should work harder at communicating what their science does and means more effectively (see Sagan, obviously). My other part, and this is the part of me that is frustrated during my M.A. (in English) classes, thinks that communicators (journalist, technical writers, etc.) need to know their science better. There are plenty of scary comments from people, really smart and educated people, that simply are ignorant in science.
I think both sides here need to learn. And I think our schools need to do more for the average person who is not a communicator or a scientist (or, best of all, a hybrid of both) to teach skepticism in the general public.
Which is really an obvious path. Just how do we do it?
So, you've convinced me that sometimes big sites like Wikipedia outgrow their founders. They stick around too long, muddying up the waters, making it difficult, or just being in the way of progress.
It's the executive version of the Peter Principle.
Such is the way of almost every small business that reaches it's plateau. The owners (founders) are not willing to bite the bullet and leave for the betterment of the company. They have reached the level of their incompetence.
But, because it's a community, how does Wikipedia (or other social media/forum/blog sites) differ? Does it?
Uhh, how long does it take to notice that someone is wearing something? It's not particularly hard or time consuming. With all the IQ points available to people who often make statements like that, one would figure that a half-second of processing in your head would be OK.
It can even be beneficial to morale to notice when a co-worker, especially those who take the time to present themselves nicely, changes something or has something particularly nice. This, however, can lead also to sexual harassment claims. Your mileage and tact may very.
Fashion exists as a method of self-expression. Sometimes there are people who really don't care about themselves in that context. Fine. Some people do care. Some people care too much. All are fine, but simply saying there are "far more important things" indicates that your priorities are different and over-rule other people. (I would consider providing people with clean drinking water more important than my job, or probably the anon poster here, for example.) As pleasing to your ego as that might be, it's not necessarily true.
Particularly for males, fashion isn't that difficult to do properly, just take the few minutes to do so. Women's fashion is a whole other animal. Fortunately or not; I haven't decided.
Of course, I forgot to comb my hair this morning. So what do I know?
The issue is that Gravel and Kucinich both polled fabulously on the issues/votes/ideas, when divided from their names.
I'm going to write in Gravel, in any case.
I live in Illinois, and I think that the state will go with our home-town guy. HRC isn't exactly the best candidate either, as far as unifying the party and moderates. If there's something that has blown the election for the democrats the past two times, it's been two "meh" candidates. Obama, even if I disagree with him, is not merely "meh."
I've actually thought on this a bit, especially as it relates to literature.
My hypothesis is that, because literacy (reading) has increased, the overall number of writers has increased. Duh, right? There is a greater demand for literature across a greater populous.
This volume means there is more to sort through to find the "great" works.
Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. Just like I don't think the best time in music is when I was young, I think it is every day, when new music comes out and we have a greater variety of things to listen to.
Such is it with music, and literature, as in all art. You just have to wade through a lot more crap. There are more producers. Blogs were great before they were called blogs. Novels were written in the 1800s that were very popular. Pop music was written before Brittany Spears. Now there are millions of artists/writers serving billions of people. The best will thrive, the rest will be forgotten.
Fortunately, fashions change and it's probably not a good idea to tattoo your make-up on.
Apples, well, they'll still go bad, and so changing their color will probably not hurt anything.
It's only on the outside, I mean, they already come from greens and yellows to red. Blue will just stand out against the leaves of the trees and be more suseptable to pests and other fun things that eat fruits to live. At least that makes sense in my head; I am not an apple farmer.
I use mine to keep a constant reminder to myself on what's important to me and to practice writing. Like playing guitar or another performance, writing needs to be honed. That's all. If someone reads it (and I don't think they do), then good, if not, then that's good too.
Not that it's any good, but still . . . got to practise.
How? Obviously, as a previous poster mentioned, for getting into space, space travel is pretty efficient.
Properly conducted, space travel can provide transportation for missiles delivering explosives across the planet. Or, retrofitting some of them with some rudimentary landing gear and putting in seats instead of nuclear bombs.
You work in a purchasing department, can you tell me what this person wanted?
"Onetwenty foot lenth of steel, 1/2 in thk, 3 in angle."
Here, we're not so much concerned about the spelling. Is this a twenty foot length of steel? Or is it a 120 length of steel? Either one could be wrong, (though one is far more likely than the other) so you have to call for clarification, which takes time, and instead of processing the purchase, you have to call this chap on the radio, phone, and/or e-mail and wait for him to get back, and god-forbid if it's a hot project, and he's now on vacation or hit by a beer truck. Time, by the cliched equasion, equals currancy, aka, business.
This is just metal, simple metal, hunks of steel, imagine something more complicated. Something electronic? Something computer-related? Imagine the confusion of a common omission of the final comma in a list, exemplified by this famous line:
"My parents, God and Ayn Rand."
Put a comma in between "God" and "And" and it's slightly more clear it's a list. Unless that person is claiming divine lineage or a chunk of an Objectivist trust fund . ..
Okay, obviously, that's a purchase, we hope that person is specific as they are conveying a need (though I can tell you that often those folks expect you to know what they want). Critical stuff. So, what about e-mail then? What about normal stuff?
People judge you, rightly or wrongly, by the words that you use. Beyond the base level technical things, it's a game, where even ORDER on the TO: line can have something to do with how the item is read. ("Can" does not equal always, by the way.) Stupid, perhaps, but it is so.
And if takes you 20 minutes to check your grammar for anything of normal length, you haven't internalized the rules, and thusly are inefficient. It's not about perfect grammar, either; hyper-correctness is, in itself, totally obnoxious and useless and paralyzing. (I know I misspelled a few things in here, a few grammar gaffaws, but I hope I'm clear enough.)
I agree, if you're clear and everything is good, then great. You needn't be able to diagram the perfect sentance, but you should be able to state your goal clearly; and if anyone comes back with questions, or, worse, doesn't ask you the questions they have, then your language has failed, or maybe the person is an idiot.
People you may or may not ever meet make decisions based on your communication. Treat it as such.
In the interests of full disclosure: my Masters Degree is going to be in Rhetoric and Professional Writing. Waste of time for some, I imagine, but I think it's interesting. Takes all kinds, I guess.
Either way I'm screwed, no other party has anyone reasonable (I guess I would consider myself unabashedly socially liberal, some exceptions [though I don't own a gun, you should be able to; though I don't do drugs {medicinal or otherwise}, you should be able to, should you desire to have an abortion, or to not have an abortion, and what buisiness is it of mine who marries who and what they do in their own home, etc.] economically I don't know, except I know voodoo economics is crap. I've swung one way to the next on that issue and still am confused), and it's just as reasonable to vote for myself than someone else that won't win.
We, as the people, deserve other parties, and independants, and better representation. What am I doing about it? Running for City Council in the next election for my city, that's what. My budget is 20 dollars. For gas. And a week of vacation days.
After that, I don't know, maybe my state rep needs a run for his money.
Of course I'll lose, but I'd no more lose if I didn't go for it at all.
So -- and stop and think about the implications of this -- programming may be one of the few job categories on the planet where regular, continual, honest self-evaluation and training and personal improvement are a job requirement.
Which is true, if you're only willing to stay in the same place (in your non-coding job). Honest self-improvement, training, and personal improvement are a requirement EVERYWHERE if you want to go ANYWHERE in life/buisness/etc. If you don't care, well, that's your call.
My opinion is that while almost anyone would agree with the statement, they focus it to narrowly. Managers should take psych courses, but they should also, if they're not from a programming background (hell, even if they are), take programming classes, or even job shadowing. And coders should participate in interviews with potential clients\co-workers, and take econ\business classes. Hell, I may not do any hardcore programming (just a little VB for applications here and there), but my boss wants to learn what I'm doing, and wants to take classes on it so we can talk about it better. I'm looking at going after an MBA--and checking out a few books on game theory & economics:-)--to learn his angle of things.
And yes, I'm pretty sure I misspelled "business" every time.
There's quite a difference between feeling and being safe.
The reason why nukes are different is a matter of scale, you have to point and pull the trigger at each person as far as a gun is concerned, nukes kill indescriminately. The scale down part of your analogy . ..
I don't own a gun, but if someone wants to, what right do I have to take it away? Your right to swing ends where my nose begins, right? Their right to own a gun is when a bullet comes through my wall. "But that's too late." Well, sorry, I really don't know how to argue out of that one from my base assumptions, it's just a gut-check feeling I got. I honestly think it's rediculous to have an arsenal, or even say the words "assault rifle" and "hunting" in the same sentance, but it's not the goverment or anyone elses place to tell anyone they can't be rediculous (or even immoral) if they are not actively hurting someone else (this follows a reasonable man standard, a flaw in the system, I admit.)
For an interesting exercise, replace any of the following sticky and polarizing topics: "dope" or "gay marriage" or "abortion" for "guns" in:
>Guns for people who want guns; no guns for people who don't want guns. _Freedom_ is the key there.
Everyone should read "Ain't Nobody's Buisiness if You Do," for a better explanation of this kind of position, if ya'll are interested.
Ancient Greeks sued each other constantly, hence the amazing amount of rhetorical theory and practice during that time. We have a decent pedegree there, I guess.
Of course, politics was a little more hands on then . ..
Yes, I am probably being a smart-ass. Of course your opinion is right and everyone else is a bafoon.
Mr. Moore is (err, was, I don't know at this point), a gun owner, an NRA member.
I think Mr. Moore had more of a point\question on "What's wrong with us and why are we killing each other?" rather than "Let's ban guns, that'll solve everything."
My opinion. I don't own a gun, but if you think you should have one, go ahead. Guns for people who want guns; no guns for people who don't want guns. _Freedom_ is the key there.
Hey, what else is bluetooth for? Networked printer across the room?
I was thinking idly of an iMac before this, now I'm seriously looking at it as an alternative to my PC . . . I got a PS2 for gaming, and even that "excuse" is going away as games move to "alternative" platforms.
The hardest part will be coming up with the money, though that's not Jobs' fault. Well, maybe it is, I never did get a response from an unsolicited resume.
Very right, but he never claimed he was being fair, saying he made "Op-ed" pieces. And on the Daily Show, the best news show I know, heh, (then again, I don't really have a lot of time to watch TV), he said he was partisan, he did have a point of view, and, well, that's life.
I thought the movie was very well done, and the crowd at a matinee on Saturday afternoon was damn near sold out, with applause after the movie. Plenty of oohs and ahhs when Bush said something particularly ignorant.
Maybe it's just mobilizing like-minded people; my personal hope is that it translates to votes in November.
Slashdot Mirror
Scientology has, IMO, pushed a little hard on the legal end.
Their recent attempt to have Gawker Media remove an edited interview of Tom Cruise failed. Gawker's direct response was to cite fair use. See the thread on Gawker.com from January 15th: "Tom Cruise Indoctrination Video." There are follow-ups on Chilling Effects for the Cease and Desist Letter. Gawker's response to it...etc. etc. Basically, you can still see the thing.
Then some people on 4chan seem to have started the whole Anonymous protests as a direct result of Scientology's attempts to silence Gawker. Those protests have waned recently, but were a definite sign that people do notice this stuff and take it seriously.
The definition of Fair Use is a legal one; yes, the pocketbook factor will always limit the direct legal rights you theoretically have, but if you can get a million people in masks out into the streets....
Wow. Must suck to be like that.
I mean, it's easy to be cynical, but if you're bored at what you're doing, it's your fault.
Blah blah blah, it's too hard to start my own company. Blah blah blah, it's too tedious to do that thing. Blah Blah Blah.
If it's that hard, that boring, then make something that does that thing for you. Sometimes it's easy (autohotkey script), sometimes it's not so much (lots of things).
You are the master of how you react to what you're doing. If you're bored, sucks for you, and I sympathize, I really do.
But the way "reality" works is that it pays people who come up with better, faster, and cheaper ways of doing stuff. Often times you don't even have to do all three!
Cynicism may win you karma on Slashdot, but it doesn't pay the bills.
Firefox Repagination Add-On works pretty well.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2099
Use the direct-x output which doesn't do this instead of (i believe) waveout.
Really annoying. Unfortunately, the TV program that came with my (cough) viao does this, too. I'm going to find something else...
Anyway...
Yeah, because a Sokal Hoax could never happen in a en editorially reviewed journal...
Yes, I am an English Major, too. I don't buy into post******ist theory, though...
While I don't think Podcasting is sidelined, as many here have said, I think it is at an extreme disadvantage to produce due to (an admittedly almost negligible) amount of investment required to, I dunno, not sound like crap. Listening? I've had an iPod for years now, and even those I know without an iPod have other MP3 players, or listen on their PCs, or whatever...
As for twitter. I use it (@danlowlite, and don't make fun of my shirt, I was young and foolish...).
Will it be sidelined? I dunno. It's an investment, and you have to be able to balance it all. I think I am following too many people. I really can't keep track of them. I will have to see who remains most interesting.
I like it because of the track feature. Which allows you to subscribe to certain words and whenever someone twitters those words (following them or not), you get a notification (I use IM). Sometimes it's just coincidence. Sometimes it's a URL or something relevant. It's always something I probably wouldn't have discovered otherwise.
Other people have mentioned the "Mass e-mail" effect. That's useful, except none of my face to face friends are on twitter. Or Pownce (@danlowlite) (a competitor which I also use via one twitter client, twhirl).
Personal mood tracking, too?
So what's your solve on this?
I really enjoy science, even as a person whose science learning is entirely directed by myself.
Part of me thinks that scientists really should work harder at communicating what their science does and means more effectively (see Sagan, obviously). My other part, and this is the part of me that is frustrated during my M.A. (in English) classes, thinks that communicators (journalist, technical writers, etc.) need to know their science better. There are plenty of scary comments from people, really smart and educated people, that simply are ignorant in science.
I think both sides here need to learn. And I think our schools need to do more for the average person who is not a communicator or a scientist (or, best of all, a hybrid of both) to teach skepticism in the general public.
Which is really an obvious path. Just how do we do it?
So, you've convinced me that sometimes big sites like Wikipedia outgrow their founders. They stick around too long, muddying up the waters, making it difficult, or just being in the way of progress.
It's the executive version of the Peter Principle.
Such is the way of almost every small business that reaches it's plateau. The owners (founders) are not willing to bite the bullet and leave for the betterment of the company. They have reached the level of their incompetence.
But, because it's a community, how does Wikipedia (or other social media/forum/blog sites) differ? Does it?
I don't know. It's a question.
Uhh, how long does it take to notice that someone is wearing something? It's not particularly hard or time consuming. With all the IQ points available to people who often make statements like that, one would figure that a half-second of processing in your head would be OK.
It can even be beneficial to morale to notice when a co-worker, especially those who take the time to present themselves nicely, changes something or has something particularly nice. This, however, can lead also to sexual harassment claims. Your mileage and tact may very.
Fashion exists as a method of self-expression. Sometimes there are people who really don't care about themselves in that context. Fine. Some people do care. Some people care too much. All are fine, but simply saying there are "far more important things" indicates that your priorities are different and over-rule other people. (I would consider providing people with clean drinking water more important than my job, or probably the anon poster here, for example.) As pleasing to your ego as that might be, it's not necessarily true.
Particularly for males, fashion isn't that difficult to do properly, just take the few minutes to do so. Women's fashion is a whole other animal. Fortunately or not; I haven't decided.
Of course, I forgot to comb my hair this morning. So what do I know?
The issue is that Gravel and Kucinich both polled fabulously on the issues/votes/ideas, when divided from their names.
I'm going to write in Gravel, in any case.
I live in Illinois, and I think that the state will go with our home-town guy. HRC isn't exactly the best candidate either, as far as unifying the party and moderates. If there's something that has blown the election for the democrats the past two times, it's been two "meh" candidates. Obama, even if I disagree with him, is not merely "meh."
Strange thing is that I've seen weird places issue these. Small companies with approximately no chance of losing any intellectual property.
By which I mean: register jockey at a retail establishment.
What they sold there wasn't anything weird (to me), but she wasn't allowed to work at a competing store within 50 miles for 3 years.
Huh? For tending a register?
I've actually thought on this a bit, especially as it relates to literature.
My hypothesis is that, because literacy (reading) has increased, the overall number of writers has increased. Duh, right? There is a greater demand for literature across a greater populous.
This volume means there is more to sort through to find the "great" works.
Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. Just like I don't think the best time in music is when I was young, I think it is every day, when new music comes out and we have a greater variety of things to listen to.
Such is it with music, and literature, as in all art. You just have to wade through a lot more crap. There are more producers. Blogs were great before they were called blogs. Novels were written in the 1800s that were very popular. Pop music was written before Brittany Spears. Now there are millions of artists/writers serving billions of people. The best will thrive, the rest will be forgotten.
As it is now, so it has always been.
It's called a tattoo.
Fortunately, fashions change and it's probably not a good idea to tattoo your make-up on.
Apples, well, they'll still go bad, and so changing their color will probably not hurt anything.
It's only on the outside, I mean, they already come from greens and yellows to red. Blue will just stand out against the leaves of the trees and be more suseptable to pests and other fun things that eat fruits to live. At least that makes sense in my head; I am not an apple farmer.
I use mine to keep a constant reminder to myself on what's important to me and to practice writing. Like playing guitar or another performance, writing needs to be honed. That's all. If someone reads it (and I don't think they do), then good, if not, then that's good too.
Not that it's any good, but still . . . got to practise.
How? Obviously, as a previous poster mentioned, for getting into space, space travel is pretty efficient.
Properly conducted, space travel can provide transportation for missiles delivering explosives across the planet. Or, retrofitting some of them with some rudimentary landing gear and putting in seats instead of nuclear bombs.
That's a silly idea though.
Here's why correctness is important:
.
You work in a purchasing department, can you tell me what this person wanted?
"Onetwenty foot lenth of steel, 1/2 in thk, 3 in angle."
Here, we're not so much concerned about the spelling. Is this a twenty foot length of steel? Or is it a 120 length of steel? Either one could be wrong, (though one is far more likely than the other) so you have to call for clarification, which takes time, and instead of processing the purchase, you have to call this chap on the radio, phone, and/or e-mail and wait for him to get back, and god-forbid if it's a hot project, and he's now on vacation or hit by a beer truck. Time, by the cliched equasion, equals currancy, aka, business.
This is just metal, simple metal, hunks of steel, imagine something more complicated. Something electronic? Something computer-related? Imagine the confusion of a common omission of the final comma in a list, exemplified by this famous line:
"My parents, God and Ayn Rand."
Put a comma in between "God" and "And" and it's slightly more clear it's a list. Unless that person is claiming divine lineage or a chunk of an Objectivist trust fund . .
Okay, obviously, that's a purchase, we hope that person is specific as they are conveying a need (though I can tell you that often those folks expect you to know what they want). Critical stuff. So, what about e-mail then? What about normal stuff?
People judge you, rightly or wrongly, by the words that you use. Beyond the base level technical things, it's a game, where even ORDER on the TO: line can have something to do with how the item is read. ("Can" does not equal always, by the way.) Stupid, perhaps, but it is so.
And if takes you 20 minutes to check your grammar for anything of normal length, you haven't internalized the rules, and thusly are inefficient. It's not about perfect grammar, either; hyper-correctness is, in itself, totally obnoxious and useless and paralyzing. (I know I misspelled a few things in here, a few grammar gaffaws, but I hope I'm clear enough.)
I agree, if you're clear and everything is good, then great. You needn't be able to diagram the perfect sentance, but you should be able to state your goal clearly; and if anyone comes back with questions, or, worse, doesn't ask you the questions they have, then your language has failed, or maybe the person is an idiot.
People you may or may not ever meet make decisions based on your communication. Treat it as such.
In the interests of full disclosure: my Masters Degree is going to be in Rhetoric and Professional Writing. Waste of time for some, I imagine, but I think it's interesting. Takes all kinds, I guess.
That's why I'm writing my own name in.
Seriously.
At least thinking about it.
Either way I'm screwed, no other party has anyone reasonable (I guess I would consider myself unabashedly socially liberal, some exceptions [though I don't own a gun, you should be able to; though I don't do drugs {medicinal or otherwise}, you should be able to, should you desire to have an abortion, or to not have an abortion, and what buisiness is it of mine who marries who and what they do in their own home, etc.] economically I don't know, except I know voodoo economics is crap. I've swung one way to the next on that issue and still am confused), and it's just as reasonable to vote for myself than someone else that won't win.
We, as the people, deserve other parties, and independants, and better representation. What am I doing about it? Running for City Council in the next election for my city, that's what. My budget is 20 dollars. For gas. And a week of vacation days.
After that, I don't know, maybe my state rep needs a run for his money.
Of course I'll lose, but I'd no more lose if I didn't go for it at all.
There's quite a difference between feeling and being safe.
.
The reason why nukes are different is a matter of scale, you have to point and pull the trigger at each person as far as a gun is concerned, nukes kill indescriminately. The scale down part of your analogy . .
I don't own a gun, but if someone wants to, what right do I have to take it away? Your right to swing ends where my nose begins, right? Their right to own a gun is when a bullet comes through my wall. "But that's too late." Well, sorry, I really don't know how to argue out of that one from my base assumptions, it's just a gut-check feeling I got. I honestly think it's rediculous to have an arsenal, or even say the words "assault rifle" and "hunting" in the same sentance, but it's not the goverment or anyone elses place to tell anyone they can't be rediculous (or even immoral) if they are not actively hurting someone else (this follows a reasonable man standard, a flaw in the system, I admit.)
For an interesting exercise, replace any of the following sticky and polarizing topics: "dope" or "gay marriage" or "abortion" for "guns" in:
>Guns for people who want guns; no guns for people who don't want guns. _Freedom_ is the key there.
Everyone should read "Ain't Nobody's Buisiness if You Do," for a better explanation of this kind of position, if ya'll are interested.
thanks
Ancient Greeks sued each other constantly, hence the amazing amount of rhetorical theory and practice during that time. We have a decent pedegree there, I guess.
.
Of course, politics was a little more hands on then . .
Yes, I am probably being a smart-ass. Of course your opinion is right and everyone else is a bafoon.
Where are your alternate statistics, sir?
Mr. Moore is (err, was, I don't know at this point), a gun owner, an NRA member.
I think Mr. Moore had more of a point\question on "What's wrong with us and why are we killing each other?" rather than "Let's ban guns, that'll solve everything."
My opinion. I don't own a gun, but if you think you should have one, go ahead. Guns for people who want guns; no guns for people who don't want guns. _Freedom_ is the key there.
Hey, what else is bluetooth for? Networked printer across the room?
I was thinking idly of an iMac before this, now I'm seriously looking at it as an alternative to my PC . . . I got a PS2 for gaming, and even that "excuse" is going away as games move to "alternative" platforms.
The hardest part will be coming up with the money, though that's not Jobs' fault. Well, maybe it is, I never did get a response from an unsolicited resume.
Heh.
This may sound a little partisan, myself, but he didn't have to edit much of anything to make him look like a bafoon.
That is all.
Very right, but he never claimed he was being fair, saying he made "Op-ed" pieces. And on the Daily Show, the best news show I know, heh, (then again, I don't really have a lot of time to watch TV), he said he was partisan, he did have a point of view, and, well, that's life.
I thought the movie was very well done, and the crowd at a matinee on Saturday afternoon was damn near sold out, with applause after the movie. Plenty of oohs and ahhs when Bush said something particularly ignorant.
Maybe it's just mobilizing like-minded people; my personal hope is that it translates to votes in November.