Spinning a sophistic distinction without a difference. The fact remains the Establishment has shown far more interest in shutting down Assanage than it's shown in getting Bin Laddin in years. Or, as someone I know has as a sig:
Visa will process donations for the Klan, but not Wikileaks.
Um, no. That may be true now, but that's a fairly recent change.
Nope. When game developers start creating a game, they begin with what's available at the time. So a game that began development in 2000 and released in 2003 would have, at most, high end 2000 hardware as it's baseline. Case in point: Doom 3, where the baseline GPU was the original Geforce.
but there is no denying that Apple does now have some form of monopoly presence
Not only is it deniable, it's a baseless assertion to suggest that they have a monopoly in the first place just because they have large marketshare. There's nothing stopping you from buying the same media that's on iTunes from other sources (CD/DVD or download service) at similar or lesser prices, and from playing those media on similar devices for similar or lesser prices.
Large marketshare != monopoly. There's no there there.
Ehh... no. Sure they may make some PR mouthpieces advocating openness every once in a while, but then again so does everyone else, even Microsoft. Their actions, however, show a drastically different story altogether.
Plenty of accusations, zero citations. Yup, I must be on Slashdot.
Despite the author's agenda, he is right in believing that Apple is a major threat to net neutrality.
No, he isn't, because he's failed to make any connection between those dots. Apple makes money from their online store, but its main purpose is to boost sales of hardware, Apple's cash cow. So they have no incentive to sign agreements with ISP's to give preferential treatment on downloads if it's going to affect their primary customers: those buying iPods/Pads/Phones. And Apple has no ISP service for desktops or laptops (where people download their stuff) to steer customers to.
The author lazily picked a name out of a hat in order to get some press for himself, that's all.
I've heard this a few times now, and I'm curious what you think would have happened if the US decided to shut down, or allow to fail, some of the largest banks in the world.
Err, the Democrats took over *4* years ago, not 2.
Errr were you dropped on the head as a child? Bush was still president until January 2009. Democrats didn't gain control of the government until Obama was sworn into office.
Fuck, were you so drunk as to forget who was in the White House from 2006 to 2008? Democrats didn't have control of the government until Obama took office.
Senate Democrats made several failed attempts to court individual Republicans, but not a serious attempt to engage with the Republican party.
Laughable. Republican support was courted on every issue and Reid, Pelosi and the various committee chairmen were more then happy to insert Republican ideas into legislation - which the Republicans promptly voted against. Obama handed them policies like renewed offshore oil drilling without demanding a single concession in return.
Whereas what issues, exactly, did the Republicans compromise on? Cap & Trade (originally a Republican idea)? Nope. DADT? Nope. Financial reform? Nope. The health insurance reform that was nothing more than a recycling of Republican plans from the 90's?
Never had a laptop case bend or break on me. I've probably personally owned 20 laptops over the past 20 years or so and worked with hundreds more at work. This "unibody" crap sounds like it's dripping in marketing shtick.
When a plane crashes, people die. If you yank your power cord from your PC, you're just careless and you have to plug the cord back in or maybe buy a new cord if you somehow damaged it. Yeah, exactly the same thing.
Even if we cut our ENTIRE military budget worth 18.74% of our overall budget, we would not run a surplus this year. In fact, we wouldn't even be close. We have to come to grips with reality here. Entitlement spending, military spending, and all discretionary spending has to drop significantly. ALL of it. Not just a billion here and there, but 30%+ cuts in each department. The math doesn't lie, we do not have the money to keep spending on our current path.
The lie is in conflating discretionary and non-discretionary spending. Programs like Social Security have dedicated funding sources - not so with the military. Then there's the trick of only counting Pentagon spending as military - not the CIA/NSA, not the military aspect of the Department of Energy, or the Veterans Administration. Defense spending is closer to 55% of the non-discretionary budget.
You're right, only someone who's completely oblivious to economics would even consider raising taxes in a recession.
Only if you're talking about tax increases on the working class, not on the rich. Tax cuts for them have never resulted in job creation, only profit taking and foreign financial investment. In fact, a high top marginal tax rate encourages economic development because it makes as much sense to re-invest profits than have them taxed at 91% (the rate under Eisenhower).
That's a nice word salad, but does nothing to change the fact that a paying job is a paying job. And totally ignores the fact that in a highly depressed economy, the only entity capable of jump-starting demand is the government.
But it's the Executive's job to write the federal budget. Between that, the bully pulpit, the veto pen, and the leadership of his party, the president has an enormous amount of influence over what legislation gets passed.
The US national public debt has not gone down since Harry Truman managed to do it in 1950-1951. I'd love to know what you're smoking.
I'd love to know where you get your sophistry. The debt did go down while we were running surpluses under Clinton. But nice try with the misdirection, only considering from the start to the end of his presidency and not the years in between.
...the fact this global competition only applies to the working class? When was the last time you heard of a an executive vice president being fired from his $3 million a year job to be replaced by a couple of cheap MBA's from India making $100k a year?
Two good somewhat recent examples would be the move to Intel hardware and the discontinuation of the 64-bit Carbon API.
Carbon was only a transitional step, and Apple was perfectly clear on this from Day 1. Which was over ten years ago.
Suddenly PPC was no longer available and it was all Intel. So if you were heavily invested in PPC hardware, well fuck you.
Fuck that. 99.9% of people buy Macs for the operating system and the software - not the chip that it's running on. And if you'd followed Apple's developer guidelines, the transition was less painful.
If you mean it in the American sense of the world, you should spend some time looking through Open Secrets.org to see how corporations actually give. Goldman Sachs gave nearly a million to Obama, and around two hundred thousand to McCain, for example.
Except that's just continuing the fallacy that Democrat == Liberal. Obama has firmly established himself as to the right of Nixon on both domestic and foreign policy. He's arguably to the right of Herbert Walker Bush and if he and his Catfood Commission gut Social Security, will be to the right of Reagan.
Obama only looks "liberal" next to the loud, fascist wing of today's Republican Party.
Slashdot Mirror
Spinning a sophistic distinction without a difference. The fact remains the Establishment has shown far more interest in shutting down Assanage than it's shown in getting Bin Laddin in years. Or, as someone I know has as a sig:
Visa will process donations for the Klan, but not Wikileaks.
You aren't being an asshole when the person has it coming....dumbass.
There hasn't been any DRM on iTunes music tracks for years. Did you parents want to drop you on the head as a child, and succeeded?
Maybe they'll have a non-shitty selection in Time Magazine For Adults.
Nope. When game developers start creating a game, they begin with what's available at the time. So a game that began development in 2000 and released in 2003 would have, at most, high end 2000 hardware as it's baseline. Case in point: Doom 3, where the baseline GPU was the original Geforce.
Not his point.
So you realize your entire argument is resting on a single game?
Not only is it deniable, it's a baseless assertion to suggest that they have a monopoly in the first place just because they have large marketshare. There's nothing stopping you from buying the same media that's on iTunes from other sources (CD/DVD or download service) at similar or lesser prices, and from playing those media on similar devices for similar or lesser prices.
Large marketshare != monopoly. There's no there there.
Honest question: why are you moving the goalposts from open music to open movies?
Plenty of accusations, zero citations. Yup, I must be on Slashdot.
No, he isn't, because he's failed to make any connection between those dots. Apple makes money from their online store, but its main purpose is to boost sales of hardware, Apple's cash cow. So they have no incentive to sign agreements with ISP's to give preferential treatment on downloads if it's going to affect their primary customers: those buying iPods/Pads/Phones. And Apple has no ISP service for desktops or laptops (where people download their stuff) to steer customers to.
The author lazily picked a name out of a hat in order to get some press for himself, that's all.
Receivership. Happens all the time.
Fuck, were you so drunk as to forget who was in the White House from 2006 to 2008? Democrats didn't have control of the government until Obama took office.
Laughable. Republican support was courted on every issue and Reid, Pelosi and the various committee chairmen were more then happy to insert Republican ideas into legislation - which the Republicans promptly voted against. Obama handed them policies like renewed offshore oil drilling without demanding a single concession in return.
Whereas what issues, exactly, did the Republicans compromise on? Cap & Trade (originally a Republican idea)? Nope. DADT? Nope. Financial reform? Nope. The health insurance reform that was nothing more than a recycling of Republican plans from the 90's?
Nope, nope, nope, and nope.
WHOOOSH.
The lie is in conflating discretionary and non-discretionary spending. Programs like Social Security have dedicated funding sources - not so with the military. Then there's the trick of only counting Pentagon spending as military - not the CIA/NSA, not the military aspect of the Department of Energy, or the Veterans Administration. Defense spending is closer to 55% of the non-discretionary budget.
Only if you're talking about tax increases on the working class, not on the rich. Tax cuts for them have never resulted in job creation, only profit taking and foreign financial investment. In fact, a high top marginal tax rate encourages economic development because it makes as much sense to re-invest profits than have them taxed at 91% (the rate under Eisenhower).
That's a nice word salad, but does nothing to change the fact that a paying job is a paying job. And totally ignores the fact that in a highly depressed economy, the only entity capable of jump-starting demand is the government.
But it's the Executive's job to write the federal budget. Between that, the bully pulpit, the veto pen, and the leadership of his party, the president has an enormous amount of influence over what legislation gets passed.
I'd love to know where you get your sophistry. The debt did go down while we were running surpluses under Clinton. But nice try with the misdirection, only considering from the start to the end of his presidency and not the years in between.
My favorite is still the "five years of using Java in a corporate setting" at a time when the only person who could have qualified was Bill Joy.
...the fact this global competition only applies to the working class? When was the last time you heard of a an executive vice president being fired from his $3 million a year job to be replaced by a couple of cheap MBA's from India making $100k a year?
Good examples of poutrage, you mean.
Carbon was only a transitional step, and Apple was perfectly clear on this from Day 1. Which was over ten years ago.
Fuck that. 99.9% of people buy Macs for the operating system and the software - not the chip that it's running on. And if you'd followed Apple's developer guidelines, the transition was less painful.
Netflix is nothing for when you want to watch a TV show that aired two hours ago. Someday that will be different, but not now.
Except that's just continuing the fallacy that Democrat == Liberal. Obama has firmly established himself as to the right of Nixon on both domestic and foreign policy. He's arguably to the right of Herbert Walker Bush and if he and his Catfood Commission gut Social Security, will be to the right of Reagan.
Obama only looks "liberal" next to the loud, fascist wing of today's Republican Party.