Because the apology is from the government that carried out these policies, a government that still happens to be around, not the individuals who carried out those policies.
Yes. The basic protocols were born in 1969 and are still the foundation.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you point to the first Pony Express line and say that was the moment the Interstate Highway System was created.
He said he CREATED the internet
As the AC said - no he didn't, you tool.
And appeals to authority don't work with me. He's a man just like any other man, and his opinions are still just opinion, and still colored by his political bias, just as the same as our views are colored by our biases.
Translation: when the facts don't meet your storyline, ignore them.
>>>Bush
Non-relevant.
If we were talking different elections, you'd have a point. But we aren't, so you don't. The "I invented the Internet" myth was part of a continued smear campaign against Gore. That you ignore the fact that Gore was held to an astronomical rhetorical standard while Bush got a free pass is laughable.
I'm not even going to debate with you, as looking at your comment history, it's obvious you're a flaming liberal-progressive type.
And since reality has a well-known liberal bias, we both know how this is going to go.
A majority of the US rejects the liberal-progressive agenda.
Which is why 80% of the population, including a majority of Republicans, want a public option on health care.
That's why liberals seeking office have tried to re-brand themselves as "progressives" as that's a warmer, fuzzier label that doesn't recall the failure of nearly every liberal policy ever tried.
You mean like the New Deal, which paved the way for the greatest, and most stable, economic expansion in the history of the world, one that saw great improvements for both the wealthy and the working class? Or maybe you mean Medicare, which has 2 cents on the dollar administrative costs, as opposed to 35 cents on the dollar for private insurance?
That's why liberals-progressives always seek to silence opposition and debate.
Yes, which is why you'd get arrested for going to a Bush rally for wearing an anti-war shirt, while gun nuts are free to take loaded rifles and pistols to Obama rallies.
It's the reason behind the Fairness Doctrine and new backdoor plans being pushed currently to accomplish the same thing.
You mean the Fairness Doctrine that has no plans whatsoever to be considered, much less re-instated? If you're so worried about back doors, try pulling your head out of Sara Palin's deranged ass for a change.
But even if that were the case, the FD doesn't do anything to restrict anyone's speech. At all. Limbaugh, Beck, Savage et all would still be free to go on air and lie through their teeth for 3 hours a day. What it would do, is force the stations that carry Limbaugh, Beck, Savage et all give equal time to someone on the other end of the spectrum. Che Guerra is dead, Fidel Castro doesn't look like he has much of a speaking voice, so they might have luck recruiting talent from North Korea.
It's also the reason that liberals have tried to send in their "brown-shirts" in the form of the unions and special-interest group bussed-in disruptors to the town-hall meetings. They hear the American people and it scares them to death, so they attempt what liberals always attempt when confronted with opposition...they try to silence it/drown it out.
As is usually the case, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint and you have reality.
White SEIU thugs even engaged in the assault and battery of an African-American outside of a town-hall meeting for his political beliefs!
Yawn. Any other long-debunked stuff you want to get out? How about Clinton being at fault for Waco and Ruby Ridge?
Liberalism always results in unintended consequences. Welfare expanded the number of poor.
Except that it didn't do any such thing, of course. As opposed to the run away successes that conservative outsourcing, moving factories overseas, and union busting have been for the middle class.
Liberalism is nothing more than a front for socialism/communism/fascism.
Any more poplar opposites that you want to throw in there? Potassium and water, maybe?
The American people have been asleep for a long time, but the liberal crazies in Washington have gone too far and have awakened the juggernaut. What has occurred so far in the town-halls and Tea Parties is only the beginning. People who have been too busy living their lives to pay attention have found it necessary to take action, and they're really, *really* pissed that the liberal nut-jobs have made it necessary for them to have to set things right.
As Barney Frank said: on what planet do you spend most of your time? If Obama and Congress were actually sup
The quality of US mobile networks would increase almost overnight if the US government would actually punish these companies for their abuses.
What would be nice is if Obama would bring in the heads of the major telecos, and have a nice little meeting the chair of the FCC and FTC. Tell them that they have two choices:
1. 50 Mpbs a second broadband to 90% of U.S. households by 2016 2. Have their companies broken up, subjected to far stronger regulation, and executives would be prosecuted for fraud.
The latter being for taking $200 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to upgrade their networks and pocketing the money instead. But that would require Obama to have some balls.
More like it's an arbitrary date that fits your argument. Change that date by a matter of months and it goes down the drain while you still don't have an answer for DX10.
Your numbers are incorrect and also the timespan is not the same (fall 2001 to present). Plus you have to include the cost of new equipment, because while PCs that originally shipped with XP can still run Win7, the Macs that shipped with 1.1 can not run 1.5 or 1.6 due to minimum *required* processor speeds. Therefore:
XP -> Vista -> 7 == $120*2 = $240 + $25 1 gig RAM upgrade == about $300 1.1 ->... -> 1.6 == $90*5 == $450 + $1500.00 for new Mac == about $2000
Your numbers are pulled out of your ass. Most of the Macs shipping when 10.1 was released are perfectly capable of running 10.5. Oh, and you forgot to put in the processor and GPU upgrade costs into your Windows estimates, so the machines can actually run the GUI that ships with Vista and 7.
Apples to oranges on a base of ancient history? Copland was dropped the same year NT 4.0 was released, so that's hardly relevant to the OS X updates coming out while MS was trying to get the successor to XP out the door.
Dude, two words: ancient history. Copland was dropped the same year that Windows NT 4.0 was released. So why, exactly, are you comparing it to the regular updates of OS X and the debacle that was Longhorn? You know, in the decade after NT 4.0 and Copland?
Ben old horse, what you need to realize is that many people who tend to have a more "right" political belief-set tend to suffer from RDS (Reagan Derangement Syndrome), usually as a lesser symptom in conjunction with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). These poor people are incapable of rational thought whenever Bush, or to a lesser extent (now), Reagan, enter into the conversation, because all of their enormous failures are swept under the rug while we complain about petty bullshit like what elevator music is playing on government phones.
Fixed your wingnut typos for you.
It's curious to note however, although Carter had all but destroyed this country from both a national defense/foreign policy standpoint as well as an economic standpoint
You mean like selling weapons to terrorists while inventing the trillion dollar national debt to fund the greatest welfare program in the history of the world, the military-industrial-congressional complex? Or instituting wage and price controls?
If the US is to have a hope of remaining competitive in this new "Information Economy" that recent administrations...both (R) and (D)...have been so enthusiastic for, then the US *must* have a competitive network infrastructure.
Which is going to require either massive regulation or massive public investment, with tax increases to pay for it. Which one do you want, wingnut?
Reaganomics came out of the failed socialist policies of Carter, and Johnson. Remember them?
You mean stuff like Medicare, which has 2 cents on the dollar for administration costs compared to 35 cents for private insurance? Stuff like doing the hard work of raising interest rates to kill inflation brought on by Nixon's price controls? What about them?
But Obama isn't helping things much either.
Indeed, he's being far too timid and his policies far too conservative to do the job that needs to be done.
We have plenty of regulations now, I don't see any improvement for the over-regulation we've have.
Such as....?
Hey, that sounds like all the Politicians we have today, including all those promising "universal health care", You know the ones that can't explain how they are going to add 40 million people to the free health care rolls, without adding a single doctor.
Supply and demand. Sounds just like you started complaining without thinking. Otherwise you might have pondered what a healthier work force would do for our economy, and the cost savings of someone going to see a regular doctor instead of putting it off and having to go to the ER at 10x the cost instead.
Get back to me when you can show how all the regulations which we have in place to prevent all those bubbles kept us from having those bubbles.
You mean all the ones removed by Republicans and conservative Democrats? What about them?
I'm actually for a lot of deregulation. Let things hit bottom and people will figure it out... keep the level of bureaucracy and the pain just bearable, and people will put up with it far longer... without a bottom to hit, and without people getting burned, and knowing it they will never learn as a collective.
....or you could just have the regulation and enjoy the largest, stable, long lasting expansion of the economy in history, but who's counting?
FDR died in office over sixty years ago, and we're still blaming things on him!
Fixed your wingnut typos for you.
Well, then he deserves to get credit for everything that happened since 1981, including the great prosperity between 1993 and 1999.
Well, if you can draw a link between inventing the trillion dollar national debt to fund the greatest welfare program of all time, the military-industrial-congressional complex (with selling arms to terrorists on the side), to the prosperity in the 90's, knock yourself out.
Something I've been wondering about for a while in these discussions of comparison
Someone always does.
it seems like the population density of America is fairly low compared to other places
Except it's not. Norway has a third of the population density of the U.S., and yet it has much better services for less money. But even if the "Amerika is ruural" argument held water, it would only explain why you can't get good access in Jerkwater, North Dakota, or in Bumbfuck, Wyoming. But the other end of that argument is that Manhattan should have some of the best access on the planet, and yet that's not the case. Or San Francisco, or the NYC to DC corridor, or in the big cities in Texas, or....
So while yes, we do have vast rural spaces, we also have a lot of people packed along the coasts. And yet we all have shit for Internet access.
Re:They got started young back in the day....
on
Happy Birthday, Internet!
·
· Score: 3, Informative
That's quite a trick considering the net was created in 1969, and Al Gore did not join the Congress until 1977. Maybe he borrowed an Omni from Time Voyager Phineas Bogg and zipped back to the 1960s.
So the Internet, where millions of people and businesses could communicate online, sprung fourth, wholly formed in 1969? Or maybe it was a bit of a process, starting with two computers and ending up with millions? A process that...might have been given a shove (and government funding)...by a politician from Tennessee?
You don't have to take my word for it. Vint Cerf, inventor of TCP/IP:
Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.
No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.
Too bad you suckers of Satan's cock were so busy trashing Gore in 2000 that you completely ignored the fact that Bush took credit for patients rights legislation that he fucking vetoed as governor of Texas.
You please. That was a case of the police fucking up and shooting a random person in the back of the head, multiple times, for no justifiable reason whatsoever.
Sure, why don't the British, French, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese apologies for their empire-building past. The various European powers for their slave trade. The various African tribes who were already practicing slavery when the white men arrived and sold them slaves from other tribes should probably go on the list. The Mongols should probably apologise for their invasion of China too. And what about the descendants of people responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire? They definitely need to apologise!
...those events happened hundreds or even thousands of years ago, where as these events happened 60 years ago, and many of the victims - and those who carried out these policies - are still alive. To pretend that is equal to crimes committed 4, 5, 50 generations ago is asinine.
Right. Because it's only conservative Christians who "gay bash." Islamic fundamentalists, for whom gay bashing laws are still on the theocratic books, get a pass in the public consciousness, as usual..
What the fuck do you fundamentalist Islams have to do with the treatment Alan Turing received in England 60 years ago? What the fuck does Prop 8 have to do with Sharia law in Saudi Arabia?
Why do you fucking morons respond to complaints about homophobia in western countries by talking about how badly homosexuals have it in third world theocracies?
But I cannot resist challenging the idea that progressive ideas are always better than socially conservative ones because although many people believe so, they are mistaken.
Except they are always better, because conservatism is based on two things: an elitist backlash to New Deal type spending and regulation, and a racist backslash to the civil rights movement.
Conservatism is wrong at every level on every issue.
New features get added when you go from 10.3 to 10.4 - to which they most certainly do charge for.
Because those aren't point releases, those are major version releases. 10.0.x, 10.3.x, 10.5.x, etc, have always been free, with x being the point release. Sort of like how Win2k was NT 5.0, WinXP was NT 5.1, Windows Server 2003 was NT 5.2, etc.
And yes, the point releases add new features - just not very big ones, generally. Which is how Microsoft does it as well - the most significant new feature in a Service Pack (point release) was the firewall with XP SP2.
Slashdot Mirror
/sigh, rolls eyes
Because the apology is from the government that carried out these policies, a government that still happens to be around, not the individuals who carried out those policies.
New Deal and post WWII, obviously.
Yes. The basic protocols were born in 1969 and are still the foundation.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you point to the first Pony Express line and say that was the moment the Interstate Highway System was created.
He said he CREATED the internet
As the AC said - no he didn't, you tool.
And appeals to authority don't work with me. He's a man just like any other man, and his opinions are still just opinion, and still colored by his political bias, just as the same as our views are colored by our biases.
Translation: when the facts don't meet your storyline, ignore them.
>>>Bush
Non-relevant.
If we were talking different elections, you'd have a point. But we aren't, so you don't. The "I invented the Internet" myth was part of a continued smear campaign against Gore. That you ignore the fact that Gore was held to an astronomical rhetorical standard while Bush got a free pass is laughable.
I'm not even going to debate with you, as looking at your comment history, it's obvious you're a flaming liberal-progressive type.
And since reality has a well-known liberal bias, we both know how this is going to go.
A majority of the US rejects the liberal-progressive agenda.
Which is why 80% of the population, including a majority of Republicans, want a public option on health care.
That's why liberals seeking office have tried to re-brand themselves as "progressives" as that's a warmer, fuzzier label that doesn't recall the failure of nearly every liberal policy ever tried.
You mean like the New Deal, which paved the way for the greatest, and most stable, economic expansion in the history of the world, one that saw great improvements for both the wealthy and the working class? Or maybe you mean Medicare, which has 2 cents on the dollar administrative costs, as opposed to 35 cents on the dollar for private insurance?
That's why liberals-progressives always seek to silence opposition and debate.
Yes, which is why you'd get arrested for going to a Bush rally for wearing an anti-war shirt, while gun nuts are free to take loaded rifles and pistols to Obama rallies.
It's the reason behind the Fairness Doctrine and new backdoor plans being pushed currently to accomplish the same thing.
You mean the Fairness Doctrine that has no plans whatsoever to be considered, much less re-instated? If you're so worried about back doors, try pulling your head out of Sara Palin's deranged ass for a change.
But even if that were the case, the FD doesn't do anything to restrict anyone's speech. At all. Limbaugh, Beck, Savage et all would still be free to go on air and lie through their teeth for 3 hours a day. What it would do, is force the stations that carry Limbaugh, Beck, Savage et all give equal time to someone on the other end of the spectrum. Che Guerra is dead, Fidel Castro doesn't look like he has much of a speaking voice, so they might have luck recruiting talent from North Korea.
It's also the reason that liberals have tried to send in their "brown-shirts" in the form of the unions and special-interest group bussed-in disruptors to the town-hall meetings. They hear the American people and it scares them to death, so they attempt what liberals always attempt when confronted with opposition...they try to silence it/drown it out.
As is usually the case, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint and you have reality.
White SEIU thugs even engaged in the assault and battery of an African-American outside of a town-hall meeting for his political beliefs!
Yawn. Any other long-debunked stuff you want to get out? How about Clinton being at fault for Waco and Ruby Ridge?
Liberalism always results in unintended consequences. Welfare expanded the number of poor.
Except that it didn't do any such thing, of course. As opposed to the run away successes that conservative outsourcing, moving factories overseas, and union busting have been for the middle class.
Liberalism is nothing more than a front for socialism/communism/fascism.
Any more poplar opposites that you want to throw in there? Potassium and water, maybe?
The American people have been asleep for a long time, but the liberal crazies in Washington have gone too far and have awakened the juggernaut. What has occurred so far in the town-halls and Tea Parties is only the beginning. People who have been too busy living their lives to pay attention have found it necessary to take action, and they're really, *really* pissed that the liberal nut-jobs have made it necessary for them to have to set things right.
As Barney Frank said: on what planet do you spend most of your time? If Obama and Congress were actually sup
The quality of US mobile networks would increase almost overnight if the US government would actually punish these companies for their abuses.
What would be nice is if Obama would bring in the heads of the major telecos, and have a nice little meeting the chair of the FCC and FTC. Tell them that they have two choices:
1. 50 Mpbs a second broadband to 90% of U.S. households by 2016
2. Have their companies broken up, subjected to far stronger regulation, and executives would be prosecuted for fraud.
The latter being for taking $200 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to upgrade their networks and pocketing the money instead. But that would require Obama to have some balls.
Apples/oranges
More like it's an arbitrary date that fits your argument. Change that date by a matter of months and it goes down the drain while you still don't have an answer for DX10.
Your numbers are pulled out of your ass. Most of the Macs shipping when 10.1 was released are perfectly capable of running 10.5. Oh, and you forgot to put in the processor and GPU upgrade costs into your Windows estimates, so the machines can actually run the GUI that ships with Vista and 7.
Apples to oranges on a base of ancient history? Copland was dropped the same year NT 4.0 was released, so that's hardly relevant to the OS X updates coming out while MS was trying to get the successor to XP out the door.
Dude, two words: ancient history. Copland was dropped the same year that Windows NT 4.0 was released. So why, exactly, are you comparing it to the regular updates of OS X and the debacle that was Longhorn? You know, in the decade after NT 4.0 and Copland?
Ben old horse, what you need to realize is that many people who tend to have a more "right" political belief-set tend to suffer from RDS (Reagan Derangement Syndrome), usually as a lesser symptom in conjunction with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). These poor people are incapable of rational thought whenever Bush, or to a lesser extent (now), Reagan, enter into the conversation, because all of their enormous failures are swept under the rug while we complain about petty bullshit like what elevator music is playing on government phones.
Fixed your wingnut typos for you.
It's curious to note however, although Carter had all but destroyed this country from both a national defense/foreign policy standpoint as well as an economic standpoint
You mean like selling weapons to terrorists while inventing the trillion dollar national debt to fund the greatest welfare program in the history of the world, the military-industrial-congressional complex? Or instituting wage and price controls?
If the US is to have a hope of remaining competitive in this new "Information Economy" that recent administrations...both (R) and (D)...have been so enthusiastic for, then the US *must* have a competitive network infrastructure.
Which is going to require either massive regulation or massive public investment, with tax increases to pay for it. Which one do you want, wingnut?
Reaganomics came out of the failed socialist policies of Carter, and Johnson. Remember them?
You mean stuff like Medicare, which has 2 cents on the dollar for administration costs compared to 35 cents for private insurance? Stuff like doing the hard work of raising interest rates to kill inflation brought on by Nixon's price controls? What about them?
But Obama isn't helping things much either.
Indeed, he's being far too timid and his policies far too conservative to do the job that needs to be done.
We have plenty of regulations now, I don't see any improvement for the over-regulation we've have.
Such as....?
Hey, that sounds like all the Politicians we have today, including all those promising "universal health care", You know the ones that can't explain how they are going to add 40 million people to the free health care rolls, without adding a single doctor.
Supply and demand. Sounds just like you started complaining without thinking. Otherwise you might have pondered what a healthier work force would do for our economy, and the cost savings of someone going to see a regular doctor instead of putting it off and having to go to the ER at 10x the cost instead.
Get back to me when you can show how all the regulations which we have in place to prevent all those bubbles kept us from having those bubbles.
You mean all the ones removed by Republicans and conservative Democrats? What about them?
I'm actually for a lot of deregulation. Let things hit bottom and people will figure it out... keep the level of bureaucracy and the pain just bearable, and people will put up with it far longer... without a bottom to hit, and without people getting burned, and knowing it they will never learn as a collective.
....or you could just have the regulation and enjoy the largest, stable, long lasting expansion of the economy in history, but who's counting?
FDR died in office over sixty years ago, and we're still blaming things on him!
Fixed your wingnut typos for you.
Well, then he deserves to get credit for everything that happened since 1981, including the great prosperity between 1993 and 1999.
Well, if you can draw a link between inventing the trillion dollar national debt to fund the greatest welfare program of all time, the military-industrial-congressional complex (with selling arms to terrorists on the side), to the prosperity in the 90's, knock yourself out.
Except that directly contradicts the "oh, it's the population density" myth.
Something I've been wondering about for a while in these discussions of comparison
Someone always does.
it seems like the population density of America is fairly low compared to other places
Except it's not. Norway has a third of the population density of the U.S., and yet it has much better services for less money. But even if the "Amerika is ruural" argument held water, it would only explain why you can't get good access in Jerkwater, North Dakota, or in Bumbfuck, Wyoming. But the other end of that argument is that Manhattan should have some of the best access on the planet, and yet that's not the case. Or San Francisco, or the NYC to DC corridor, or in the big cities in Texas, or....
So while yes, we do have vast rural spaces, we also have a lot of people packed along the coasts. And yet we all have shit for Internet access.
That's quite a trick considering the net was created in 1969, and Al Gore did not join the Congress until 1977. Maybe he borrowed an Omni from Time Voyager Phineas Bogg and zipped back to the 1960s.
So the Internet, where millions of people and businesses could communicate online, sprung fourth, wholly formed in 1969? Or maybe it was a bit of a process, starting with two computers and ending up with millions? A process that...might have been given a shove (and government funding)...by a politician from Tennessee?
You don't have to take my word for it. Vint Cerf, inventor of TCP/IP:
Too bad you suckers of Satan's cock were so busy trashing Gore in 2000 that you completely ignored the fact that Bush took credit for patients rights legislation that he fucking vetoed as governor of Texas.
Here's where you start babbling about non-consensual sex.
You please. That was a case of the police fucking up and shooting a random person in the back of the head, multiple times, for no justifiable reason whatsoever.
Sure, why don't the British, French, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese apologies for their empire-building past. The various European powers for their slave trade. The various African tribes who were already practicing slavery when the white men arrived and sold them slaves from other tribes should probably go on the list. The Mongols should probably apologise for their invasion of China too. And what about the descendants of people responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire? They definitely need to apologise!
...those events happened hundreds or even thousands of years ago, where as these events happened 60 years ago, and many of the victims - and those who carried out these policies - are still alive. To pretend that is equal to crimes committed 4, 5, 50 generations ago is asinine.
Right. Because it's only conservative Christians who "gay bash." Islamic fundamentalists, for whom gay bashing laws are still on the theocratic books, get a pass in the public consciousness, as usual..
What the fuck do you fundamentalist Islams have to do with the treatment Alan Turing received in England 60 years ago? What the fuck does Prop 8 have to do with Sharia law in Saudi Arabia?
Why do you fucking morons respond to complaints about homophobia in western countries by talking about how badly homosexuals have it in third world theocracies?
Why do wingnuts respond to attacks on homophobia in western countries with irrelevant, over the top straw men about Iran?
You need to pull your head out. The subject was England, remember, not Saudi Arabia.
But I cannot resist challenging the idea that progressive ideas are always better than socially conservative ones because although many people believe so, they are mistaken.
Except they are always better, because conservatism is based on two things: an elitist backlash to New Deal type spending and regulation, and a racist backslash to the civil rights movement.
Conservatism is wrong at every level on every issue.
Talking about Islam is disingenuous when the vast majority of the population is Christian.
New features get added when you go from 10.3 to 10.4 - to which they most certainly do charge for.
Because those aren't point releases, those are major version releases. 10.0.x, 10.3.x, 10.5.x, etc, have always been free, with x being the point release. Sort of like how Win2k was NT 5.0, WinXP was NT 5.1, Windows Server 2003 was NT 5.2, etc.
And yes, the point releases add new features - just not very big ones, generally. Which is how Microsoft does it as well - the most significant new feature in a Service Pack (point release) was the firewall with XP SP2.