And your point is...? They call it a lot of other things as well.
It's a service pack.
It's a collection of new features and large improvements, as opposed to a bunch of bug fixes and features that should have been there in the first place (like XP SP2's firewall). Not a service pack.
It's a pro slot, used by pros, to connect pro kit - usually high end audio, video and storage. Remind me of the branding of this product again... oh yeah, pro!
But not by very many pros according to Apple. Seems sort of like how Apple chopped the number of expansion slots in half back in the day - a small number of users were pissed, but life went on. You do have a good point on the number of USB slots though.
I can't believe a reasonable viewer would come to your conclusion. The UI changes/improvements between Vista and Windows 7 are much larger than the UI changes between Leopard and Snow Leopard. They're comparable to the UI changes between typical OS X releases like Panther and Tiger.
Makes perfect sense, once you flip it 180 degrees. Windows 7 is a fix for the shit sandwich that was Vista.
As a side note, has Obama actually done anything he said he would do? Has Obama done anything that McCain didn't say he would do? Has Obama given any speeches where he didn't steal from Bush?
Yeah, uh, hi, great post, and I just want to know, do you find it helpful to keep your head up your rear end? I mean, why when you're posting? It seems that talking you want to have your head, you know, out and in the open air so you can see what you're doing. I mean, is it comfortable, or is it for the warmth, or what?
You're right, it's not "insightful". It's "blindingly obvious reality". Torture, domestic spying that would have gotten Clinton shot, going from a budget surplus to doubling the debt to $10 trillion, lied us into a war, destoyed the economy, etc. And the Republic party supported him every step of the way.
...so this is even more pathetic. But then this is the same Hatch that helped block 60 of Clintons judicial nominees, only to have his party threaten to blow up the Senate if the Democrats didn't give an "upordown" vote for all of Bushs nominees. Now of course that a Dem is back in the White House, the GOP is threatening to filibuster Obamas picks before he's even made them.
Corporate income tax is like any other cost of production
Except of course that an income tax is a tax on profit, and thus is not a "cost of production" like say, an increase in the cost of oil. And products and services are already set to maximize revenue, or charge as much as the market will bear - so if companies would make more money by increasing their prices, they would have gone ahead and done so already.
But let's be honest here. It is the university's network, even if you are semi-footing the bill, and they get to decide network policy rules.
But as a public university, there are sharp limits what rules they may impose. See: the Bill of Rights. Just because you live in a dorm doesn't mean you give up your rights to due process or being secure in your person, papers & effects.
if their students are constantly getting DMCA notices, the university might get into trouble.
Or...not. The whole point of DMCA notices is that the ISP has immunity as long as the content is taken offline. Zero liability for the university, zero trouble.
So of course they block limewire, not like it has a legitimate use anyways.
Of course it has legitimate uses, just like any other P2P network.
Simply put, their network, their rules.
Garbage, see above. If you want to be an ankle grabber for authoritarians, knock yourself out. But don't be a WATB when the rest of us stand up for our rights.
More cute wishful thinking. See: health care. Socialized medicine provides better care for less money. Which is of course not to say that that government is always better than private enterprise, it's to say that believing that one is invariably superior to the other is just drinking a different flavor of Kool Aid.
It was almost the end of the work day for the young workers at the corner of Greene Street and Washington Place in New York City on March 26, 1911. Spring had been cool that year, and those getting ready to leave slid into coats and put on their hats. Most of the workers employed by the firm of Harris & Blanck worked a different shift and went home at noon, but there were still six hundred workers -- 500 women and 100 men -- packed into the top three floors of the factory. Most of them were immigrants from Italy, Germany, or Eastern Europe. The majority of them were under the age of 16. For ten hours or more a day they bent over tightly packed rows of sewing machines and worked with their fingers to make the factory's signature product -- shirtwaists. Their shift ended at 4:45.
At 4:40, someone noticed the first touch of smoke.
Within half an hour, flames consumed the top three floors of the "fire proof" building. Many of the workers on the eighth floor were able to escape down the steps, so were some of those working on nine. Students next door at New York University saw what was happening and helped to save hundreds who reached the roof. Then the flames cut off that route. Soon those that remained were huddled next to the windows of those top three floors. As the flames closed in on them, one after another, they jumped.
Along the sidewalks of Broadway, thousands cried and screamed in horror as the scorched bodies of women -- girls, really -- tore through inadequate fire safety nets, smashed though glass awnings, and thudded into the street. Sobbing children with their clothing and hair on fire leaped for safety ladders that stopped two stories below their windows.
Fueled by miles of hanging fabric, wooden tables, and machine oil, the fire that started five minutes before the end of the shift burned out almost before firemen could get inside. It left the building intact, the walls only scorched. The bodies left behind were barely recognizable as human. 141 people died, hundreds more were injured.
***
And that's how we lost our freedom. Not our freedom of speech or any of our individual rights to assemble or worship as we please, to live where we want. That's where we lost the freedom of the marketplace, the freedom of the Ayn Randian dream. Actually, it goes even further back than that. When the nation was formed, those founding fathers made the "the American compromise," recognizing that the marketplace should advance under government supervision. This has always been a place where the government has stepped in to stop excess and address needs. And yes, conservatives have been whining from day one.
You're not convinced the free market wouldn't do a better job? The entire reason we have oversight, regulation and unions is because we already tried the free market and it was an absolute disaster for pretty much anyone who wasn't a top business executive.
How about taxing carbon emissions, and letting the market figure things out?
Because by itself, taxing emissions is a rather poor solution to the problem:
1) It's reactive, not proactive 2) If a high gas tax is part of the package, it will be highly regressive
And when you've already broken the free-market cherry with a sin tax on carbon, why not skip the fiddle farting around with incentives or "public-private partnerships", and Just Do It Already:
Barack Obama's bold, ambitious budget plan proves that he is the true heir of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. Consider Obama's Rooseveltian energy plan. In 1939, President Roosevelt decided to mobilize Americans to create a new source of energy: atomic power. Although he was urged to focus on government-funded R&D, FDR chose a different route. He wisely encouraged private capital to invest in atomic energy research by a variety of tax incentives. To make atomic power investment more palatable to private capital, FDR boldly chose to make all other forms of energy in the U.S. uneconomical, by slapping high taxes on kerosene and coal. With the money from the new federal Kerosene Cap and Trade system, President Roosevelt and Congress funded a small-scale federal research program, in the hope of attracting much greater private investment...
Wait. What's that you say? FDR didn't do that? He poured federal money into the all-public Manhattan Project and created the first atomic bomb in a couple of years? He didn't tax kerosene to make it uneconomical and to encourage private investment in atomic power?
Oh. OK. Never mind.
But what about Social Security? In 1935, FDR signed the historic Social Security Act. It created a complex "retirement mandate" system, forcing all elderly Americans to buy expensive annuities from private insurance companies, without, however, imposing price controls on the insurance companies...
What? FDR didn't force the elderly to subsidize private annuity brokers? He imposed a single, simple, efficient tax to pay for a single, simple, efficient public system of retirement benefits?
All right, then, forget FDR. He was a socialist, anyway. Let Dwight Eisenhower serve as a model for the Obama administration. President Eisenhower authorized the biggest infrastructure program in American history, when he signed the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956. The interstate highway act created an elaborate system of private tax incentives and public-private partnerships (PPPs) to encourage private corporations to build national highways. To begin with, all U.S. highways were leased to domestic and foreign corporations for a period of decades. Second, all U.S. highways were set up with toll booths, so that American drivers would be forced to repay the corporate owners of the national highways every few dozen miles. Finally, a system of high-speed lanes with higher tolls was created, so that the rich could whiz down the road while middle-class and poor Americans were stuck in traffic jams...
I wholly disagree. I think the suburban design is very close to being a system of capillaries needed to support the arteries.
But it's predicated on unlimited land, unlimited materials, and unlimited energy. So even if you can buy a car in 10 years that uses Mr. Fusion, you're still going to run into the first two problems with suburbs.
It seems that the only way the U.S. can press forward with improved rail service would be following the utter collapse of other modes of transport.
It would also help if the U.S. could wean itself from the corporate cock and get back into investing in the public sector. For example, single payer health care provides better care for less money yet that option is being ignored by the Senate. Instead we get half assed, wishy washy "public-private partnership" crap. Salon had a nice editorial on the subject a while back:
Barack Obama's bold, ambitious budget plan proves that he is the true heir of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. Consider Obama's Rooseveltian energy plan. In 1939, President Roosevelt decided to mobilize Americans to create a new source of energy: atomic power. Although he was urged to focus on government-funded R&D, FDR chose a different route. He wisely encouraged private capital to invest in atomic energy research by a variety of tax incentives. To make atomic power investment more palatable to private capital, FDR boldly chose to make all other forms of energy in the U.S. uneconomical, by slapping high taxes on kerosene and coal. With the money from the new federal Kerosene Cap and Trade system, President Roosevelt and Congress funded a small-scale federal research program, in the hope of attracting much greater private investment...
Wait. What's that you say? FDR didn't do that? He poured federal money into the all-public Manhattan Project and created the first atomic bomb in a couple of years? He didn't tax kerosene to make it uneconomical and to encourage private investment in atomic power?
Oh. OK. Never mind.
But what about Social Security? In 1935, FDR signed the historic Social Security Act. It created a complex "retirement mandate" system, forcing all elderly Americans to buy expensive annuities from private insurance companies, without, however, imposing price controls on the insurance companies...
What? FDR didn't force the elderly to subsidize private annuity brokers? He imposed a single, simple, efficient tax to pay for a single, simple, efficient public system of retirement benefits?
All right, then, forget FDR. He was a socialist, anyway. Let Dwight Eisenhower serve as a model for the Obama administration. President Eisenhower authorized the biggest infrastructure program in American history, when he signed the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956. The interstate highway act created an elaborate system of private tax incentives and public-private partnerships (PPPs) to encourage private corporations to build national highways. To begin with, all U.S. highways were leased to domestic and foreign corporations for a period of decades. Second, all U.S. highways were set up with toll booths, so that American drivers would be forced to repay the corporate owners of the national highways every few dozen miles. Finally, a system of high-speed lanes with higher tolls was created, so that the rich could whiz down the road while middle-class and poor Americans were stuck in traffic jams...
Hundreds of cases are 11 on what planet? You're (conveniently) ignoring the facts that the Supreme Court only hears cases they are likely to modify or overturn, and that Sotomayor's overturn rate is lower than average.
Haven't read them either, I see.
I don't have to, I'm not the one nominating her nor am I on the Senate Judiciary Committee. But I also don't have to read them to point out the fact that you're making random, empty complaints. Why not save yourself some time and just use the complaint letter generator?
Something is happening here, and I'm getting a little worried. As a preliminary, I want to work together in an atmosphere of friendship and hope. Even Hon. Sonia Sotomayor's apple-polishers are afraid that Hon. Sotomayor will paint pictures of headlong worlds inhabited by uncivilized used-car salesmen one of these days. I have seen their fear manifested over and over again and it is further evidence that relative even to infernal urban guerrillas, Hon. Sotomayor is more excitable, more violent, less sexually restrained, more impulsive, more prone to crime, less altruistic, less inclined to follow rules, and less cooperative. And here, I claim, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in Hon. Sotomayor's memoranda.
No one can deny that Hon. Sotomayor's ability to acquire power and use it to indoctrinate hostile trollops is astounding, yet Hon. Sotomayor's the type of person who will trump up any lie for the occasion, and the more of a thumper it is, the better she likes it. Hon. Sotomayor uses highfalutin terms like "hydrometallurgically" and "formaldehydesulphoxylic" to conceal her plans to force men to live by restrictive standards not applicable to women. In this scheme of hers, a mass of grandiloquent words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details. We become unable to see that you may make the comment, "What does this have to do with longiloquent numskulls?" Well, once you begin to see the light you'll realize that there is a proper place in life for hatred. Hatred of that which is wrong is a powerful and valuable tool. But when Hon. Sotomayor perverts hatred in order to propitiate mumpish jokers for later eventualities, it becomes clear that if you ever ask her to do something, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed.
Hon. Sotomayor's latest manifesto, like all the ones that preceded it, is a consummate anthology of disastrously bad writing teeming with misquotations and inaccuracies, an odyssey of anecdotes that are occasionally entertaining but certainly not informative. It may seem to many people, maybe even the majority, that Hon. Sotomayor has declared that she's staging a revolt against everyone who dares to defy her. Hon. Sotomayor's revolting all right; the very sight of her turns my stomach. All kidding aside, her bedfellows like to say, "The media should 'create' news rather than report it." Such frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. If someone wants me to believe something witless like that, that person will have to show me some concrete evidence. Meanwhile, I intend to show you that no matter what else we do, our first move must be to educate everyone about how Hon. Sotomayor needs a refill of her medication. That's the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also rub Hon. Sotomayor's nose in her own hypocrisy. To reiterate the main message of this letter, Hon. Sonia Sotomayor's commitment to immoralism is only part of the story.
Oh, and as for the comparison with Scalia, I don't like him very much either. He too often allows his conservative, federalist leanings to influence his decisions, even when his claimed originalist/textualist philosophy indicates otherwise.
I made the Scalia comparison because he's supposed to be the brilliant, if arch-conservative, jurist on the court.
He's not rigorous enough and his arguments often contain puzzling contradictions that make it difficult for lower courts to decide how to read his opinions.
Because he's a partisan hack in a justice's clothing, that's why.
Your complaint was very stupid, yes. Then you decided to take the stupid up to 11, to the point where it makes my hair hurt:
Of course they should pay the rent on the land they use. What has that got to do with the issue here which is this: does the fact that companies use public infrastructure like roads etc give the government unlimited power to control how those companies should run their business? If the government says this: you lay your cables through public property, therefore we can decide how you set your prices, then why shouldn't it say this: you run your trucks on public roads therefore we can decide how you set your prices.
Public roads are built by the public (at immense cost) for the public's use. Teleco wires have been laid by the telecos (with large subsidies from the government) across public land for free and if necessary over private land through the use of eminent domain. The obvious point is that if Time Warner wants to continue to raise their profits ($4+ billion) while spending a pittance on infrastructure (less than $100 million) while unilaterally changing the terms of sale after the fact (overages and caps), then they can damn well start paying handsome amounts of rent on the land that those wires run across. And pay back the subsidies they were given.
That's the slippery slope I was talking about.
You don't have a slippery slope, you have a pack of red herring.
How do you know? German laws are weaker in that regard to begin with, and there have been plenty of cases over the last half century...Are you joking? Germany committed such horrendous crimes against humanity in WWII that for decades, the international community simply wasn't willing to let the German military operate independently.
The obvious context was present day, you twit, not something that was over with by the time our president's mother was 3 years old. And not only are we comparing molehills (Germany banning violent video games) to mountains (torture being official U.S. policy), civil liberties are supposed to be the bedrock for our country, not so with Germany.
No, it sounds like your being a partisan troll, looking for things to get angry at.
Sounds like you're projecting. With a cannon.
I stated multiple times in this thread that I have nothing against her
You've also stated empty complaints multiple ways:
The real problem, she was selected for what she is, not who she is or how she ruled...
I worry about this too.
I worry because this isn't why you should pick anyone, ever.
And of course...
My main beef with the whole issue is the "diversity for the sake of diversity" thing.
1) Good thing that's a straw man and 2) even then, what exactly is wrong with wanting a court that looks like the United States when the candidate is highly qualified? And even if Sotomayor is confirmed, the Supreme Court will still be 66% white men.
So if there was a racial or sexual discrimination case in front of the court, she would be able to interpret and apply the law better than a male or white judge?
Read the damned speech and not just the soundbite stripped of all context - which was that well respected, intelligent, justices who happened to be old white men made some atrocious discrimination decisions. Saying that a "wise Latina" could (not would, could) could make better decisions in these cases should be no more controversial than Laurence Lessig stating that a lawyer versed in intellectual property issues could make better copyright decisions than a justice who didn't have that experience.
She'd may be able to empathize better with a victim of such discrimination, but that does not qualify her for the position.
Right - it's not her top academic honors from top universities nor her bench experience (more than any nominee in 100 years) that made Obama pick her, it's because she's a female minority.
Those whining about Sotomoayor's "racism" and her being an "affirmative action pick" are projecting their own asinine views into the story. With a cannon.
At least Germany isn't spying on it's own citizens in blatant violation of its own constitution, or in the habit of torturing people, or holding people in jail without trials - even people we know for a fact to be innocent, and insisting that top officials never be held accountable for war crimes.
The U.S. has a far bigger problem with democracy than Germany does.
I worry because this isn't why you should pick anyone, ever.
A top notch academic record and more bench experience than any nominee in 100 years aren't reasons to pick someone?
Though just being smart and experienced isn't enough to be a Justice, there are TONS of smart and experienced judges out there, but only a handful can rise to the top.
This isn't Highlander; there really Can Be More Than One.
That said, I still have no clue if she is qualified
Can you name another nominee by any president at any time in our history that had a better resume at the time of their nomination?
I'm not arguing that she isn't qualified.
No, it sounds like you've fallen for empty concern trolling.
Slashdot Mirror
Even their own marketing calls it "fine tuning".
And your point is...? They call it a lot of other things as well.
It's a service pack.
It's a collection of new features and large improvements, as opposed to a bunch of bug fixes and features that should have been there in the first place (like XP SP2's firewall). Not a service pack.
It's a pro slot, used by pros, to connect pro kit - usually high end audio, video and storage. Remind me of the branding of this product again... oh yeah, pro!
But not by very many pros according to Apple. Seems sort of like how Apple chopped the number of expansion slots in half back in the day - a small number of users were pissed, but life went on. You do have a good point on the number of USB slots though.
I can't believe a reasonable viewer would come to your conclusion. The UI changes/improvements between Vista and Windows 7 are much larger than the UI changes between Leopard and Snow Leopard. They're comparable to the UI changes between typical OS X releases like Panther and Tiger.
Makes perfect sense, once you flip it 180 degrees. Windows 7 is a fix for the shit sandwich that was Vista.
Historically Apple has cared a lot more about looks than functionality.
Historically that's been heavy concern trolling.
Sphincter says what? Where was he talking about infringing copyrights, jackass?
As a side note, has Obama actually done anything he said he would do? Has Obama done anything that McCain didn't say he would do? Has Obama given any speeches where he didn't steal from Bush?
Yeah, uh, hi, great post, and I just want to know, do you find it helpful to keep your head up your rear end? I mean, why when you're posting? It seems that talking you want to have your head, you know, out and in the open air so you can see what you're doing. I mean, is it comfortable, or is it for the warmth, or what?
/checks record for the last decade
You're right, it's not "insightful". It's "blindingly obvious reality". Torture, domestic spying that would have gotten Clinton shot, going from a budget surplus to doubling the debt to $10 trillion, lied us into a war, destoyed the economy, etc. And the Republic party supported him every step of the way.
...so this is even more pathetic. But then this is the same Hatch that helped block 60 of Clintons judicial nominees, only to have his party threaten to blow up the Senate if the Democrats didn't give an "upordown" vote for all of Bushs nominees. Now of course that a Dem is back in the White House, the GOP is threatening to filibuster Obamas picks before he's even made them.
...oh, wait. This Orrin Hatch, who.voted for the DMCA along with the rest of the Gopasaurs. Both parties suck on IP issues.
Corporate income tax is like any other cost of production
Except of course that an income tax is a tax on profit, and thus is not a "cost of production" like say, an increase in the cost of oil. And products and services are already set to maximize revenue, or charge as much as the market will bear - so if companies would make more money by increasing their prices, they would have gone ahead and done so already.
But let's be honest here. It is the university's network, even if you are semi-footing the bill, and they get to decide network policy rules.
But as a public university, there are sharp limits what rules they may impose. See: the Bill of Rights. Just because you live in a dorm doesn't mean you give up your rights to due process or being secure in your person, papers & effects.
if their students are constantly getting DMCA notices, the university might get into trouble.
Or...not. The whole point of DMCA notices is that the ISP has immunity as long as the content is taken offline. Zero liability for the university, zero trouble.
So of course they block limewire, not like it has a legitimate use anyways.
Of course it has legitimate uses, just like any other P2P network.
Simply put, their network, their rules.
Garbage, see above. If you want to be an ankle grabber for authoritarians, knock yourself out. But don't be a WATB when the rest of us stand up for our rights.
More cute wishful thinking. See: health care. Socialized medicine provides better care for less money. Which is of course not to say that that government is always better than private enterprise, it's to say that believing that one is invariably superior to the other is just drinking a different flavor of Kool Aid.
I am not convinced that market forces would not have addressed pollution issues in a way that was as good or better than the one we chose.
Then I suggest you take a break from planning your Libertarian vacation and try reading some history:
You're not convinced the free market wouldn't do a better job? The entire reason we have oversight, regulation and unions is because we already tried the free market and it was an absolute disaster for pretty much anyone who wasn't a top business executive.
How about taxing carbon emissions, and letting the market figure things out?
Because by itself, taxing emissions is a rather poor solution to the problem:
1) It's reactive, not proactive
2) If a high gas tax is part of the package, it will be highly regressive
And when you've already broken the free-market cherry with a sin tax on carbon, why not skip the fiddle farting around with incentives or "public-private partnerships", and Just Do It Already:
I wholly disagree. I think the suburban design is very close to being a system of capillaries needed to support the arteries.
But it's predicated on unlimited land, unlimited materials, and unlimited energy. So even if you can buy a car in 10 years that uses Mr. Fusion, you're still going to run into the first two problems with suburbs.
It seems that the only way the U.S. can press forward with improved rail service would be following the utter collapse of other modes of transport.
It would also help if the U.S. could wean itself from the corporate cock and get back into investing in the public sector. For example, single payer health care provides better care for less money yet that option is being ignored by the Senate. Instead we get half assed, wishy washy "public-private partnership" crap. Salon had a nice editorial on the subject a while back:
Nope. It's 2009 and still no one gives a shit about WankVorbis or WankBox.
Then it's recording, not tapping. Refer to the nearest dictionary.
4 of 11 is 1-2% on what planet?
Hundreds of cases are 11 on what planet? You're (conveniently) ignoring the facts that the Supreme Court only hears cases they are likely to modify or overturn, and that Sotomayor's overturn rate is lower than average.
Haven't read them either, I see.
I don't have to, I'm not the one nominating her nor am I on the Senate Judiciary Committee. But I also don't have to read them to point out the fact that you're making random, empty complaints. Why not save yourself some time and just use the complaint letter generator?
Oh, and as for the comparison with Scalia, I don't like him very much either. He too often allows his conservative, federalist leanings to influence his decisions, even when his claimed originalist/textualist philosophy indicates otherwise.
I made the Scalia comparison because he's supposed to be the brilliant, if arch-conservative, jurist on the court.
He's not rigorous enough and his arguments often contain puzzling contradictions that make it difficult for lower courts to decide how to read his opinions.
Because he's a partisan hack in a justice's clothing, that's why.
What a stupid thing to say.
Your complaint was very stupid, yes. Then you decided to take the stupid up to 11, to the point where it makes my hair hurt:
Of course they should pay the rent on the land they use. What has that got to do with the issue here which is this: does the fact that companies use public infrastructure like roads etc give the government unlimited power to control how those companies should run their business? If the government says this: you lay your cables through public property, therefore we can decide how you set your prices, then why shouldn't it say this: you run your trucks on public roads therefore we can decide how you set your prices.
Public roads are built by the public (at immense cost) for the public's use. Teleco wires have been laid by the telecos (with large subsidies from the government) across public land for free and if necessary over private land through the use of eminent domain. The obvious point is that if Time Warner wants to continue to raise their profits ($4+ billion) while spending a pittance on infrastructure (less than $100 million) while unilaterally changing the terms of sale after the fact (overages and caps), then they can damn well start paying handsome amounts of rent on the land that those wires run across. And pay back the subsidies they were given.
That's the slippery slope I was talking about.
You don't have a slippery slope, you have a pack of red herring.
How do you know? German laws are weaker in that regard to begin with, and there have been plenty of cases over the last half century...Are you joking? Germany committed such horrendous crimes against humanity in WWII that for decades, the international community simply wasn't willing to let the German military operate independently.
The obvious context was present day, you twit, not something that was over with by the time our president's mother was 3 years old. And not only are we comparing molehills (Germany banning violent video games) to mountains (torture being official U.S. policy), civil liberties are supposed to be the bedrock for our country, not so with Germany.
No, it sounds like your being a partisan troll, looking for things to get angry at.
Sounds like you're projecting. With a cannon.
I stated multiple times in this thread that I have nothing against her
You've also stated empty complaints multiple ways:
And of course...
My main beef with the whole issue is the "diversity for the sake of diversity" thing.
1) Good thing that's a straw man and 2) even then, what exactly is wrong with wanting a court that looks like the United States when the candidate is highly qualified? And even if Sotomayor is confirmed, the Supreme Court will still be 66% white men.
So if there was a racial or sexual discrimination case in front of the court, she would be able to interpret and apply the law better than a male or white judge?
Read the damned speech and not just the soundbite stripped of all context - which was that well respected, intelligent, justices who happened to be old white men made some atrocious discrimination decisions. Saying that a "wise Latina" could (not would, could) could make better decisions in these cases should be no more controversial than Laurence Lessig stating that a lawyer versed in intellectual property issues could make better copyright decisions than a justice who didn't have that experience.
She'd may be able to empathize better with a victim of such discrimination, but that does not qualify her for the position.
Right - it's not her top academic honors from top universities nor her bench experience (more than any nominee in 100 years) that made Obama pick her, it's because she's a female minority.
Those whining about Sotomoayor's "racism" and her being an "affirmative action pick" are projecting their own asinine views into the story. With a cannon.
Right, people just come out of the womb stabbing and biting everything in sight.
Straw man. The rest of your post is a giant non sequitor.
Stop blaming shit on genetics just because it frees you of responsibility for your community.
People aren't interested in violence and sex because of media, violent media are made because people are interested by violence and sex.
At least Germany isn't spying on it's own citizens in blatant violation of its own constitution, or in the habit of torturing people, or holding people in jail without trials - even people we know for a fact to be innocent, and insisting that top officials never be held accountable for war crimes.
The U.S. has a far bigger problem with democracy than Germany does.
I worry because this isn't why you should pick anyone, ever.
A top notch academic record and more bench experience than any nominee in 100 years aren't reasons to pick someone?
Though just being smart and experienced isn't enough to be a Justice, there are TONS of smart and experienced judges out there, but only a handful can rise to the top.
This isn't Highlander; there really Can Be More Than One.
That said, I still have no clue if she is qualified
Can you name another nominee by any president at any time in our history that had a better resume at the time of their nomination?
I'm not arguing that she isn't qualified.
No, it sounds like you've fallen for empty concern trolling.