All I found on google was mention of Lockheed using this tech for military equipment, and a different company having license to use the tech for vehicles. Nothing on using it for storing energy on the national power grid.
Sounds like more evidence that we need to develop large scale commercial batteries, or capacitors to store the energy generated during lulls in demand. Their is also the wind/wave/solar generating facilites poping up like weeds that are inherently inconsistent in their energy generating capacity.
I live in Indiana and their are articles once a week it seems about all the new wind turbines going up in Northern Indiana. Less of those peak generators would be needed if we could store the energy generated at night or in moderate weather for use during peak hours.
If they have firewire accessories, then they already have a firewire equiped computer. If they really need a firewire port, they can continue using what they have and wait for a refresh that includes a firewire port. If they NEED to upgrade to a newer computer, both the plastic macbook and the cheepest MBP have firewire ports.
Does it suck if that particular machine falls into your price/performance sweatspot? YES. Is it a reason to jump OS's and pay to replace all of the DV editing software that they use with their firewire periferals? NO.
If apple were to pull firewire off of ALL their hardware, then this freaking out would be justified because they'd be denying any option to use a technology that they originally encouraged us all to use.
Only scientists are willing to admit that the don't know everything, and that what they believe at the moment may turn out to be wrong. Besides the battle isn't between science and religion. The battle is between arrogant fundamentalists that want you to believe what they believe because they said so, and everyone else that want and deserve the right to seek answers they find more satisfactory.
Most of the scientists I know (I'm a college grad student, so everyone I work with) are very devout christians. Science and religion are aimed at answering 2 different questions. Science asks primarily "How" while religion attempts to answer "Why?"
I completely agree. My parents are from the tail end of the baby boom and while they raised us to believe that personal accountability is paramount, most of their friends raised children that believe the world owes them a living. If I wrecked my car it was my problem and I had to pay for it (both originally and to fix it). I had friends who's parents bought them brand new cars 3 times in less than 5 years because the kept crashing them while drunk or high. Their parents did everything to help their child avoid the consequences of their actions, while mine made me pay for my own lawyer and court fee's when I got busted for underage drinking.
I am truly ashamed that my generation will be the first to leave the country in a worse state than what they received.
I take this to mean you are a baby boomer, and I appreciate that at least some boomers realize that the world will continue to exist after they're gone.
Could you tell me where that is on a mac? I knew it was probably possible, but didn't believe that anyone was actually that stupid, so I've never looked for it.
It is exceedingly easy to win arguments when you give yourself the authority to throw out half of the evidence because it is "inconvenient" to the point you are trying to make
I own a MBP with upgraded ram and internal HD, 2 external HD's, a second monitor, and bluetooth mouse. The only thinks I can't upgrade are the primary monitor, the processor since it's soldered in place, and keyboard since it is attached (can use a second bluetooth or USB keyboard if I choose).
I agree that Apple has a huge gaping whole in the middle of their desktop offering that I would be in the market for, but to say that the Laptops and iMac's lack expansion is stupid. You have your opinion on power and price and your free to it, but it doesn't give anyone the right to violate their EULA and make a midrange Hackintosh.
Women were not eligible to receive patents in the early U.S., and Greene may have asked Whitney to obtain it for her.
not that patents are bad, but that she was ineligible to patent it herself. Besides if you are going to lift text from Wikipedia without citation, try doing so and maintaining context. The rest of that section goes on to indicate that Whitney did invent the Cotton Gin.
While the Watkins story had some romantic adherents, and still others have credited Hodgson Holmes, later publication of certain of Whitney's papers, including letters to his family during the invention process, showed the claims to be lacking foundation.
Many people attempted to develop a design that would process short staple cotton and Holmes was indeed issued a patent for an "Improvement in the Cotton Gin". However, the evidence indicates that Whitney did invent the saw gin, for which he is famous. Although he spent many years in court attempting to enforce his patent against planters who made unauthorized copies, a change in patent law ultimately made his claim legally enforceableâ"too late for him to make much money off of the device in the single year remaining before patent expiration.[3]
I'm sorry, that's just ignorant. I'll concede the point that we have too many lawyers, but to say that inventors never benefit from patents is myopic.
Eli Whitney invented the Cotton Gin but since patent laws were weak at the time he actually made very little money off of an innovation that revolutionized the textile industry by making cotton much cheaper to produce and much more widely used in manufacturing as a result. Even with the weak patent system at the time, we was eventually able to enforce his patent and get some money from those that were producing rip Cotton Gin's without license.
I agree that the patent system is currently doing more harm than good in many cases, but that doesn't mean it does no good. I think the major points that need to be revised are a shortening of the protection period, Automatic rejection of patents that are vague, a reasonable limit on the amount of time between opening of the patent application and finishing the submission, and a return to previous situation where software and business methods could not be patented.
I participate in the two party system because it's virtually impossible for our current system to do anything if their were to be a strong 3rd party. Too many of the rules and regulations concerning how the government conducts it's business are based on the assumption of only 2 parties. The Electoral college, the offices within the house and senate (Majority and Minority leaders), % of the vote required for elections and passage of laws, etc. all assume that there is one party with a > 50% majority.
What we need to do is make modifications where it's obvious that assumption was made, such that it becomes possible to pass legislation, elect officials, and run the government with more than 2 strong parties. The Parlimentary Democracy often has 2 or 3 major parties and a much greater proportion of smaller alternative parties that remain viable, because in most years a consensus gonvernment needs to be formed between at least 2 parties in order to get the necessary majorities.
I'm not saying that we need to change to a parlamentary system, I'm sure it has it's own major flaws, but IMHO revision is possible within the current system without having to throw it out.
I have a motorola Razor that I bought a year or 2 ago and it only gets the text internet. No full web pages, no images or video. We added a new line about 9 months ago for my father in law. His phone gets the same cut down internet.
Now maybe the majority of phones available now get the "full" internet, but I've never owned a phone that did, and within the last year purchased a phone that doesn't. In fact, no member of my immediate family has a phone capable of viewing standard web pages (~10 phones). Most of the phones are older (doesn't discredit them though, not everyone runs out and replaces their phone with the latest and greatest every year), but some of them are less than a year old. This leads me to believe that the majority of phones currently being used (installed base) are WAP-only phones.
I may be wrong and YMMV, but I believe that it was those people with cut rate internet access on their phones that the ad was designed to target.
I wasn't trying to discount other smart phones. It's just that most people (from what I've seen and heard) that make the switch to an iPhone are upgrading not from smart phones, but so called "feature phones" that only get the red-headed step child version
I think that the problem here stems from what Apple thought people would interpret the phrase "whole internet" to mean. They probably thought it implied that you get the regular internet, not the red-headed step child of the internet that most web enabled phones get (Not talking about most smart phones here). That claim is fairly well founded. The group that made the ruling (not the government according to some here) had a different interpretation of that line. The question is which was is more acurate for the most people (us geeks not withstanding).
How is this any different than any of the PlaysForSure unlimited download, rental services, other than being potentially regulated by the government (that'll fix it!)?
These services have failed individually repeatedly, but now because we give it a new name I'm supposed to want to rent my music from my ISP instead of Napster, et al.?
I can point out examples affecting the Democrats as well. My grandfather was forced to retire early because of lung and liver failure due to 40+ years of heavy smoking and drinking. Shortly after he retired the Democrats (don't remember if it was state or federal rule) instituted a law that meant his now fixed income as a retiree was taxed, retroactively for something on the order of 5 years. No you tell me how that makes them the "Party of the People" as I had been told by teachers and believed them to be at the time.
I'm a member of the Republican party because I believe in Many, although not all of the philosophies they espouse and I want to vote in their primaries. I know that they don't always deliver, but being a part of their party and voting in their primaries is the only way I can pick which members of the party end up being eligible for high office. I can't, in good conscience, vote in the Democratic primaries because none of their candidates even pretend to agree with my political point of view on the issues that matter most to me. I agree that there are many Republican politicians that don't stick to what gets them elected, but that problem is an epidemic afflicting both parties and is a major reason why most of the electorate doesn't belong to either party.
Voting for federal officials (House, Senate, President) long ago became the choice between the lesser of two evils. I don't like it but I also didn't create the situation. While I can expect any candidate to go back on at least some of their campaign promises*, but a Republican is more likely than a Democrat to keep the promises most important to me. I gave examples previously, where I don't agree with the party line, but I diverge further from the Democratic party line. You want to show me a party that fits my beliefs better, and has a chance of winning major elections, and I'll jump parties in a heartbeat. Until then I'll be forced to vote for the best candidate available, regardless of party, and participate in the primaries for the party that is the best fit.
That's why Darby's responses were so flustering and incomprehensible. No politician I've known has ever kept all of their promises and voting outside of the 2 main parties is equivalent to throwing away your vote in Senatorial and Presidential elections. I pointed out that I'm from MA. What I didn't say was that, as a result I've actually voted for more Dem's over the years than Republicans because I'm not an ideologue. If the incumbent is a Dem and I had no problem with their job execution, then I didn't vote for an unproven Republican just because we shared the same party affiliation. If you check some of Darby's other posts in other threads, you'll see that his ferver isn't reserved for Republicans in the current administration. It doesn't even appear to be reserved for Republicans. He's decided that the "sins" of the few, make those who may have been duped, worthy of no individual consideration and deserving of the kind of hateful thought and rhetoric normally reserved by hate groups for whomever it is they gather together to hate.
I don't pretend to know all of the answers, I don't pretend that all of my beliefs are correct, but I do know for a fact that the dehumanization of those that disagree with you is the first step down the path toward extremism and Darby appears to be sprinting down that path with his eyes closed.
And as to the "Cherry Picking", Everyone does that. No voter out there has ever found a politician that agrees with them 100% on every issue, unless the voter chose the politician 1st and political views 2nd (which is the case for many, though not even most, of Obama's newest supporters IMHO). As a result, all voters much choose which issues are most important to them and then vote accordingly, with the full knowledge that a) the politician is probably going to end up voting against their wishes in other topics b) The politician may vote against their wishes in the very topics t
I want to apologize, I just looked at several of your other posts in different topics. If you'd have told me up front that you hated all political parties and were a professional troll I wouldn't have bothered feeding you.
I'm flabbergasted, I don't even really know where to start!
Your "Facts" are not facts at all! They are assertions based loosely on actual facts in evidence, and more on conjecture and rhetoric.
If half of the country is conservative, then they can't be unamerican, becaase they are HALF OF AMERICA!
Religion, political opinion, and other perspectives that relate to world view are primarily influenced by the household someone grew up in. I gave examples of religious, and political persecution as well as racial persecution, and I didn't even mention sexual preference.
This to you means I'm a closet racist and trying to project those beliefs on you. Once again you are claiming knowledge not in evidence. My step father is part cherokee, my Mother's maiden name is Gonsalves, my wife is half Korean, and my biological father is 100% Polish (racial jokes about Pols were very common in my neighborhood growing up, and I kept my fathers heritage a secret for many years). I chose to work with a Nigerian professor for my MS and PhD in a lab where over 6 years I've worked with, and befriended 3 Nigerian, 2 Ghanaian, 1 Korean, and only 2 American graduate students. I've experienced the pain and suffering that is caused by prejudice in general and racism specifically, and will not accept it from anyone! So FUCK YOU YOU IGNORANT PRICK.
You are full of irrational hate for individuals that disagree with you. You want my opinion on political issues? ASK ME! Don't put words in my mouth, I'm more than capable of taking responsibility for expressing my own beliefs.
I don't judge individuals based on their religious/political/ethnic/sexual affiliations or preferences. YOU on the other hand do. Your judgement of me based solely on my statement of political affiliation is the definition of bigoted based on the definition supplied by Leopard.
bigoted |ËbigÉ(TM)tid|
adjective
obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions : a bigoted group of reactionaries.
â expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance : a thoughtless and bigoted article.
You claim that Republicans are the single biggest threat the to the safety of the US, yet Republicans make up the vast majority of those willing to lay down their lives to defend this country. My step-father served in the marines, both of my brothers and my uncle (mother's family) are currently serving in the military. Your free to say the hateful crap you spew because the military defends this country you claim to love so much and they are predominantly the Republicans you hate so much. I also abhor the use of torture, I have family in the military and fear any of them being taken captive and tortured because of the widespread evidence torture being used by the current administration.
You also claim that I support a Theocracy. I do not, the religious right is a much smaller portion of the party than the media makes it out to be. I haven't attended church in over 10 years if you discount the 7 or 8 weddings I've attended in that time. In fact, over the last 15 years I've made the transition from Believer, to Hopeful skeptic, to strong skeptic, to currently a borderline atheist. It is one of my biggest deviations from the part line, that I don't believe religion has any place in politics. I support Sex-ed and think Abstinence only programs are a recipe an explosion of teen pregnancy. While I support the rights children and teachers to pray at school if they choose, I don't believe their should be a formal moment for praying that others are forced to participate in. I agree whole heartedly that the US was founded by people looking for religious freedom, I'm originally from Massachusetts and grew up going to Plymouth rock every couple of years on field trips.
Being a Republican from Massachusetts impressed upon me the importance of political tolerance because I ran
I admit that my impression is probably due to my biased reading habits, but I make no assumptions as to the political sensitivity of the modding system. If, as I assert previously most slashdot members fall within a certain narrow range of the political spectrum, they will most likely mod up posts they agree with and mod down posts they disagree with.
The social security system is probably one of the biggest bureaucracies in the US government, and it's primarily the result of the Democrats. Besides, bureaucracies serve various valid and necessary purposes, one being to protect us from our own sometimes whimsical nature by making "change for the sake of change" more difficult. That being said, I don't have to like dealing with them when I think they are pushing their influence into areas where it doesn't belong. Hence, the sig.
1. My initial post is modded Flamebait because I assert that most posters to Slashdot are ultra Liberal.
2. It is pointed out to me that my impression of the general slant of Slashdot members is not accurate. (I wouldn't consider that flamebait, but that's just me)
3. In response to this correction, I admit that my impression is probably colored by my own tendency to focus on certain topics.
4. You vilify every person in the US who considers themselves conservative, which based on the last presidential election is roughly half of the people that bothered to get out and vote.
... And I am the "scumbag"?
This sort of hostile vilification of those "different from yourself" is the cornerstone of racism/anti-semitism/etc. that lead to political coup's, ethnic cleanings, civil war's, and further intolerance (those who were previously tolerant become intolerant as a defensive measure).
You're attaching everyone from a political party because of your dissatisfaction with the current administration. You have NO IDEA who I voted for in any election, unless of course you can read minds through the internet. You don't know whether or not I agree with any stance that the current administration has made, or whether I'm a member of the Republican party because or in spite of Bush.
Like most people I'm conservative on some issues and liberal on others. It's not so black/white as you are making the liberal/conservative issue out to be. I joined the Republican party 10 years ago because the issues that mattered most to me were best represented by the "general" platform of the party, not the platform of any individual politician.
I think you need to talk to a counselor about your hostility issues, maybe get a valium prescription, get laid, something because your reaction to my post was way over blown and disproportionate.
Maybe I'm just reading different posts than you are but I can't recall the last time I saw a post supporting a conservative view point that didn't get flamed.
I'm a registered Republican, so maybe I'm just focusing on the posts I agree with that get tarred and feathered, and the ones I strongly disagree with that keep getting modded +5 insightful.
That would be fine, except that people who shouldn't do that, will anyway to save a buck, they'll spend a lot of time on message boards like slashdot, and Apple's support forums slamming Apple for bad software when it turns out to be hardware issues. Tell me you haven't seen people do exactly that with windows or some of the more n00b targeted linux flavors. I have and I don't even go to windows or linux support boards.
I've spent the last 10 years listening to ignorant IT people, home assemblers, friends, family, etc. spouting off about reasons they won't give Apple a try that haven't been true for most of those 10 years.
The one place where almost no one disagrees is that Apple has superior customer support. If they start offering lisences without support options I'll have one more "Well I heard... so I think Apple Sux!" FUD bullet point to have to get through before I can either get them to stop pestering me or get them to at least look at Apple before deciding against it.
Ultimately I believe this is more of the "Microsoft's business model is the only business model" BS that's been parroted around for the last 15 years or so. It's complete and utter nonsense! Apple doesn't need to become Microsoft to be successful. The fact that their market cap just surpassed Google is evidence of that. Now those people want to support a company trying to force them to adopt Microsoft's business model, at least in part, so that can either be validated when Apple continues to be successful because it means they were correct on that point. Or, they'll be validated if Apple fails, because they'll believe they were right when they said that Apple only succeeds because it's some sort of monopoly/niche OS/run by a man with a RDF/etc.
I know why I have such an investment in Apple success (I want to continue using their well designed products in the future). I don't have any clue why so many have such an investment in watching Apple fail, other than being able to say "I told you so!"
Slashdot Mirror
All I found on google was mention of Lockheed using this tech for military equipment, and a different company having license to use the tech for vehicles. Nothing on using it for storing energy on the national power grid.
Sounds like more evidence that we need to develop large scale commercial batteries, or capacitors to store the energy generated during lulls in demand. Their is also the wind/wave/solar generating facilites poping up like weeds that are inherently inconsistent in their energy generating capacity.
I live in Indiana and their are articles once a week it seems about all the new wind turbines going up in Northern Indiana. Less of those peak generators would be needed if we could store the energy generated at night or in moderate weather for use during peak hours.
If they have firewire accessories, then they already have a firewire equiped computer. If they really need a firewire port, they can continue using what they have and wait for a refresh that includes a firewire port. If they NEED to upgrade to a newer computer, both the plastic macbook and the cheepest MBP have firewire ports.
Does it suck if that particular machine falls into your price/performance sweatspot? YES. Is it a reason to jump OS's and pay to replace all of the DV editing software that they use with their firewire periferals? NO.
If apple were to pull firewire off of ALL their hardware, then this freaking out would be justified because they'd be denying any option to use a technology that they originally encouraged us all to use.
Only scientists are willing to admit that the don't know everything, and that what they believe at the moment may turn out to be wrong. Besides the battle isn't between science and religion. The battle is between arrogant fundamentalists that want you to believe what they believe because they said so, and everyone else that want and deserve the right to seek answers they find more satisfactory.
Most of the scientists I know (I'm a college grad student, so everyone I work with) are very devout christians. Science and religion are aimed at answering 2 different questions. Science asks primarily "How" while religion attempts to answer "Why?"
I completely agree. My parents are from the tail end of the baby boom and while they raised us to believe that personal accountability is paramount, most of their friends raised children that believe the world owes them a living. If I wrecked my car it was my problem and I had to pay for it (both originally and to fix it). I had friends who's parents bought them brand new cars 3 times in less than 5 years because the kept crashing them while drunk or high. Their parents did everything to help their child avoid the consequences of their actions, while mine made me pay for my own lawyer and court fee's when I got busted for underage drinking.
I am truly ashamed that my generation will be the first to leave the country in a worse state than what they received.
I take this to mean you are a baby boomer, and I appreciate that at least some boomers realize that the world will continue to exist after they're gone.
Could you tell me where that is on a mac? I knew it was probably possible, but didn't believe that anyone was actually that stupid, so I've never looked for it.
the iMacs and laptops don't count
It is exceedingly easy to win arguments when you give yourself the authority to throw out half of the evidence because it is "inconvenient" to the point you are trying to make
I own a MBP with upgraded ram and internal HD, 2 external HD's, a second monitor, and bluetooth mouse. The only thinks I can't upgrade are the primary monitor, the processor since it's soldered in place, and keyboard since it is attached (can use a second bluetooth or USB keyboard if I choose).
I agree that Apple has a huge gaping whole in the middle of their desktop offering that I would be in the market for, but to say that the Laptops and iMac's lack expansion is stupid. You have your opinion on power and price and your free to it, but it doesn't give anyone the right to violate their EULA and make a midrange Hackintosh.
Women were not eligible to receive patents in the early U.S., and Greene may have asked Whitney to obtain it for her.
not that patents are bad, but that she was ineligible to patent it herself. Besides if you are going to lift text from Wikipedia without citation, try doing so and maintaining context. The rest of that section goes on to indicate that Whitney did invent the Cotton Gin.
While the Watkins story had some romantic adherents, and still others have credited Hodgson Holmes, later publication of certain of Whitney's papers, including letters to his family during the invention process, showed the claims to be lacking foundation.
Many people attempted to develop a design that would process short staple cotton and Holmes was indeed issued a patent for an "Improvement in the Cotton Gin". However, the evidence indicates that Whitney did invent the saw gin, for which he is famous. Although he spent many years in court attempting to enforce his patent against planters who made unauthorized copies, a change in patent law ultimately made his claim legally enforceableâ"too late for him to make much money off of the device in the single year remaining before patent expiration.[3]
Wikipedia.org
I'm sorry, that's just ignorant. I'll concede the point that we have too many lawyers, but to say that inventors never benefit from patents is myopic.
Eli Whitney invented the Cotton Gin but since patent laws were weak at the time he actually made very little money off of an innovation that revolutionized the textile industry by making cotton much cheaper to produce and much more widely used in manufacturing as a result. Even with the weak patent system at the time, we was eventually able to enforce his patent and get some money from those that were producing rip Cotton Gin's without license.
I agree that the patent system is currently doing more harm than good in many cases, but that doesn't mean it does no good. I think the major points that need to be revised are a shortening of the protection period, Automatic rejection of patents that are vague, a reasonable limit on the amount of time between opening of the patent application and finishing the submission, and a return to previous situation where software and business methods could not be patented.
I participate in the two party system because it's virtually impossible for our current system to do anything if their were to be a strong 3rd party. Too many of the rules and regulations concerning how the government conducts it's business are based on the assumption of only 2 parties. The Electoral college, the offices within the house and senate (Majority and Minority leaders), % of the vote required for elections and passage of laws, etc. all assume that there is one party with a > 50% majority.
What we need to do is make modifications where it's obvious that assumption was made, such that it becomes possible to pass legislation, elect officials, and run the government with more than 2 strong parties. The Parlimentary Democracy often has 2 or 3 major parties and a much greater proportion of smaller alternative parties that remain viable, because in most years a consensus gonvernment needs to be formed between at least 2 parties in order to get the necessary majorities.
I'm not saying that we need to change to a parlamentary system, I'm sure it has it's own major flaws, but IMHO revision is possible within the current system without having to throw it out.
shill | sh il| informal noun an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.
I don't see him trying to sell anything to anyone, or advocate on behalf of another party.
I have a motorola Razor that I bought a year or 2 ago and it only gets the text internet. No full web pages, no images or video. We added a new line about 9 months ago for my father in law. His phone gets the same cut down internet.
Now maybe the majority of phones available now get the "full" internet, but I've never owned a phone that did, and within the last year purchased a phone that doesn't. In fact, no member of my immediate family has a phone capable of viewing standard web pages (~10 phones). Most of the phones are older (doesn't discredit them though, not everyone runs out and replaces their phone with the latest and greatest every year), but some of them are less than a year old. This leads me to believe that the majority of phones currently being used (installed base) are WAP-only phones.
I may be wrong and YMMV, but I believe that it was those people with cut rate internet access on their phones that the ad was designed to target.
I wasn't trying to discount other smart phones. It's just that most people (from what I've seen and heard) that make the switch to an iPhone are upgrading not from smart phones, but so called "feature phones" that only get the red-headed step child version
I think that the problem here stems from what Apple thought people would interpret the phrase "whole internet" to mean. They probably thought it implied that you get the regular internet, not the red-headed step child of the internet that most web enabled phones get (Not talking about most smart phones here). That claim is fairly well founded. The group that made the ruling (not the government according to some here) had a different interpretation of that line. The question is which was is more acurate for the most people (us geeks not withstanding).
How is this any different than any of the PlaysForSure unlimited download, rental services, other than being potentially regulated by the government (that'll fix it!)?
These services have failed individually repeatedly, but now because we give it a new name I'm supposed to want to rent my music from my ISP instead of Napster, et al.?
I can point out examples affecting the Democrats as well. My grandfather was forced to retire early because of lung and liver failure due to 40+ years of heavy smoking and drinking. Shortly after he retired the Democrats (don't remember if it was state or federal rule) instituted a law that meant his now fixed income as a retiree was taxed, retroactively for something on the order of 5 years. No you tell me how that makes them the "Party of the People" as I had been told by teachers and believed them to be at the time.
I'm a member of the Republican party because I believe in Many, although not all of the philosophies they espouse and I want to vote in their primaries. I know that they don't always deliver, but being a part of their party and voting in their primaries is the only way I can pick which members of the party end up being eligible for high office. I can't, in good conscience, vote in the Democratic primaries because none of their candidates even pretend to agree with my political point of view on the issues that matter most to me. I agree that there are many Republican politicians that don't stick to what gets them elected, but that problem is an epidemic afflicting both parties and is a major reason why most of the electorate doesn't belong to either party.
Voting for federal officials (House, Senate, President) long ago became the choice between the lesser of two evils. I don't like it but I also didn't create the situation. While I can expect any candidate to go back on at least some of their campaign promises*, but a Republican is more likely than a Democrat to keep the promises most important to me. I gave examples previously, where I don't agree with the party line, but I diverge further from the Democratic party line. You want to show me a party that fits my beliefs better, and has a chance of winning major elections, and I'll jump parties in a heartbeat. Until then I'll be forced to vote for the best candidate available, regardless of party, and participate in the primaries for the party that is the best fit.
That's why Darby's responses were so flustering and incomprehensible. No politician I've known has ever kept all of their promises and voting outside of the 2 main parties is equivalent to throwing away your vote in Senatorial and Presidential elections. I pointed out that I'm from MA. What I didn't say was that, as a result I've actually voted for more Dem's over the years than Republicans because I'm not an ideologue. If the incumbent is a Dem and I had no problem with their job execution, then I didn't vote for an unproven Republican just because we shared the same party affiliation. If you check some of Darby's other posts in other threads, you'll see that his ferver isn't reserved for Republicans in the current administration. It doesn't even appear to be reserved for Republicans. He's decided that the "sins" of the few, make those who may have been duped, worthy of no individual consideration and deserving of the kind of hateful thought and rhetoric normally reserved by hate groups for whomever it is they gather together to hate.
I don't pretend to know all of the answers, I don't pretend that all of my beliefs are correct, but I do know for a fact that the dehumanization of those that disagree with you is the first step down the path toward extremism and Darby appears to be sprinting down that path with his eyes closed.
And as to the "Cherry Picking", Everyone does that. No voter out there has ever found a politician that agrees with them 100% on every issue, unless the voter chose the politician 1st and political views 2nd (which is the case for many, though not even most, of Obama's newest supporters IMHO). As a result, all voters much choose which issues are most important to them and then vote accordingly, with the full knowledge that
a) the politician is probably going to end up voting against their wishes in other topics
b) The politician may vote against their wishes in the very topics t
I want to apologize, I just looked at several of your other posts in different topics. If you'd have told me up front that you hated all political parties and were a professional troll I wouldn't have bothered feeding you.
Have a nice life!
Your "Facts" are not facts at all! They are assertions based loosely on actual facts in evidence, and more on conjecture and rhetoric.
If half of the country is conservative, then they can't be unamerican, becaase they are HALF OF AMERICA!
Religion, political opinion, and other perspectives that relate to world view are primarily influenced by the household someone grew up in. I gave examples of religious, and political persecution as well as racial persecution, and I didn't even mention sexual preference.
This to you means I'm a closet racist and trying to project those beliefs on you. Once again you are claiming knowledge not in evidence. My step father is part cherokee, my Mother's maiden name is Gonsalves, my wife is half Korean, and my biological father is 100% Polish (racial jokes about Pols were very common in my neighborhood growing up, and I kept my fathers heritage a secret for many years). I chose to work with a Nigerian professor for my MS and PhD in a lab where over 6 years I've worked with, and befriended 3 Nigerian, 2 Ghanaian, 1 Korean, and only 2 American graduate students. I've experienced the pain and suffering that is caused by prejudice in general and racism specifically, and will not accept it from anyone! So FUCK YOU YOU IGNORANT PRICK.
You are full of irrational hate for individuals that disagree with you. You want my opinion on political issues? ASK ME! Don't put words in my mouth, I'm more than capable of taking responsibility for expressing my own beliefs.
I don't judge individuals based on their religious/political/ethnic/sexual affiliations or preferences. YOU on the other hand do. Your judgement of me based solely on my statement of political affiliation is the definition of bigoted based on the definition supplied by Leopard.
bigoted |ËbigÉ(TM)tid| adjective obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions : a bigoted group of reactionaries. â expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance : a thoughtless and bigoted article.
You claim that Republicans are the single biggest threat the to the safety of the US, yet Republicans make up the vast majority of those willing to lay down their lives to defend this country. My step-father served in the marines, both of my brothers and my uncle (mother's family) are currently serving in the military. Your free to say the hateful crap you spew because the military defends this country you claim to love so much and they are predominantly the Republicans you hate so much. I also abhor the use of torture, I have family in the military and fear any of them being taken captive and tortured because of the widespread evidence torture being used by the current administration.
You also claim that I support a Theocracy. I do not, the religious right is a much smaller portion of the party than the media makes it out to be. I haven't attended church in over 10 years if you discount the 7 or 8 weddings I've attended in that time. In fact, over the last 15 years I've made the transition from Believer, to Hopeful skeptic, to strong skeptic, to currently a borderline atheist. It is one of my biggest deviations from the part line, that I don't believe religion has any place in politics. I support Sex-ed and think Abstinence only programs are a recipe an explosion of teen pregnancy. While I support the rights children and teachers to pray at school if they choose, I don't believe their should be a formal moment for praying that others are forced to participate in. I agree whole heartedly that the US was founded by people looking for religious freedom, I'm originally from Massachusetts and grew up going to Plymouth rock every couple of years on field trips.
Being a Republican from Massachusetts impressed upon me the importance of political tolerance because I ran
I admit that my impression is probably due to my biased reading habits, but I make no assumptions as to the political sensitivity of the modding system. If, as I assert previously most slashdot members fall within a certain narrow range of the political spectrum, they will most likely mod up posts they agree with and mod down posts they disagree with.
The social security system is probably one of the biggest bureaucracies in the US government, and it's primarily the result of the Democrats. Besides, bureaucracies serve various valid and necessary purposes, one being to protect us from our own sometimes whimsical nature by making "change for the sake of change" more difficult. That being said, I don't have to like dealing with them when I think they are pushing their influence into areas where it doesn't belong. Hence, the sig.
Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't seen it before (possibly hadn't been posted yet?), good read.
Ok, let me get this straight...
1. My initial post is modded Flamebait because I assert that most posters to Slashdot are ultra Liberal.
2. It is pointed out to me that my impression of the general slant of Slashdot members is not accurate. (I wouldn't consider that flamebait, but that's just me)
3. In response to this correction, I admit that my impression is probably colored by my own tendency to focus on certain topics.
4. You vilify every person in the US who considers themselves conservative, which based on the last presidential election is roughly half of the people that bothered to get out and vote.
... And I am the "scumbag"?
This sort of hostile vilification of those "different from yourself" is the cornerstone of racism/anti-semitism/etc. that lead to political coup's, ethnic cleanings, civil war's, and further intolerance (those who were previously tolerant become intolerant as a defensive measure).
You're attaching everyone from a political party because of your dissatisfaction with the current administration. You have NO IDEA who I voted for in any election, unless of course you can read minds through the internet. You don't know whether or not I agree with any stance that the current administration has made, or whether I'm a member of the Republican party because or in spite of Bush.
Like most people I'm conservative on some issues and liberal on others. It's not so black/white as you are making the liberal/conservative issue out to be. I joined the Republican party 10 years ago because the issues that mattered most to me were best represented by the "general" platform of the party, not the platform of any individual politician.
I think you need to talk to a counselor about your hostility issues, maybe get a valium prescription, get laid, something because your reaction to my post was way over blown and disproportionate.
Maybe I'm just reading different posts than you are but I can't recall the last time I saw a post supporting a conservative view point that didn't get flamed.
I'm a registered Republican, so maybe I'm just focusing on the posts I agree with that get tarred and feathered, and the ones I strongly disagree with that keep getting modded +5 insightful.
You post on slashdot... That means you have a greater that 80% chance of thinking Obama isn't liberal enough, never mine McCain!
Besides, it's pretty safe to assume that if you are a single issue voter, neither candidate will make you happy.
That would be fine, except that people who shouldn't do that, will anyway to save a buck, they'll spend a lot of time on message boards like slashdot, and Apple's support forums slamming Apple for bad software when it turns out to be hardware issues. Tell me you haven't seen people do exactly that with windows or some of the more n00b targeted linux flavors. I have and I don't even go to windows or linux support boards.
I've spent the last 10 years listening to ignorant IT people, home assemblers, friends, family, etc. spouting off about reasons they won't give Apple a try that haven't been true for most of those 10 years.
The one place where almost no one disagrees is that Apple has superior customer support. If they start offering lisences without support options I'll have one more "Well I heard... so I think Apple Sux!" FUD bullet point to have to get through before I can either get them to stop pestering me or get them to at least look at Apple before deciding against it.
Ultimately I believe this is more of the "Microsoft's business model is the only business model" BS that's been parroted around for the last 15 years or so. It's complete and utter nonsense! Apple doesn't need to become Microsoft to be successful. The fact that their market cap just surpassed Google is evidence of that. Now those people want to support a company trying to force them to adopt Microsoft's business model, at least in part, so that can either be validated when Apple continues to be successful because it means they were correct on that point. Or, they'll be validated if Apple fails, because they'll believe they were right when they said that Apple only succeeds because it's some sort of monopoly/niche OS/run by a man with a RDF/etc.
I know why I have such an investment in Apple success (I want to continue using their well designed products in the future). I don't have any clue why so many have such an investment in watching Apple fail, other than being able to say "I told you so!"