Sure, it's possible to co-exist and be subserviant to a more technologically progressive company with a better business model -- but coexist != own and dominate an industry a la Detroit's Big Three for the first 75 years of the auto industry.
I know it's incredibly in vogue these days to blame everything on selfish people who make more money than you, especially the evil CEOs, but sometimes companies fail and it's not the CEO's fault. The best covered wagon CEO on earth couldn't figure out a way to beat the Model T.
Satellite radio is caught between a rock and a hard place. The RIAA wants their cut of royalties for the music XM / Sirius plays, and wants XM to police things so people don't rip music off their streams (which never happens in practice anyway because the stream quality's not good enough to incite enough people to want to do that). That costs a lot of money. XM / Sirius don't make a lot of revenue from ads, so they have to make it from subscribers. Logic dictates that one way to increase the subscriber base is to offer discounts -- but that presents them with cash flow problems while maintaining (or increasing) maintenance costs on that larger subscriber base.
Some of the subscriber attrition can be attributed to folks with multiple radios shutting one of them down to help save money in an economic downturn. I have two older radios -- one in the car, and an XM PCR in the house. Since I can get the XM stream via PC anyway, I recently shut down the PCR.
The ONLY thing keeping them afloat right now are deals with high-profile comedians and pro sports. Period. And they have to pay those folks boatloads of money to play at all. As wireless Internet becomes more ubiquitous and more and more of the premium content is available via Internet (Sunday Night Football via NFL.com is a perfect example), sat radio will finally be killed off.
It was a great idea in the pre-wireless days, but satellite radio is going the way of Iridium Phones.
Wow . . . one post and you've already resorted to name-calling. No need to get so defensive.
Thing is . . . I don't recall any talk of moderate, incremental, slow change during the campaign, at all. That message wouldn't go over so well in front of 200,000 rabid Berliners or a stadium full of college kids -- it's just not sexy enough. If anything, the exact opposite was promised -- a quick, decisive end to the evil and corruption of Washington and the power of lobbyists. If anything, I'm judging him by the standards set by his own supporters. Oh yeah, what happened to the promise of troops out of Iraq in 16 months? Change.
Indeed, this administration will be made up of the Same Old Washington. If this is what counts as change, we really are fucked.
Change, REAL CHANGE, and eliminating the evils of Washington insiders and lobbyists were a centerpiece of Obama's campaign. Do you really think that message would have been as strong if he said he was going to appoint Holder, Emanuel, Daschle, and Hillary fucking Clinton as part of his cabinet? He would have been laughed at and then ripped to tiny pieces trying to pass that off as *real* change, and rightly so. Instead of a career politician, why not appoint someone that really knows something about healthcare instead of friggin' Tom Daschle, married to a one of Washington's top lobbyists?!!?? The hyprcrisy is downright insulting.
Oh yeah, quit telling me I'M GOING TO LIKE IT. You don't know a damn thing about me.
biden......daschle......clinton......holder... can someone fill in the gaps? i am too lazy.
You forgot Rahm Emanuel. These appointments are laughable and downright hypocritical coming from someone who railed against Washington during his entire campaign.
As if those two were somehow mutually exclusive? She is small-minded BECAUSE she is from a small town. Welcome to America (or at least the part that doesn't live in a city).
That's tremendously arrogant, and is about at the same level as someone from a small town saying, "only crackheads and minorities with ten kids live in the city -- as if those two are somehow mutually exclusive." Don't forget that lots of those small-towners in OH, PA, NC, IA, IN and elsewhere who you're ridiculing just helped Obama win the presidency.
I used to think McCain would make a good president but not anymore. He ran a bad campaign. If you cant run a campaign and drive your people, your not looking good to be running the executive. McCain of 2000/2004 would have made a good president. McCain before he sold his soul to the Bush team.
So, by your logic, running a good campaign means you'll be a good president? See Karl Rove's two winning campaigns for W.
Just because you were voted "Most Popular" in high school doesn't mean you'll be successful throughout the rest of your life.
such that in an urban environment, it makes sense to let the police be armed, and everyone else to have suppressed gun ownership, amongst common people. it simply cuts down on needless death
Of course, there are no numbers which support your opinion. Here are a few facts about CCW permit holders: "Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population. Florida, which has issued over 1,346,000 permits in twenty years, has revoked only 165 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4,200 permits for any reason."
for those of you want to keep your guns, urban blood is on your hands. for those of you who wish to curtail guns, rural blood will be on your hands. simple as that really
What a load of crap. The "urban blood" is caused 90%+ of the time by drug-related violence. It is the "war on drugs" and accompanying gang-related activity that is the root of the issue. If you took away guns, they'd just be stabbing each other instead. If you really want to cut down on the crime, legalize drugs and do something about the 75%+ illegitimacy rate in the inner city. Oh wait, that'd be racist.
Here in the Baltimore metro area, where it's impossible for law-abiding citizens to obtain CCW thanks to our asshole legislature (unless of course, you have celebrity status or are already the victim of violent crime), and as a result the criminals are emboldened to prey on the law-abiding because they know they won't get shot. These thugs don't give two shits about any new gun law you'd pass -- they don't follow any of them now! As the saying correctly states, if having guns is criminal, only criminals will have guns.
are you the minutemen? the second amendment does not support the concept you think it does
Yes, it does. See Iraq, where recently a group of determined citizens armed with small arms and improvised explosives made life miserable for their occupiers. The right of citizens to bear arms is fundamentally important to keep the government's power over the people in check. You may trust the friendly government not to fuck with you, but I've seen too many abuses of government power in this country to ever reward them with relinquishment of a constitutional right.
And regardless of their intent, over 106,000 Alaskans still put down a vote for a convicted criminal. The extreme partisanship required to do that is beyond comprehension.
Nah, DC comprehended that 14 years ago when they reelected Democrat Marion Barry as Mayor.
A lot of us would indeed like to make it equitable by doing away with ALL welfare, bailouts, and earmarks, regardless of who gets them -- rich, poor, or middle class. Unfortunately, there's no viable third party which represents such an ideal. My blue state wallet can't handle things the way they are much longer, and I may soon have to move back to a red state to lessen my tax burden (taxes in MD are a real bitch, and will only get worse as the state continues to find endless ways to spend our money).
Anyway, it sounds like they've got you duped into thinking one side is better than the other, huh? Don't make that mistake. The bad news is that you'll eventually figure out there's very little difference between the two major parties, and the whole system is rigged to keep the public passionately divided (sounds like they've succeeded with you) so that a very small majority of people can stay in power indefinitely while we all fight against one another. For all his talk about "change," I seriously doubt Obama can to deliver on any of the major issues upon which he campaigned. There are too many greedy people in charge who won't give up their power -- regardless of party affiliation.
The guy never had better than a 50-50 approval rating
Sorry, but you're just making shit up. His approval rating was fine (88% right after 9/11, in fact) until mid-2003, the start of the Iraq War, and then it took a nose-dive and never recovered.
There is enough evidence of how unsuccessful W's presidency was without having to fabricate stuff.
Careful now . . . the blue states have reelected their share of "winners" too, up to and including the Hero of Chappaquiddick. You don't really want people to start pointing out government handouts, substance abuse, and violent crime rates in the inner cities, do you? There's plenty of this on both sides of the aisle -- no reason to make it a partisan issue.
Show me a server-based, commerical-grade OCR engine built for doc management professionals that multithreads and runs on something other than Windows and I might agree with you. Until then, I'm sticking with ABBYY.
Umm, what? Maryland is 30% African-American. I always understood that the reason we're solidly democratic is because of the highly educated population.
Your arrogance is shocking. Not everyone with an advanced degree thinks like the liberal-minded folks in MC. Some of us favor less government instead of the incessant spending which has been the trademark of a legislature that has brought us BGE deregulation from their Enron buddies and a sham of a "structural deficit" used to justify unnecessary tax hikes.
For example, Montgomery County has almost 30% of residents over 25 with an advanced degree, 15% African American (since you seem hung up on that), solidly democratic. I'm an independent, btw.
You do realize that the 30% black population is two and a half times the national average, don't you? That makes a huge difference (since I'm so hung up on that), and is clearly reflected in how people vote.
The same Democrat-controlled state legislature originally blocked our previous (Republican) governor's efforts to get rid of these machines. Now that we have a Democrat governor, they're getting rid of the machines so as to take credit for it. They're doing the same thing with slot machines -- the previous governor tried to get slot machines legalized, and the state legislature blocked him. Now, slots are up for referendum with the support of our current (Democrat) governor and the Legislature who had previously opposed them.
Not that it makes a damn bit of difference (we're fucked anyway), but I just wanted folks to know all the facts before they start rambling about the evils of the Republican party here in MD. Maryland is about as solidly Democrat as you can get -- the huge black majorities in Baltimore City and Prince Georges County have ensured that for decades.
Confiscate guns in an emergency or national disaster... Great, one of the times when a citizen needs a gun the most, and he wants them taken by force.
Excellent point, as there's already a precedent to this happening with Hurricane Katrina and "Chocolate City" Mayor Ray Nagin and the NOPD and National Guard. Then they'll be sure to lie about it, even after being caught on video.
Anyone who trusts the government to "take care of them" in the time of a disaster or civil unrest and protect them from looters or rioters is dangerously naive and / or stupid. What more proof does anyone need?
Removing the right to carry a concealed weapon does not mean taking away the right to own a weapon. Many states like Texas that have concealed weapons rights also have prohibitions against carrying any guns into certain places: Courthouses, schools, etc. so the right to carry one is not absolute.
Fine. That's a states' right issue, and TX has decided what their citizens can and can't do. Unless it's Federal property, like a military base or courthouse, the Federal government has absolutely no damn business telling me where I can or can't carry my concealed weapon. Thankfully, we now have a Supreme Court which feels the same way regarding gun rights. Anyway, again . . . semantics. You apparently want to "allow" people to own guns but not use or transport them in any reasonable fashion, including in self-defense when police are unavailable against criminals who ignore all laws, and including registration and concealed carry of a legal firearm by trained, law-abiding citizens.
As for the NRA, they will not support any limitations on gun ownership and fought what I consider sensible limitations like the assault weapons ban. I think if my neighbor wants to buy a hunting rifle for his kid or stock his house full of guns, go ahead. But why does he need an automatic AK-47?
As most antis do, you've immediately picked the most controversial issue the NRA supports and the one which applies to the fewest number of weapons out there. The NRA stands for much, much more than "automatic AK-47s," -- most importantly, for preserving the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, as is expressly stated in the 2nd Amendment -- yet you've chosen to highlight the extreme fringe case and throw the whole baby out with the bathwater.
From your link: "Obama has also stated his opposition to allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms[247] and supports a national law outlawing the practice.[248][249]"
Semantics. The guy is rated "F" by the NRA and wants a country where the citizens don't have guns. He's learned from Gore's mistake and has minimized it during the election. Such a nationwide ban on CCW as Obama advocates would be a huge step backwards in gun owners' rights, a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment, and a tremendous instrusion of the Federal government on states' rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, it's possible to co-exist and be subserviant to a more technologically progressive company with a better business model -- but coexist != own and dominate an industry a la Detroit's Big Three for the first 75 years of the auto industry.
I know it's incredibly in vogue these days to blame everything on selfish people who make more money than you, especially the evil CEOs, but sometimes companies fail and it's not the CEO's fault. The best covered wagon CEO on earth couldn't figure out a way to beat the Model T.
Satellite radio is caught between a rock and a hard place. The RIAA wants their cut of royalties for the music XM / Sirius plays, and wants XM to police things so people don't rip music off their streams (which never happens in practice anyway because the stream quality's not good enough to incite enough people to want to do that). That costs a lot of money. XM / Sirius don't make a lot of revenue from ads, so they have to make it from subscribers. Logic dictates that one way to increase the subscriber base is to offer discounts -- but that presents them with cash flow problems while maintaining (or increasing) maintenance costs on that larger subscriber base.
Some of the subscriber attrition can be attributed to folks with multiple radios shutting one of them down to help save money in an economic downturn. I have two older radios -- one in the car, and an XM PCR in the house. Since I can get the XM stream via PC anyway, I recently shut down the PCR.
The ONLY thing keeping them afloat right now are deals with high-profile comedians and pro sports. Period. And they have to pay those folks boatloads of money to play at all. As wireless Internet becomes more ubiquitous and more and more of the premium content is available via Internet (Sunday Night Football via NFL.com is a perfect example), sat radio will finally be killed off.
It was a great idea in the pre-wireless days, but satellite radio is going the way of Iridium Phones.
"Shokushu goukan."
They're actively running fiber all over the place for their FiOS service. Check with them first, and then let them do all of the heavy lifting!
Wow . . . one post and you've already resorted to name-calling. No need to get so defensive.
Thing is . . . I don't recall any talk of moderate, incremental, slow change during the campaign, at all. That message wouldn't go over so well in front of 200,000 rabid Berliners or a stadium full of college kids -- it's just not sexy enough. If anything, the exact opposite was promised -- a quick, decisive end to the evil and corruption of Washington and the power of lobbyists. If anything, I'm judging him by the standards set by his own supporters. Oh yeah, what happened to the promise of troops out of Iraq in 16 months? Change.
Indeed, this administration will be made up of the Same Old Washington. If this is what counts as change, we really are fucked.
Change, REAL CHANGE, and eliminating the evils of Washington insiders and lobbyists were a centerpiece of Obama's campaign. Do you really think that message would have been as strong if he said he was going to appoint Holder, Emanuel, Daschle, and Hillary fucking Clinton as part of his cabinet? He would have been laughed at and then ripped to tiny pieces trying to pass that off as *real* change, and rightly so. Instead of a career politician, why not appoint someone that really knows something about healthcare instead of friggin' Tom Daschle, married to a one of Washington's top lobbyists?!!?? The hyprcrisy is downright insulting.
Oh yeah, quit telling me I'M GOING TO LIKE IT. You don't know a damn thing about me.
biden... ...daschle... ...clinton... ...holder... can someone fill in the gaps? i am too lazy.
You forgot Rahm Emanuel. These appointments are laughable and downright hypocritical coming from someone who railed against Washington during his entire campaign.
People will believe any promise pandered to them during a campaign. Daschle, Clinton, and now Holder? Change, indeed.
And of course annihilation, as the name implies, doesn't leave behind radioactive materials, just gamma rays.
Oh, good.
An interesting book by Carl Sagan points out that the size of babies' heads seems to be bigger than women's pelvises were designed to handle
Aykroyd and co. figured that one out.
Or the original T-101, if you wanna get technical. Kind of a chicken and egg thing going on there though . . .
As if those two were somehow mutually exclusive? She is small-minded BECAUSE she is from a small town. Welcome to America (or at least the part that doesn't live in a city).
That's tremendously arrogant, and is about at the same level as someone from a small town saying, "only crackheads and minorities with ten kids live in the city -- as if those two are somehow mutually exclusive." Don't forget that lots of those small-towners in OH, PA, NC, IA, IN and elsewhere who you're ridiculing just helped Obama win the presidency.
I used to think McCain would make a good president but not anymore. He ran a bad campaign. If you cant run a campaign and drive your people, your not looking good to be running the executive. McCain of 2000/2004 would have made a good president. McCain before he sold his soul to the Bush team.
So, by your logic, running a good campaign means you'll be a good president? See Karl Rove's two winning campaigns for W.
Just because you were voted "Most Popular" in high school doesn't mean you'll be successful throughout the rest of your life.
such that in an urban environment, it makes sense to let the police be armed, and everyone else to have suppressed gun ownership, amongst common people. it simply cuts down on needless death
Of course, there are no numbers which support your opinion. Here are a few facts about CCW permit holders: "Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population. Florida, which has issued over 1,346,000 permits in twenty years, has revoked only 165 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4,200 permits for any reason."
for those of you want to keep your guns, urban blood is on your hands. for those of you who wish to curtail guns, rural blood will be on your hands. simple as that really
What a load of crap. The "urban blood" is caused 90%+ of the time by drug-related violence. It is the "war on drugs" and accompanying gang-related activity that is the root of the issue. If you took away guns, they'd just be stabbing each other instead. If you really want to cut down on the crime, legalize drugs and do something about the 75%+ illegitimacy rate in the inner city. Oh wait, that'd be racist.
Here in the Baltimore metro area, where it's impossible for law-abiding citizens to obtain CCW thanks to our asshole legislature (unless of course, you have celebrity status or are already the victim of violent crime), and as a result the criminals are emboldened to prey on the law-abiding because they know they won't get shot. These thugs don't give two shits about any new gun law you'd pass -- they don't follow any of them now! As the saying correctly states, if having guns is criminal, only criminals will have guns.
are you the minutemen? the second amendment does not support the concept you think it does
Yes, it does. See Iraq, where recently a group of determined citizens armed with small arms and improvised explosives made life miserable for their occupiers. The right of citizens to bear arms is fundamentally important to keep the government's power over the people in check. You may trust the friendly government not to fuck with you, but I've seen too many abuses of government power in this country to ever reward them with relinquishment of a constitutional right.
And regardless of their intent, over 106,000 Alaskans still put down a vote for a convicted criminal. The extreme partisanship required to do that is beyond comprehension.
Nah, DC comprehended that 14 years ago when they reelected Democrat Marion Barry as Mayor.
A lot of us would indeed like to make it equitable by doing away with ALL welfare, bailouts, and earmarks, regardless of who gets them -- rich, poor, or middle class. Unfortunately, there's no viable third party which represents such an ideal. My blue state wallet can't handle things the way they are much longer, and I may soon have to move back to a red state to lessen my tax burden (taxes in MD are a real bitch, and will only get worse as the state continues to find endless ways to spend our money).
Anyway, it sounds like they've got you duped into thinking one side is better than the other, huh? Don't make that mistake. The bad news is that you'll eventually figure out there's very little difference between the two major parties, and the whole system is rigged to keep the public passionately divided (sounds like they've succeeded with you) so that a very small majority of people can stay in power indefinitely while we all fight against one another. For all his talk about "change," I seriously doubt Obama can to deliver on any of the major issues upon which he campaigned. There are too many greedy people in charge who won't give up their power -- regardless of party affiliation.
The guy never had better than a 50-50 approval rating
Sorry, but you're just making shit up. His approval rating was fine (88% right after 9/11, in fact) until mid-2003, the start of the Iraq War, and then it took a nose-dive and never recovered.
There is enough evidence of how unsuccessful W's presidency was without having to fabricate stuff.
Careful now . . . the blue states have reelected their share of "winners" too, up to and including the Hero of Chappaquiddick. You don't really want people to start pointing out government handouts, substance abuse, and violent crime rates in the inner cities, do you? There's plenty of this on both sides of the aisle -- no reason to make it a partisan issue.
I was surprised too, because the strongholds of the other party have NEVER blindly reelected any convicted criminals, racists, or blatantly corrupt assholes. Oh, wait.
Show me a server-based, commerical-grade OCR engine built for doc management professionals that multithreads and runs on something other than Windows and I might agree with you. Until then, I'm sticking with ABBYY.
Umm, what? Maryland is 30% African-American. I always understood that the reason we're solidly democratic is because of the highly educated population.
Your arrogance is shocking. Not everyone with an advanced degree thinks like the liberal-minded folks in MC. Some of us favor less government instead of the incessant spending which has been the trademark of a legislature that has brought us BGE deregulation from their Enron buddies and a sham of a "structural deficit" used to justify unnecessary tax hikes.
For example, Montgomery County has almost 30% of residents over 25 with an advanced degree, 15% African American (since you seem hung up on that), solidly democratic. I'm an independent, btw.
You do realize that the 30% black population is two and a half times the national average, don't you? That makes a huge difference (since I'm so hung up on that), and is clearly reflected in how people vote.
The same Democrat-controlled state legislature originally blocked our previous (Republican) governor's efforts to get rid of these machines. Now that we have a Democrat governor, they're getting rid of the machines so as to take credit for it. They're doing the same thing with slot machines -- the previous governor tried to get slot machines legalized, and the state legislature blocked him. Now, slots are up for referendum with the support of our current (Democrat) governor and the Legislature who had previously opposed them.
Not that it makes a damn bit of difference (we're fucked anyway), but I just wanted folks to know all the facts before they start rambling about the evils of the Republican party here in MD. Maryland is about as solidly Democrat as you can get -- the huge black majorities in Baltimore City and Prince Georges County have ensured that for decades.
Confiscate guns in an emergency or national disaster... Great, one of the times when a citizen needs a gun the most, and he wants them taken by force.
Excellent point, as there's already a precedent to this happening with Hurricane Katrina and "Chocolate City" Mayor Ray Nagin and the NOPD and National Guard. Then they'll be sure to lie about it, even after being caught on video.
Anyone who trusts the government to "take care of them" in the time of a disaster or civil unrest and protect them from looters or rioters is dangerously naive and / or stupid. What more proof does anyone need?
Removing the right to carry a concealed weapon does not mean taking away the right to own a weapon. Many states like Texas that have concealed weapons rights also have prohibitions against carrying any guns into certain places: Courthouses, schools, etc. so the right to carry one is not absolute.
Fine. That's a states' right issue, and TX has decided what their citizens can and can't do. Unless it's Federal property, like a military base or courthouse, the Federal government has absolutely no damn business telling me where I can or can't carry my concealed weapon. Thankfully, we now have a Supreme Court which feels the same way regarding gun rights. Anyway, again . . . semantics. You apparently want to "allow" people to own guns but not use or transport them in any reasonable fashion, including in self-defense when police are unavailable against criminals who ignore all laws, and including registration and concealed carry of a legal firearm by trained, law-abiding citizens.
As for the NRA, they will not support any limitations on gun ownership and fought what I consider sensible limitations like the assault weapons ban. I think if my neighbor wants to buy a hunting rifle for his kid or stock his house full of guns, go ahead. But why does he need an automatic AK-47?
As most antis do, you've immediately picked the most controversial issue the NRA supports and the one which applies to the fewest number of weapons out there. The NRA stands for much, much more than "automatic AK-47s," -- most importantly, for preserving the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, as is expressly stated in the 2nd Amendment -- yet you've chosen to highlight the extreme fringe case and throw the whole baby out with the bathwater.
From your link: "Obama has also stated his opposition to allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms[247] and supports a national law outlawing the practice.[248][249]"
Semantics. The guy is rated "F" by the NRA and wants a country where the citizens don't have guns. He's learned from Gore's mistake and has minimized it during the election. Such a nationwide ban on CCW as Obama advocates would be a huge step backwards in gun owners' rights, a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment, and a tremendous instrusion of the Federal government on states' rights.