Are you saying that Apple shouldn't allow their customers to upgrade to a new version of the operating system? That the version of the OS they get with their computer is the one they must use for the life of that system?
It seems to me that this would be a heck of a disadvantage compared to other manufacturers.
No, I'm not. Are you?
I'm saying exactly what I said. That if Apple does not WANT people to be able to install their OS on non-Apple produced hardware, then their course of action is clear: not to sell the OS without hardware.
The reason you can only play a PS3 game on a PS3 is not because they've legally tied the game to the PS3, it's because currently the only hardware capable of playing it.
If another machine were to be able to play it, the only illegality involved would be if they stole copyrighted code from Sony (i.e. Sony's BIOS for the PS3) or violated Sony's patents in implementing their machine.
The parent's analogy is far more appropriate and closer to the truth than yours. Apple had their "PS3" moment when they were producing specialized hardware to run the Mac OS on. But today they sell Intel machines, ones that are completely capable of being built independently of Apple. If this were a video game console analogy, it'd be the Atari 2600 vs. the Coleco Gemini and Coleco won that one.
No, what they are trying to do with the license is play both sides, being able to sell the OS seperate from the machine but control what you install it on.
Why should they even care what I install it on?
I paid for it.
This isn't a case of someone deciding to get a copy off Pirate Bay or boxes 'falling off the truck'. It's Paid For.
At that point their control over what it can go on should be limited to the old fashioned "I'm sorry sir, you installed your OS on unsupported hardware, I'm sorry it isn't working for you but we can't help you solve that problem."
These people are very likely to use media player, a web browser, and MS Word simultaneously all the time. a 3 app limit is completely bonkers. They may also want to run background apps like AIM, Skype, Bittorrent, email client (If they don't just use gmail web interface), etc etc.
Forget that, if they did a Starter edition in 'the developed world', I don't think the machine would even get past the login screen given how many crud "For your protection" apps most big brand vendors install to run in the background.
The government forcing a company to operate in areas they deem unprofitable is not fair competition in the marketplace.
And while your statement is a tautalogical truth, it has nothing to do with the situation at hand, which is Apple putting the artificial restriction on their OS, indicating it can only be installed on machines they've built.
No one forced Apple to sell their OS divorced of their machines. They decided to do that to cash in on the lucrative market of OS upgrades.
If they don't want people installing their OS on 'unapproved' machines, they have a simple and clear course to follow, don't sell the OS without a machine.
Pardon me sir, I did'nt notice I was on your lawn there. I appologize.
Do you realize that there has always been, and always will be, a glut of pig swill crap being passed off by those willing to hustle folk as hit music? You do realize, that if you only sample from this trough the two things you will ever be guareenteed to get are crap and swill?
And that's ignoring your swipe at the idea that the only actual artists are the ones who perform vocally 'au natural'.
There are plenty of quality artist out there, some of them even make it mainsteam. But most either don't bother or don't fit the 'marketer's dream' well enough.
I too think they are three marbles short. But I think the idea they are attempting to get across is less, "if we can get access to your phone, we can pwnt you." as it is "we think Google's made it so people other than those you've authorized can snoop that data once you've made it avaliable."
Not quite as hairbrained, but still rather "Get off my lawn"-ish given this group hasn't provided a wit of evidence that something like that can happen.
The problem with all of these is they are the reverse of what is needed. Every single one of those only tracks what it already knows about and all of them rely on central repositories.
The ideal solution would be something that doesn't keep a 'list' of apps it can track but instead keeps of list of apps that have registered with it on install. It shouldn't rely on a central location to pull down files but allow the app to indicate where to find updates and (in a perfect ideal) how to poll and pull them.
Microsoft doesn't even track all of its OWN apps on Window's Update. And while I imagine Apple's OCD level obsession with maintaining an iron grip on it's products means it probably covers a better percentage of it's own apps, all you need to do is browse the tech news regarding it's handling of the iPhone/iTouch app store to know why it would be a horrible horrible idea for any third party dev to rely on Apple to be kind regarding distributing their updates.
Linux has its sundry package management systems, and they all work well as long as you only install items using them, and the central repositories are great for finding the software you need. But if you don't happen to fit in with the "open source" world view, how likely do you think your software and its updates are going to even be in the repository?
I suppose, for the systems that can handle multiple repositories, your app could just make sure to add it's own to the list and add a "I'm installed" value wherever the system keeps track of that info, if you coded it to be able to detect and understand all of the various systems and how they store data (and of course, hopefully to detect if the version and flavor of package management you use is newer than it, since you'd get a lot of love mail if you happened to trash someone's config file by not realizing they changed formats between 0.0.1.2.a.RC1 and 0.0.1.2.a.RC1.2210).
Another person pointed out File Hippo, and that works on the user side as long as you are willing to trust a third party to track your updates. I used to when I was on a Mac (but that was pre X days). The thing is, you really have to trust them. Both in the sense that they aren't going to send you a trojan and in the sense that they'll keep up to date on updates and not make mistakes like send you alpha crap or an update four versions old that doesn't check what version you have before munging your install.
* What kind of bugs could an app like Google Earth have that could screw up your system?
- Uninstaller bugs, I remember a number of games which were mistakenly coded to wipe out the root folder of the drive you installed them to instead of the actual app folder. - Security bugs, or did you forget that there are online and sharing components to Google Earth? What sort of fun could you do with a malformed KML file if Google's parser was fucked up enough to allow buffer overflows? - Accidental file corruption. "Whoops, we were supposed to just load that Window's DLL, but we accidentally got it caught up in a write operation to save your KML file." - Many other screw ups that are possible with ANY program you run regardless of its intent, if it was written poorly or has a mistake coded in.
Maybe they don't kick in every time you run the program. Maybe you have to have the stars aligned for them to kick in. Does it really matter? The point is, just because the program is not an "OS Utility" doesn't mean it can't have a bug in it that could cause you problems.
*Regarding the "Website and hardcoded address" solution.
Did I ever say that wouldn't work? No. I said having an updater is a more reliable and stable option. No offense but especially with your next comment, you need to start paying attention to the conversation you are participating in.
*"The real problem is every Tom, Dick, and Harry does it."
Thank you for completely ignoring the point of my comment that the person I was replying to originally responded to.
No, really. I love arguing in circles.
Go back, read what I said. If you really feel the need to point out the above again, refrain.
In the news today, ChinaCo brand teddy bears have been found to contain arsnic laced fabric, stuffing made from used syringe needles, and lead buttons for eyes. Additionally, the fabric catches fire whenever exposed to water or sunlight, and numerous dangly small parts are known to be a chocking hazard for small children and infants....
"Gee dear, should we just never buy any toys for our baby?"
"I don't know honey bun, perhaps we should just not buy a ChinaCo brand toy."
If the latest version of the app includes bug fixes which correct issues that could cripple your OS, don't you think it'd be best to get them?
If the latest version of the app simply changes the colors of the buttons to match the scheme used in the most recent version of the company's favicon, I'd think that was a bit frivolous.
But the point is if you build the update checking into the app itself, then regardless of the necessity of the update, they won't get it unless the way the update check works now is the same as it was the last time they opened it. That locks you into supporting that method forever, assuming that you as the app developer consider having people use the most recent version of the app important.
If, on the other hand, you split that out into a separate program, one 'small enough' to run 24/7, or at least regularly in the background, it doesn't matter if you change the update methods as long as you leave the old method up long enough for all the updater apps to update. Then the only people missing your updates are the ones who voluntarily and consciously went out of their way to disable the updates and thus 'made their own bed'.
The problem with 'self-updating' apps is you have to ensure that you never change the way they check for updates or at least always maintain the old paths. If you don't, then that person who only runs the app three times a year is never going to get the update.
On top of that, you now have to maintain this setup for each app you distribute.
Having a 'mother program' which watches over all the apps and downloads updates for them on a regular schedule is a far more stable and reliable way of doing things.
What really needs to happen is these 100+ companies that have enough apps that they think they need to install a background "update" service need to come together to define an open protocol for apps to register with one 'services/daemon/app' so instead of 100 programs all attempting to check for their own programs, you have one service that is covering them all.
I have you beat. Everytime I close iTunes (without my iPod plugged in even), it decides I didn't really want to do that and opens back up again. I have to camp on the process monitor and premptively kill the process two or three times before it'll stop trying to come back to life.
I've been told an uninstall/reinstall will fix it, but if it does, the problem seems common enough that it only 'does' for a couple of runs.
If you get a full install of Bonjour (downloading it from Apple directly instead of getting it with an install of iTunes) it's a fairly nice and useful tool. Unfortunately, the Windows install that comes with iTunes is loboitmized (probably in an effort to avoid complaints, but it's still a shame) and really doesn't do much more than let iTunes share it's library.
What about things like MLB online. It's the only way to see the baseball games that I want to see. You take that stream (800k iirc) and multiply that by 3.5 hours per game. 6 games a week. How close to that cap would a person come just by watching baseball online?
About 28GB so go a head and splurge on that and upgrade to the HD 1.2mbps steam. It's still only 44GB per month.
See friend, that's the difference between the human body, which is imperfectly understood, if at all, and say... RADIO WAVES, which we pretty much understand all significant issues of.
If you give me a pill and say "We don't think this will kill you.", I have a legitimate concern.
If you give me a cell phone and say "its impact on you is less than the impact of the background radiation you are exposed to daily 24/7, we know this via several methods, most significantly a through understanding of how radio waves propagate." I don't.
Not to defend them, but the summary indicates GB caps not MB. 100GB is alot harder to pull down in a month, not that I haven't managed to do it on a crappy DSL line, thus making it even more likely someone with a nice fat cable pipe could do it.
That was a quote from the wikipedia, not the actual document. You are welcome to read the actual treaty (here Which is in fact a treaty and therefore would require the nation itself to pass/amend the laws as necessary to enact it. Protections are for the law, not for the treaty. That is the whole point of having people sign on to the treaty and craft their own laws to match their culture rather than passing a "one law to rule them all".
And regarding who determines what's "best for the child", that's already the law in the US. So this treaty would change nothing in that respect. In other words all you have is FUD and the "OMG, but maybe something bad could happen if we really thought hard enough about scaring our selves."
BTW, in case you are looking for more FUD to spread about it, the treaty also bans capital punishment on children, prostitution, and child porn.
Can't wait to hear how not being able to chop their heads off is bad for children.
Actually the problems with the Muslim world - a.k.a the Middle East, is that they were once a actual "1st world level group" who were brought down to "3rd world levels" due to the actions of the 'West', first in the form of the British Empire, and afterwards in the form of the American 'empire' as we attempted to set up various puppet governments to prevent the spread of Communism.
And while some of it was due to their own arrogance (aka the Ottoman Empire in WWI) a large portion of it was due to the intentional efforts of the British empire and the inadvertent side effects of the CIA picking despots and fundamentalists to run countries rather than allowing democracy take hold (which they believed would be quickly subverted to communism).
I just heard about the CRC. That is a crazy scary prospect. Basically, let the government teach and raise and instruct (read: brainwash) your child. Great, any child can argue about a parental decision and it can be "overturned" if a GOVERNMENT WORKER agrees? Hmmm. Government worker. Basically, if my seven year old doesn't agree with my decision that he can't eat all the cookies, and a government worker agrees with him, I am forced to let him?
Oh my FUCKING god. Is that the best FUD you could have come up with regarding this? That you are afraid your kid is going to call the government on you for not providing cookies?
Did you even read what you typed or are you just vomiting out whatever shit you think of and hoping some of it will stick?
This is something that has been law in many country since the 80's. Have you HONESTLY heard one peep from those countries concerning it? Any "All my children were taken away because I didn't bake enough brownies?" in the news?
Do you even know what you are talking about or are you just reading from some FUD manual?
Here is a quote
"The Convention deals with the child-specific needs and rights. It requires that states act in the best interests of the child. This approach is different from the common law approach found in many countries that had previously treated children and wives as possessions or chattels, ownership of which was often argued over in family disputes. In many jurisdictions, properly implementing the Convention requires an overhaul of child custody and guardianship laws, or, at the very least, a creative approach within the existing laws.
The Convention acknowledges that every child has certain basic rights, including the right to life, his or her own name and identity, to be raised by his or her parents within a family or cultural grouping and have a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated.
The Convention obliges states to allow parents to exercise their parental responsibilities. The Convention also acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be protected from abuse or exploitation, to have their privacy protected and requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference.
The Convention also obliges signatory states to provide separate legal representation for a child in any judicial dispute concerning their care and asks that the child's viewpoint be heard in such cases. The Convention forbids capital punishment for children."
Where does anything you've claimed appear in that or derive from that? WTF are you on?
sincerly hope that whomever you voted for wasn't someone you actually thought was going to be lockstep with you 100% of the time.
If they were, I'm sorry you were a fool.
If they weren't, quit being an ass simply because it's not 'your guy' up there making choices you don't agree with.
I sincerely hope that you considered the possibility that I voted for myself.
Unless your name happens to be Barrack ("AC") Obama, the statement still stands. Even if you were McCain, looking at the way your campaign was run, I'd still be right.
And currently it looks like the answer is no. Change and hope was Obama's message- it appears the message wasn't clear enough for many to expect shit like this. It may have very well been a vote changer if it where.
If the folk throwing a shit storm were the folk supporting Obama before, I'd agree. But everytime I hear shit, it's from someone who from the start was attacking Obama. I'm sure there were plenty of people out there who let themselves be blinded in their expectations, but most of them are NOT the people bitching and making snide remarks. It's the people who decided that the rest of us supported Obama not on our opinion of his ability to lead but because we somehow were 'culted' into believing he was the next coming of Christ that are bitching.
It's the ultimate straw man arguement. "Ha ha! Where is your messiah now!", when most of us went in clear eyed knowing that he wasing going to match our world view 100%.
I can tell you one thing though, he's a damn sight better a match at seeing the world the way I dothan the previous guy or the guys he was running up against (Dem or Rep).
You are correct, my comment would have been more appro to one of HordeKing's, you were the end of the thread and I simply ascribed to you his words. I apologize. Regardless of whether the words are directed at you specifically or not through, the issue still stands.
I've heard more bullshit from the "anti-Obama" group in the past month about "Ha! Ha! This is 'change'..." every time he makes a decision that could even be mildly thought of as controversial than I think I heard during the entire campaign.
News flash for these people. You can't please everyone 100% of the time. The test of Obama's presidency won't be "Does he make decisions that Chyeld has always agreed with."
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm not. Are you?
I'm saying exactly what I said. That if Apple does not WANT people to be able to install their OS on non-Apple produced hardware, then their course of action is clear: not to sell the OS without hardware.
The reason you can only play a PS3 game on a PS3 is not because they've legally tied the game to the PS3, it's because currently the only hardware capable of playing it.
If another machine were to be able to play it, the only illegality involved would be if they stole copyrighted code from Sony (i.e. Sony's BIOS for the PS3) or violated Sony's patents in implementing their machine.
The parent's analogy is far more appropriate and closer to the truth than yours. Apple had their "PS3" moment when they were producing specialized hardware to run the Mac OS on. But today they sell Intel machines, ones that are completely capable of being built independently of Apple. If this were a video game console analogy, it'd be the Atari 2600 vs. the Coleco Gemini and Coleco won that one.
No, what they are trying to do with the license is play both sides, being able to sell the OS seperate from the machine but control what you install it on.
Why should they even care what I install it on?
I paid for it.
This isn't a case of someone deciding to get a copy off Pirate Bay or boxes 'falling off the truck'. It's Paid For.
At that point their control over what it can go on should be limited to the old fashioned "I'm sorry sir, you installed your OS on unsupported hardware, I'm sorry it isn't working for you but we can't help you solve that problem."
Forget that, if they did a Starter edition in 'the developed world', I don't think the machine would even get past the login screen given how many crud "For your protection" apps most big brand vendors install to run in the background.
And while your statement is a tautalogical truth, it has nothing to do with the situation at hand, which is Apple putting the artificial restriction on their OS, indicating it can only be installed on machines they've built.
No one forced Apple to sell their OS divorced of their machines. They decided to do that to cash in on the lucrative market of OS upgrades.
If they don't want people installing their OS on 'unapproved' machines, they have a simple and clear course to follow, don't sell the OS without a machine.
Pardon me sir, I did'nt notice I was on your lawn there. I appologize.
Do you realize that there has always been, and always will be, a glut of pig swill crap being passed off by those willing to hustle folk as hit music? You do realize, that if you only sample from this trough the two things you will ever be guareenteed to get are crap and swill?
And that's ignoring your swipe at the idea that the only actual artists are the ones who perform vocally 'au natural'.
There are plenty of quality artist out there, some of them even make it mainsteam. But most either don't bother or don't fit the 'marketer's dream' well enough.
I too think they are three marbles short. But I think the idea they are attempting to get across is less, "if we can get access to your phone, we can pwnt you." as it is "we think Google's made it so people other than those you've authorized can snoop that data once you've made it avaliable."
Not quite as hairbrained, but still rather "Get off my lawn"-ish given this group hasn't provided a wit of evidence that something like that can happen.
MSPaint comes standard with Windows. Lets see the fanbois top that.
The problem with all of these is they are the reverse of what is needed. Every single one of those only tracks what it already knows about and all of them rely on central repositories.
The ideal solution would be something that doesn't keep a 'list' of apps it can track but instead keeps of list of apps that have registered with it on install. It shouldn't rely on a central location to pull down files but allow the app to indicate where to find updates and (in a perfect ideal) how to poll and pull them.
Microsoft doesn't even track all of its OWN apps on Window's Update. And while I imagine Apple's OCD level obsession with maintaining an iron grip on it's products means it probably covers a better percentage of it's own apps, all you need to do is browse the tech news regarding it's handling of the iPhone/iTouch app store to know why it would be a horrible horrible idea for any third party dev to rely on Apple to be kind regarding distributing their updates.
Linux has its sundry package management systems, and they all work well as long as you only install items using them, and the central repositories are great for finding the software you need. But if you don't happen to fit in with the "open source" world view, how likely do you think your software and its updates are going to even be in the repository?
I suppose, for the systems that can handle multiple repositories, your app could just make sure to add it's own to the list and add a "I'm installed" value wherever the system keeps track of that info, if you coded it to be able to detect and understand all of the various systems and how they store data (and of course, hopefully to detect if the version and flavor of package management you use is newer than it, since you'd get a lot of love mail if you happened to trash someone's config file by not realizing they changed formats between 0.0.1.2.a.RC1 and 0.0.1.2.a.RC1.2210).
Another person pointed out File Hippo, and that works on the user side as long as you are willing to trust a third party to track your updates. I used to when I was on a Mac (but that was pre X days). The thing is, you really have to trust them. Both in the sense that they aren't going to send you a trojan and in the sense that they'll keep up to date on updates and not make mistakes like send you alpha crap or an update four versions old that doesn't check what version you have before munging your install.
* What kind of bugs could an app like Google Earth have that could screw up your system?
- Uninstaller bugs, I remember a number of games which were mistakenly coded to wipe out the root folder of the drive you installed them to instead of the actual app folder.
- Security bugs, or did you forget that there are online and sharing components to Google Earth? What sort of fun could you do with a malformed KML file if Google's parser was fucked up enough to allow buffer overflows?
- Accidental file corruption. "Whoops, we were supposed to just load that Window's DLL, but we accidentally got it caught up in a write operation to save your KML file."
- Many other screw ups that are possible with ANY program you run regardless of its intent, if it was written poorly or has a mistake coded in.
Maybe they don't kick in every time you run the program. Maybe you have to have the stars aligned for them to kick in. Does it really matter? The point is, just because the program is not an "OS Utility" doesn't mean it can't have a bug in it that could cause you problems.
*Regarding the "Website and hardcoded address" solution.
Did I ever say that wouldn't work? No. I said having an updater is a more reliable and stable option. No offense but especially with your next comment, you need to start paying attention to the conversation you are participating in.
*"The real problem is every Tom, Dick, and Harry does it."
Thank you for completely ignoring the point of my comment that the person I was replying to originally responded to.
No, really. I love arguing in circles.
Go back, read what I said. If you really feel the need to point out the above again, refrain.
"Gee dear, should we just never buy any toys for our baby?"
"I don't know honey bun, perhaps we should just not buy a ChinaCo brand toy."
That depends, doesn't it?
If the latest version of the app includes bug fixes which correct issues that could cripple your OS, don't you think it'd be best to get them?
If the latest version of the app simply changes the colors of the buttons to match the scheme used in the most recent version of the company's favicon, I'd think that was a bit frivolous.
But the point is if you build the update checking into the app itself, then regardless of the necessity of the update, they won't get it unless the way the update check works now is the same as it was the last time they opened it. That locks you into supporting that method forever, assuming that you as the app developer consider having people use the most recent version of the app important.
If, on the other hand, you split that out into a separate program, one 'small enough' to run 24/7, or at least regularly in the background, it doesn't matter if you change the update methods as long as you leave the old method up long enough for all the updater apps to update. Then the only people missing your updates are the ones who voluntarily and consciously went out of their way to disable the updates and thus 'made their own bed'.
The problem with 'self-updating' apps is you have to ensure that you never change the way they check for updates or at least always maintain the old paths. If you don't, then that person who only runs the app three times a year is never going to get the update.
On top of that, you now have to maintain this setup for each app you distribute.
Having a 'mother program' which watches over all the apps and downloads updates for them on a regular schedule is a far more stable and reliable way of doing things.
What really needs to happen is these 100+ companies that have enough apps that they think they need to install a background "update" service need to come together to define an open protocol for apps to register with one 'services/daemon/app' so instead of 100 programs all attempting to check for their own programs, you have one service that is covering them all.
I have you beat. Everytime I close iTunes (without my iPod plugged in even), it decides I didn't really want to do that and opens back up again. I have to camp on the process monitor and premptively kill the process two or three times before it'll stop trying to come back to life.
I've been told an uninstall/reinstall will fix it, but if it does, the problem seems common enough that it only 'does' for a couple of runs.
If you get a full install of Bonjour (downloading it from Apple directly instead of getting it with an install of iTunes) it's a fairly nice and useful tool. Unfortunately, the Windows install that comes with iTunes is loboitmized (probably in an effort to avoid complaints, but it's still a shame) and really doesn't do much more than let iTunes share it's library.
About 28GB so go a head and splurge on that and upgrade to the HD 1.2mbps steam. It's still only 44GB per month.
See friend, that's the difference between the human body, which is imperfectly understood, if at all, and say... RADIO WAVES, which we pretty much understand all significant issues of.
If you give me a pill and say "We don't think this will kill you.", I have a legitimate concern.
If you give me a cell phone and say "its impact on you is less than the impact of the background radiation you are exposed to daily 24/7, we know this via several methods, most significantly a through understanding of how radio waves propagate." I don't.
Not to defend them, but the summary indicates GB caps not MB. 100GB is alot harder to pull down in a month, not that I haven't managed to do it on a crappy DSL line, thus making it even more likely someone with a nice fat cable pipe could do it.
You do realize that 100% of the things that you are attempting to FUD over here are already the case in the US?
In other words, it's here. It's NOW. Have you suffered any harm yet? No? Perhaps that's because you are frothing mad over non-issues.
That was a quote from the wikipedia, not the actual document. You are welcome to read the actual treaty (here Which is in fact a treaty and therefore would require the nation itself to pass/amend the laws as necessary to enact it. Protections are for the law, not for the treaty. That is the whole point of having people sign on to the treaty and craft their own laws to match their culture rather than passing a "one law to rule them all".
And regarding who determines what's "best for the child", that's already the law in the US. So this treaty would change nothing in that respect. In other words all you have is FUD and the "OMG, but maybe something bad could happen if we really thought hard enough about scaring our selves."
BTW, in case you are looking for more FUD to spread about it, the treaty also bans capital punishment on children, prostitution, and child porn.
Can't wait to hear how not being able to chop their heads off is bad for children.
Actually the problems with the Muslim world - a.k.a the Middle East, is that they were once a actual "1st world level group" who were brought down to "3rd world levels" due to the actions of the 'West', first in the form of the British Empire, and afterwards in the form of the American 'empire' as we attempted to set up various puppet governments to prevent the spread of Communism.
And while some of it was due to their own arrogance (aka the Ottoman Empire in WWI) a large portion of it was due to the intentional efforts of the British empire and the inadvertent side effects of the CIA picking despots and fundamentalists to run countries rather than allowing democracy take hold (which they believed would be quickly subverted to communism).
Oh my FUCKING god. Is that the best FUD you could have come up with regarding this? That you are afraid your kid is going to call the government on you for not providing cookies?
Did you even read what you typed or are you just vomiting out whatever shit you think of and hoping some of it will stick?
This is something that has been law in many country since the 80's. Have you HONESTLY heard one peep from those countries concerning it? Any "All my children were taken away because I didn't bake enough brownies?" in the news?
Do you even know what you are talking about or are you just reading from some FUD manual?
Here is a quote
"The Convention deals with the child-specific needs and rights. It requires that states act in the best interests of the child. This approach is different from the common law approach found in many countries that had previously treated children and wives as possessions or chattels, ownership of which was often argued over in family disputes. In many jurisdictions, properly implementing the Convention requires an overhaul of child custody and guardianship laws, or, at the very least, a creative approach within the existing laws.
The Convention acknowledges that every child has certain basic rights, including the right to life, his or her own name and identity, to be raised by his or her parents within a family or cultural grouping and have a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated.
The Convention obliges states to allow parents to exercise their parental responsibilities. The Convention also acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be protected from abuse or exploitation, to have their privacy protected and requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference.
The Convention also obliges signatory states to provide separate legal representation for a child in any judicial dispute concerning their care and asks that the child's viewpoint be heard in such cases. The Convention forbids capital punishment for children."
Where does anything you've claimed appear in that or derive from that? WTF are you on?
Unless your name happens to be Barrack ("AC") Obama, the statement still stands. Even if you were McCain, looking at the way your campaign was run, I'd still be right.
If the folk throwing a shit storm were the folk supporting Obama before, I'd agree. But everytime I hear shit, it's from someone who from the start was attacking Obama. I'm sure there were plenty of people out there who let themselves be blinded in their expectations, but most of them are NOT the people bitching and making snide remarks. It's the people who decided that the rest of us supported Obama not on our opinion of his ability to lead but because we somehow were 'culted' into believing he was the next coming of Christ that are bitching.
It's the ultimate straw man arguement. "Ha ha! Where is your messiah now!", when most of us went in clear eyed knowing that he wasing going to match our world view 100%.
I can tell you one thing though, he's a damn sight better a match at seeing the world the way I dothan the previous guy or the guys he was running up against (Dem or Rep).
You are correct, my comment would have been more appro to one of HordeKing's, you were the end of the thread and I simply ascribed to you his words. I apologize. Regardless of whether the words are directed at you specifically or not through, the issue still stands.
I've heard more bullshit from the "anti-Obama" group in the past month about "Ha! Ha! This is 'change'..." every time he makes a decision that could even be mildly thought of as controversial than I think I heard during the entire campaign.
News flash for these people. You can't please everyone 100% of the time. The test of Obama's presidency won't be "Does he make decisions that Chyeld has always agreed with."