You might want to look up a formal definition of neoconservative in a reputable hard copy book (preferably a political science college textbook). You may find it enlightening.
For now, I will assume you mean Repbublican, not neo-con. Many high profile Liberals attend events with Republicans -- where they put their money would seem to trump their social calendar when figuring out which side of the political spectrum they fall on.
WRT Jack Welch and NBC, that is insane. Kerry conceded the election, then recanted, then conceded again when he realized that winning the uncounted precints and absentee ballots would still not give him a victory. And don't forget that in 2000, Florida was called before pols in the very conservative pan handle (different time zone from the rest of Florida) were closed, causing enough voters to not vote as to more than account for the margin of error in the machine counts of the ballots (I suppose I can say that Michael Moore or George Soros did that). Again, not that it made any difference since every recount since still declared Bush the winner, even those done by private news agencies like the New York Times.
At any rate, I do not own an American flag, nor can I be considered a Neoconservative, since I have never been a Liberal. If you take issue with what Johnny Ramone said, perhaps you should boycott the Ramones and the record labels they appeared on.
Do you have one bit of proof that RR blocked your web sites? Are you certain they were not simply down when you tried to access them? Is it also possible that there were backbone routing issues that would have prevented less contentious web sites from being accessed as well?
Just because Google and Cisco are making strategic business decisions with respect to China does not mean Comcast will do the same thing here, especially when evidence that they have a contrary approach exists.
What you saw was a contractor van with a Comcast sticker on the side. Read the fine print. Even if they did make deals to sell service to each other, this does not constitute ownership.
Time Warner and Comcast are competitors (at least in the areas where both offer service).
Head over to http://finance.yahoo.com/ and look these companies up. It is pretty easy to see who the majority shareholders are.
I don't think I've ever seen a comment so ridiculous here, mainly because you seem so sincere.
Road Runner and Comcast are not sibling companies, they have deals in some areas for the purposes of branding. Comcast, to the best of my knowledge, has never blocked out specific web sites from its subscribers. Time Warner contributed large amounts of money to Democrats this past year (IIRC, more than 2/3 of its campaign contributions, the only major media company to donate more to GOP and its candidates was Disney/ABC). I've used Vonage for the past two years and the only problems I've ever had were when my internet connection was generally poor -- they have never seemed to be doing anything to target Vonage (or VoIP) specifically. Finally, do not forget that Comcast challenges subpoenas for customer info (based on IP address) in court.
Control your emotions. I stated that there was lack of evidence that Apple had engineering that was notably innovative. Why would coming up with examples of innovation justify my speculation?
No. I just said that Apple's engineering is no more innovative than MS's, and that their recent success would seem to be more part of their marketing than engineering innovation. (Wow, that sounds a lot like my first post in this thread.)
The notion of keeping an easily accessible database in memory is far from new. Software MP3 players did that before the iPod. Neither is what amounts to what Sony used to call ESP (Electronic Skip Protection) on Discmans. Though both are good, they are not what I would call innovative, or even original.
None of those things represent particularly innovative engineering though. As you said, they represent effective utilization of engineering.
But honestly, do you think the iPod's success is more attributable to its technical aspects or the fact that it was the first HDD MP3 player from a well-known company? Marketing to hipsters didn't hurt either.
Excuse me? I think you have it backwards. The post made reference to engineering innovations on Apple's part. I am speculating that Apple's recent surge in popularity is more due to its marketing than technical innovation. The lack of Apple having done anything to public knowledge that is terribly innovative in the field of engineering is my basis for such speculation. At any rate, the article implied that MS could learn from Apple's innovative aprroach to engineering -- where is the evidence to back this up?
In my experience, quite a few need at least half of those, especially Access and Publisher. Depending on the size of the small office, Sharepoint could also be quite useful.
Of course not. Look at Bush being villified for using a Clinton administration's intelligence program that was praised by the New York Times at its inception. The biggest lesson of the Bush administration is how easily people can be emotionally manipulated by a handful of media outlets and special interest groups. No, I am not talking about Bush supporters. Despite the common anti-Bush notion that the media somehow does him all sorts of favors, it does not.
I am making note of the ACLU's priorities. They have a strong tendency toward attacking Christianity, while defending other religions. This is simply undeniable. The only thing this has to do with time or money is how they choose to allocate it. I heard this much from talking to an ACLU lawyer.
Your argument that the ACLU should be protecting every American's right to wear whatever they want wherever they are in order to protect us from being forced into or prohibited from wearing certain religious symbols is just silly (in fact, I may even go as far as to call it a non sequitur;-). It is not even the ACLU's argument. This would be like saying we should permit murder to protect abortion rights.
I can see why you would misuse terms like that when your point of reference is an encyclopedia, especially Wikipedia. A non sequitur is just a non-logical remark, not just one that is sarcastic. Though I suppose most sarcastic remarks can be wedged into the category of non-sequiturs, it is not necessarily a proper classification. For example, during Judge Alito's confirmation hearing in the Senate on Wednesday, Sen. Kerry claimed that because Pat Buchanan, Anne Coulter, and Robert Bork supported the appointment, they should vote against it. This is a non sequitur. I have no great spelling powers, nor does it bother me when things are misspelled. I just found it funny that you misspelled and misused a word like that right before labeling me an ignorant juvenile.
Thomas Jefferson was not in favor of the modern day notion of Libertarianism, much less contemporary Liberalism. Look beyond the catchphrases at who he was and what he supported. Though he was a liberal in the traditional sense, keep in mind that the liberal philosophy used to be one of capitalism and natural rights, not half-baked ideas about anonymity in every facet of life or removing Christian symbols from every public and private institution.
I don't get it. Am I a dumb 18-year old, or an Archie Bunker style relic?
Not being permitted to wear a Star of David is a possible infringement on constitutionally protected religious freedoms. How is the right to wear a skirt in public schools a constitutional freedom? Nearly every school in this country has a dress code, as do places of work. There is precedent in similar cases that does permit organizations to forbid the display of religious symbols.
A specific case that comes to mind was a police officer that wanted to wear a tiepin with a cross on it and was prohibited to during the summer when the tie was not part of his uniform. The ACLU was nowhere to be found.
Is the eradication of Christian symbols in public places a civil liberty? Where in the constitution does it say a sports team's logo may not display a cross, but may display an Indian religious symbol? Was there a civil liberty violated there?
Moreover, my signature was a tongue-in-cheek remark that no liberal should take offense to, especially the ones on Slashdot that argue almost everything under the sun is protected speech.
If you are going to take personal jabs at me and call me an 18-year old, at least spell your big words like "sequitur" correctly. Then again, you barely used it correctly. Furthermore, if I were still 18, I would probably be dillusional enough to align myself with the left. Liberalism is like bed-wetting, most people are lucky enough to grow out of it.
I am one and acknowledge that the ACLU has done some very important things in the past. The group is now nothing but a self-perpetuating beast with some simply idiotic causes: the right of high school boys to wear skirts, eliminatation of Christian religious symbols from flags while ignoring non-Christian religious Indian ones, etc.
Regardless of that, I fail to see what a liberal would find objectionable about my sig.
Then what would happen if they changed the license to something GPL-incompatible? I'm not trying to troll -- it just seems like there is a lot of ambiguity when it comes to copyrights and licenses as they apply to open source (especially GPL) software.
But can this be done with respect to companies like RedHat that make significant changes to the kernel. Code released under v2 would seem to be stuck as v2. How could someone make a retroactive license change on a released piece of software?
How can code released under the GPL be relicensed at all, even GPLv3? If it can be, why can't I take it and license it with a BSD-style or completely closed source license?
Though this is irritating, it is somewhat acceptable since 98% of Slashdot's readers will agree on nearly every broad topic in politics, technology, and culture. Just look at the tendencies of the moderators to mod up the most redundant pro-Linux, pro-Apple, anti-Microsoft, anti-Bush comments, while modding down comments that are of the opposite point of view.
Slashdot Mirror
You might want to look up a formal definition of neoconservative in a reputable hard copy book (preferably a political science college textbook). You may find it enlightening.
For now, I will assume you mean Repbublican, not neo-con. Many high profile Liberals attend events with Republicans -- where they put their money would seem to trump their social calendar when figuring out which side of the political spectrum they fall on.
WRT Jack Welch and NBC, that is insane. Kerry conceded the election, then recanted, then conceded again when he realized that winning the uncounted precints and absentee ballots would still not give him a victory. And don't forget that in 2000, Florida was called before pols in the very conservative pan handle (different time zone from the rest of Florida) were closed, causing enough voters to not vote as to more than account for the margin of error in the machine counts of the ballots (I suppose I can say that Michael Moore or George Soros did that). Again, not that it made any difference since every recount since still declared Bush the winner, even those done by private news agencies like the New York Times.
At any rate, I do not own an American flag, nor can I be considered a Neoconservative, since I have never been a Liberal. If you take issue with what Johnny Ramone said, perhaps you should boycott the Ramones and the record labels they appeared on.
Ok...
Do you have one bit of proof that RR blocked your web sites? Are you certain they were not simply down when you tried to access them? Is it also possible that there were backbone routing issues that would have prevented less contentious web sites from being accessed as well?
Just because Google and Cisco are making strategic business decisions with respect to China does not mean Comcast will do the same thing here, especially when evidence that they have a contrary approach exists.
What you saw was a contractor van with a Comcast sticker on the side. Read the fine print. Even if they did make deals to sell service to each other, this does not constitute ownership.
Time Warner and Comcast are competitors (at least in the areas where both offer service).
Head over to http://finance.yahoo.com/ and look these companies up. It is pretty easy to see who the majority shareholders are.
I don't think I've ever seen a comment so ridiculous here, mainly because you seem so sincere.
Road Runner and Comcast are not sibling companies, they have deals in some areas for the purposes of branding. Comcast, to the best of my knowledge, has never blocked out specific web sites from its subscribers. Time Warner contributed large amounts of money to Democrats this past year (IIRC, more than 2/3 of its campaign contributions, the only major media company to donate more to GOP and its candidates was Disney/ABC). I've used Vonage for the past two years and the only problems I've ever had were when my internet connection was generally poor -- they have never seemed to be doing anything to target Vonage (or VoIP) specifically. Finally, do not forget that Comcast challenges subpoenas for customer info (based on IP address) in court.
Are you a lunatic or a troll?
Control your emotions. I stated that there was lack of evidence that Apple had engineering that was notably innovative. Why would coming up with examples of innovation justify my speculation?
No. I just said that Apple's engineering is no more innovative than MS's, and that their recent success would seem to be more part of their marketing than engineering innovation. (Wow, that sounds a lot like my first post in this thread.)
The notion of keeping an easily accessible database in memory is far from new. Software MP3 players did that before the iPod. Neither is what amounts to what Sony used to call ESP (Electronic Skip Protection) on Discmans. Though both are good, they are not what I would call innovative, or even original.
None of those things represent particularly innovative engineering though. As you said, they represent effective utilization of engineering.
But honestly, do you think the iPod's success is more attributable to its technical aspects or the fact that it was the first HDD MP3 player from a well-known company? Marketing to hipsters didn't hurt either.
Excuse me? I think you have it backwards. The post made reference to engineering innovations on Apple's part. I am speculating that Apple's recent surge in popularity is more due to its marketing than technical innovation. The lack of Apple having done anything to public knowledge that is terribly innovative in the field of engineering is my basis for such speculation. At any rate, the article implied that MS could learn from Apple's innovative aprroach to engineering -- where is the evidence to back this up?
What do you attribute Apple's success to?
Apple's innovation would seem more related to its marketing than its engineering.
It's a nice and easy to use collaboration tool that ties in well with most Office applications.
In my experience, quite a few need at least half of those, especially Access and Publisher. Depending on the size of the small office, Sharepoint could also be quite useful.
Without any background whatsoever on the legislation, in a knee-jerk kind of way, it does.
Of course not. Look at Bush being villified for using a Clinton administration's intelligence program that was praised by the New York Times at its inception. The biggest lesson of the Bush administration is how easily people can be emotionally manipulated by a handful of media outlets and special interest groups. No, I am not talking about Bush supporters. Despite the common anti-Bush notion that the media somehow does him all sorts of favors, it does not.
That was the point.
I am making note of the ACLU's priorities. They have a strong tendency toward attacking Christianity, while defending other religions. This is simply undeniable. The only thing this has to do with time or money is how they choose to allocate it. I heard this much from talking to an ACLU lawyer.
;-). It is not even the ACLU's argument. This would be like saying we should permit murder to protect abortion rights.
Your argument that the ACLU should be protecting every American's right to wear whatever they want wherever they are in order to protect us from being forced into or prohibited from wearing certain religious symbols is just silly (in fact, I may even go as far as to call it a non sequitur
I can see why you would misuse terms like that when your point of reference is an encyclopedia, especially Wikipedia. A non sequitur is just a non-logical remark, not just one that is sarcastic. Though I suppose most sarcastic remarks can be wedged into the category of non-sequiturs, it is not necessarily a proper classification. For example, during Judge Alito's confirmation hearing in the Senate on Wednesday, Sen. Kerry claimed that because Pat Buchanan, Anne Coulter, and Robert Bork supported the appointment, they should vote against it. This is a non sequitur. I have no great spelling powers, nor does it bother me when things are misspelled. I just found it funny that you misspelled and misused a word like that right before labeling me an ignorant juvenile.
Thomas Jefferson was not in favor of the modern day notion of Libertarianism, much less contemporary Liberalism. Look beyond the catchphrases at who he was and what he supported. Though he was a liberal in the traditional sense, keep in mind that the liberal philosophy used to be one of capitalism and natural rights, not half-baked ideas about anonymity in every facet of life or removing Christian symbols from every public and private institution.
I don't get it. Am I a dumb 18-year old, or an Archie Bunker style relic?
Not being permitted to wear a Star of David is a possible infringement on constitutionally protected religious freedoms. How is the right to wear a skirt in public schools a constitutional freedom? Nearly every school in this country has a dress code, as do places of work. There is precedent in similar cases that does permit organizations to forbid the display of religious symbols.
A specific case that comes to mind was a police officer that wanted to wear a tiepin with a cross on it and was prohibited to during the summer when the tie was not part of his uniform. The ACLU was nowhere to be found.
Is the eradication of Christian symbols in public places a civil liberty? Where in the constitution does it say a sports team's logo may not display a cross, but may display an Indian religious symbol? Was there a civil liberty violated there?
Moreover, my signature was a tongue-in-cheek remark that no liberal should take offense to, especially the ones on Slashdot that argue almost everything under the sun is protected speech.
If you are going to take personal jabs at me and call me an 18-year old, at least spell your big words like "sequitur" correctly. Then again, you barely used it correctly. Furthermore, if I were still 18, I would probably be dillusional enough to align myself with the left. Liberalism is like bed-wetting, most people are lucky enough to grow out of it.
Only a libertarian would interpret my sig completely free of its historical and political context, and see it as trolling.
I am one and acknowledge that the ACLU has done some very important things in the past. The group is now nothing but a self-perpetuating beast with some simply idiotic causes: the right of high school boys to wear skirts, eliminatation of Christian religious symbols from flags while ignoring non-Christian religious Indian ones, etc.
Regardless of that, I fail to see what a liberal would find objectionable about my sig.
Then what would happen if they changed the license to something GPL-incompatible? I'm not trying to troll -- it just seems like there is a lot of ambiguity when it comes to copyrights and licenses as they apply to open source (especially GPL) software.
And on Slashdot, trolls are those who point out anything negative about Apple.
But can this be done with respect to companies like RedHat that make significant changes to the kernel. Code released under v2 would seem to be stuck as v2. How could someone make a retroactive license change on a released piece of software?
How can code released under the GPL be relicensed at all, even GPLv3? If it can be, why can't I take it and license it with a BSD-style or completely closed source license?
That what PBS and NPR are all about.
Though this is irritating, it is somewhat acceptable since 98% of Slashdot's readers will agree on nearly every broad topic in politics, technology, and culture. Just look at the tendencies of the moderators to mod up the most redundant pro-Linux, pro-Apple, anti-Microsoft, anti-Bush comments, while modding down comments that are of the opposite point of view.