Because Windows, as the OS handles the hardware. You want to play a sound in Windows? You tell Windows to play a sound through an API call. It's up to Windows to take the request and hand it off to the driver which translates it and hands it to the hardware........
And...
I see no reason why Android can't do things this way, assuming they don't now.
Android is Linux, by the way. How do you imagine it works?
I don't see the argument here. Some computers have faster CPUs, several gigs more RAM, more CPUs, bigger screens, and graphics cards that can handle lots and lots of effects. Some computers have 1024x768 resolution, a gig of RAM in this day and age, two core at 2GHz each, and on-board graphics that can't handle anti-aliasing. This is as fragmented as cell phones.
The point was that it's up to the OS to handle hardware calls, not the developers. I keep reading how these developers are bitching because different phones have different hardware. That's not the issue. The problem is that different phones had different ability. Some have 1 Ghz processors with 528MB RAM and a 4 inch screen (my Evo) while others have a 600 Mhz processor with 256 MB RAM and a 7 inch screen (cheap ass tablets).
So, it's not so much a matter of what hardware is in the phone. It's a matter of minimum hardware requirements, much like the PC world. When I grab a boxed game at Fry's for my PC, on the bottom is clearly labeled what the minimum hardware requirements are. It doesn't say that I need a Creative Labs sound card with an 512-bit wave table. It tells me I need a sound card, or at most, a Windows compatible sound card. It will tell me that I need 1 GB RAM, not 1GB DDR3 RAM. It tells me I need a processor that is 2Ghz or faster, not an AMD Athlon2 Dual Core and a Via chipset.
So, my point was that this whole fragmentation issue could be resolved if they simply implemented a "minimum hardware requirements" feature for software. BTW, I understand that Gingerbread was supposed to require certain hardware minimums. Maybe that is the solution. If Android can guarantee minimum requirements for each version of Android, all the developers would need to list is "Requires Gingerbread of better" as the minimum requirements.
As much as I dislike Apple, iPhones are a solid platform. They have a few different versions of the OS (there needs to be progress, right?), but that's it. Much better for developers and for users. While Windows Phone 7 has definitely taken a better approach than before, they also haven't considered this issue.
Basically you babbled about how there's approximately 1 iPhone. I mean face it, Linux runs on SPARC and PPC and x86 and x86-64; Windows has gone through multiple API versions and even just Vista has 40 different versions and runs on computers with one or two or six processor cores, sometimes shared, sometimes with different memory access models (flat, NUMA, single-processor-multi-core vs multi-processor vs multi-multicore and memory/cache sharing and access models) that affect performance, some with a scroll wheel or a 7 button mouse, some with joypads or joysticks, most with physical keyboards. Some very few have touch screens. Some have 3D graphics to different levels of performance.
How is this different?
Because Windows, as the OS handles the hardware. You want to play a sound in Windows? You tell Windows to play a sound through an API call. It's up to Windows to take the request and hand it off to the driver which translates it and hands it to the hardware. It doesn't matter what kind of sound card you have, all applications pretty much handle them the same way (minus various features like EAX or whatever, but even those are API independent) Want to print a document? Again, you hand the document off to the Windows Print Service. The app does not care what kind of printer you have and it can retrieve the features of the printer from Windows (B&W/Color, paper sizes etc).
I see no reason why Android can't do things this way, assuming they don't now. You want to access the GPS, ask Android "Where am I"? Want to display something on the screen? Make a generic call to Android to display something on the screen. What Android does with the calls is up to Android and the hardware drivers built into the phone. The developer should not care what kind of hardware you have as long as you have the necessary hardware.
Easy mistake to make, those are "web sites" not "the internet".
OK, wise guy. What is the value of "the Internet" (it's with a capital 'I', by the way) without endpoints like the websites I mentioned? Also keep in mind that.gov sites would not exist were it not for the privately created HTTP.
Yeah and they lift a hell of a lot of research from universities. You don't think that companies spending as much on advertising as they do on R&D come up with this stuff by themselves do you?
You mean Universities like Baylor, Rice, Harvard, and Princeton? Um... yeah. Those are all private.
And yes, drug manufacturers spend billions yearly on research. See, that's why they are able to claim drugs as their own. Do you think that the US gov't is going to give a drug to Pfeizer and tell Merc to screw off? If it's gov't research, any company is free to use it. Here's a little fact for you, drug companies don't make much money off generic drugs.
As one might expect, the characterization you allude to from the YouCut project page isn't quite accurate. First off, here's links to actual research info on the so-called "soccer research" [plosone.org] (actually research into a means of quantifying individual contributions to team performance) and the sound rendering for physically based simulation project [cornell.edu]. Here's some snippets from a news article [msn.com] regarding the projects:
Strange. I don't see researching "into a means of quantifying individual contributions to team performance" as a set purpose of our, or any government. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens and give them the opportunity to pursue life as they see fit. Paying for research in team performance should not be a government function and I shouldn't be paying for it.
Just being able to pronounce the word "nuclear" properly instead of like a fucking inbred is an improvement over the last guy.
Who, I might add, also did not show us his grades.
You really shouldn't make fun of the way Jimmy Carter pronounced "nuclear". Granted, he only served on submarines... I mean, what we he know about nuclear stuff. I would say that his knowledge of all things "nucular" is much greater than yours will ever be.
And calling Carter "inbred" just because he's from Georgia shows that you are just a bigot.
When Admiral Hyman G. Rickover (then a captain) started his program to create nuclear powered submarines, Carter wanted to join the program and was interviewed by Rickover. On 1 June 1952, Carter was promoted to Lieutenant. Selected by Rickover, Carter was detached on 16 October 1952 from K-1 for duty with the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Reactor Development in Schenectady, New York. From 3 November 1952 to 1 March 1953, he served on temporary duty with the Naval Reactors Branch, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, DC to assist "in the design and development of nuclear propulsion plants for naval vessels."
Hate on Obama all you want, but if you're trying to pretend that he's not "well versed in our own government," you're just being silly. He's obviously well-educated, regardless of what you think of him.
So it's a good education that is important? Need I remind you that GWBush attended Harvard and Yale. What university did Obama attend again?
Publicly-funded science produces things like vaccines and the Internet.
Really? You mean Slashdot, Google, Yahoo!, and porn are all government funded? Wow! And here I thought those were all private industries.
Oh, and you do realize that all vaccines are produced by private companies, right? BTW, can you tell me the last drug that was created by the US Government? I would like the latest, but any will do.
Excuse me, could you point to the private enterprise that developed TCP/IP ? Oh, right it was a wasteful government grant to those egghead liberals.
Yes, Gov't created TCP/IP and the Internet as a whole. It was private inividuals that made HTML, FTP, SMTP and all the other protocols you use over your IP based network. TCP/IP by itself is worthless. Remember, when the government handed it off, it was nothing more than a way for universities to send HELLO WORLD's back and forth. It wasn't until it was handed over to private industry that we started getting things like Slashdot, Google, Yahoo and, of course, PORN!!!
Sorry, but government just laid the wires and figured out how to send messages. Everything else was the private sector.
First, we will take a look at the National Science Foundation (NSF) - Congress created the NSF in 1950 to promote the progress of science. For this purpose, NSF makes more than 10,000 new grant awards annually, many of these grants fund worthy research in the hard sciences. Recently, however NSF has funded some more questionable projects - $750,000 to develop computer models to analyze the on-field contributions of soccer players and $1.2 million to model the sound of objects breaking for use by the video game industry. Help us identify grants that are wasteful or that you don't think are a good use of taxpayer dollars.
Do you really want your tax dollars going toward research for Soccer (Football everywhere else in the world) and video game sounds?
Oh wait. We are bashing Republicans here. Down with those ignorant Christian rednecks!
Since the blog linked in the summary is down, here is the link to the site itself: http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/ I might be missing something but I don't see anything about the National Science Foundation, never mind being the "first target". The first chosen cut was something called "New Non-Reformed Welfare Program"
SSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We awe hunting Wepublicans. We don't need no stinking facts to get on ow way.
You are right, of course. It's not that Fox News makes people stupid, it's that stupid people watch Fox News.
Sorry to make your high-horse into a pony, but you would certainly get similar results if you were to ask similar questions with the opposite slant to MSNBC views. Questions like, "True or false, Sarah Palin mistakenly said she could Russia from her house." or "True or False, George Bush's tax cuts only benefited the rich." or even "Did George Bush know about 9-11 and allow it to happen?"
If by equally biased, you are talking about MSNBC, then sure. But if you're saying all the other news channels are equally biased than you are truly a special kind of person. CNN and the major network news organizations do have a bias. This is true. However none of them so heartily embrace one side of the aisle in their coverage as FOX News and MSNBC.
Sorry, but MSNBC is NOT the left equivalent of Fox News. For example, in an average week, how many Bill O'Reilly shows have a liberal on them? The answer is five. Every single Bill O'Reilly show has at least one liberal. Usually every single Bill O'Reilly story has a liberal. Now, take the exact same time slot and and look at MSNBC. Keith Olbermann is on MSNBC while Bill O'Reilly is on Fox. How many Keith Olbermann "Countdown" shows have at least on conservative on them? The answer is zero. Keith Olbermann never has anyone on his show from the right side of the aisle, unless it is a conservative that has broken ranks with the right and is there to bash the right along with Keith Olbermann.
The same scenario echos for just about every political commentary show that is on Fox and MSNBC, with the exception of Rachel Maddow who, on occasion, will have a conservative or even a liberal that will disagree with her point of view.
See, the reason Fox claims to be "Fair and Balanced" is because they give air time to both sides of the story. MSNBC won't do that. CNN, does, when they give air time to anyone, but it's mostly just an anchor telling the left's side of the story as fact.
However, the problem with CNN is that they don't see their own bias. For example, CNN anchor Rick Sanchez himself went after Fox News for being "way, way, way, to the right" and MSNBC for being "left," and extended his infamous "I play it down the middle" label to his entire network during an August 18, 2010 segment. I believe this shows his leaning to left. When he looks leftward, he sees MSNBC just to his left. When he looks right, he sees Fox News way, way, way to the right OF HIM. What he doesn't realized is the middle is somewhere between himself and FoxNews.
I believe this is the situation many who bash FoxNews are in. Everyone sees themselves as middle of the road. When those to the left of center look in front of them, they see ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN and think, Oh, these guys are middle of the road. They see Fox way to the right of them and think that FoxNews is a right wing fringe outfit. Reporters especially fit into this category. Remember 70% of reporters voted for Clinton. Less than 50% of the population did. But, like most people, reporters literally can't see their own bias. "Truth" is merely what they agree with.
Now, go back and watch FoxNews, CNN and MSNBC. Take notes on how many statements, not stories, are slanted to the right and to the left. This is important: Don't use your own consideration of what is right and left. Think, "would a Republican agree with that?" or "Would a Democrat agree with that" to determine left vs right. If a Republican would reject it, it's a left statement. If a Democrat would reject it, it's a right statement. If possible, have a conservative standing by to assist. A REAL conservative, not just someone to the right of you.
They have been successful in killing hundreds of thousands Palestinian without those nukes.
Another poster shot down your hundreds of thousands comment. So, for your enjoyment, here are Palestinians launching rockets into Israeli neighborhoods from a boys school on their own territory.
You tell by the distance from the school that the Palestinians are sincere with their stated goals of wanting peace and safety for their people. I mean, that launcher is at least one meter from the school. The only way to be closer would be if these "militants" had babies in backpacks as they ran back and forth launching the rockets.
"well, the Israelis are tergeting primarily civilians,"
Yeah, I keep hearing this too. Then I see a portable rocket launcher set up in an elementary school courtyard and think, "Oh, that's why." (BTW, Israel did NOT attack the rocket launcher set up next to the elementary school. They allowed it to fire all of its rockets into Israeli neighborhoods instead of risking Palestinian children. What monsters!)
Every heard the story of the boy that cried wolf?... Let's watch the crazy man, isn't he funny!
I remember thinking the same thing. "This Beck guy is a conspiracy theory nut!" I continued to listen because I love a good conspiracy theory. I love listening to Alex Jones, George Noory, various "truthers", "birthers", and those that think the Illuminati/Free Masons/Vandenbergs are going to/already have take over the world. But, as a conspiracy theory nut, Beck was the most entertaining. Unlike the others, I felt Beck believed what he was saying. I remember thinking he was nuts several years ago when he said that government was going to try take over the banks, major industry and our very health. What a loon! Here we are in 2010 and government has taken over the banks, the auto industry and health care.
Now, most conspiracy theories follow one of two lines. First is the Alex Jones approach. He'll take some obscure government memo concerning, say, TSA needing to be ready for (foreign) government operatives trying to take down planes, and claim he has proof via a government document that says our government wants to take down planes. The next kind of conspiracy theory is where they make long links to try to prove some obscure point. For example, politician X's gardener went to church with a guy whose sister was a radical central American revolutionary. "How dare Politician X have dealings with those who want to take over Latin America in order to spread communism here in America".
Beck is in the second group. Except rather than being a politicians gardener that knew someone, he shows video of people saying things that would shock most Americans and ties them directly to politician X. For example, Van Jones, who said he associates himself with radical revolutionaries and considers himself a communist was hand picked by Obama to be an adviser and Green Jobs Czar. Anita Jones, who said that her favorite political philosophers is Mao Zedong was Obama's communications director. This is not about some campaign staffer in Houston TX who hangs a Che poster. These are not loose affiliations. These are top level staffers to the President of the United States. Beck's point was to show who the people were that Obama was surrounding himself with as a reflection of Obama himself. If you take the time to see what Beck has to say about these people, and investigate for yourself who these people really are and what they stand for, you should be shocked. No one else was willing to look into these people and report who they are or what they had done in the past until Beck came along. I had never heard of Anita Dunn or Van Jones and never would have until Beck did his report on these two and many others (these were just the two that I saw).
McCain would have been a better President than both Bushes and Reagan.
OK, but do you think that McCain would have been a better president than Bill Clinton or Barack Obama? I mean, it doesn't say a lot if I say that Hillary Clinton would make a better president than Obama. What would say much more is if I felt that Hillary Clinton would make a better president than McCain... and I do.
Here you go, it got international coverage: http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/09/23/glennbeck/ That certainly looks like brain damage from all that cocaine he was famous for doing to me. If he replaces the clothes and doesn't shave for a few days I wouldn't be able to tell him from a mentally ill homeless guy.
Beck said, "I have the proof. I have them on tape saying these things." Um... yeah. If you had seen his show for the entire two weeks before this particular episode, you would have seen those videos of these people saying that they want to control every aspect of your life. For example, Van Jones was speaking about what he was supposed to do as Green Job Czar. He said that it was not just about hiring people to install solar panels. It was about what fuel goes into cars. It was about how much power people use. It was about removing toxic fuels for bombers to drop toxic bombs on poor brown people. In other words, it was about controlling every aspect from what kind of blender you use to stripping the military of needed fuel. Another example is the head of the EPA declaring CO2 a toxin. The EPA can make law without congress. So, if the EPA can regulate CO2, what in your life can the EPA NOT regulate? Beck showed about 10 minutes of video for each of the pictures on his blackboard.
So, this clip is not just Beck being crazy. This was the conclusion of a series that lasted about two weeks. In other words, you took him out of context and then accused him of being a homeless drug addict over the false information you linked to. I don't care how evil you think people like Beck are, I've never seen him do something so cheap and vile. So, if you think it's OK to do stuff like that, yet you claim to hate Beck because you say he does the same thing... I don't think that's why you dislike Beck. You hate him because you heard he's a conservative and you feel it's necessary to take him down. How dare someone have a view that is different than your own. All who disagree with you must be silenced!!!
I've never seen much of Beck but the clips I have seen are most definitely "this is your brain on drugs" moments. You've obviously forgotten about him talking about how he has proof of some global illuminati style conspiracy "all on tape".
I've never seen it. If you have a link, I'd appreciate you providing it. Actually, it's the first I've heard of it. Of course, I've seen that kind of crap from Alex Jones. Hell, he's even seen documents that prove it (and I'm sure he could type them up on the fly for you to)!
I've seen Glenn do some pretty far out there conspiracy stuff on a regular basis, but he's never said, "I've seen the tape". Everything I've seen him do, he's said, "Here is the clip. We'll run it for five minutes so that no one can say we take it out of context. View it for yourself. Don't take my word for it. Do your own research and make up your own mind." Actually, that's damn close to a quote when he was responding to criticism about his Anita Dunn. Of course, they accused him of taking the quote out of context anyway. You watch the clip and tell me it was taken out of context. And tell me what Beck says here that is not true or crazy.
Here, take a look at his piece on Van Jones. And, again, tell me what Beck says that is crazy or not true.
Actually, he calls himself a "rodeo clown". I assume because he tries to be funny and entertaining while doing something he considers dead serious and quite boring. Much like a rodeo clown's job is to entertain while being responsible for the safety of riders.
And... he has done what he called a "comedy tour". From Huffpo:
NEW YORK — Glenn Beck, Fox News Channel's latest sensation, is taking a comedy show on the road for six live performances over six days during the first week of June.
Beck calls his act a "poor man's Seinfeld" and intends to mix topical humor with his modern-day reimagining of Thomas Paine's 1776 pamphlet "Common Sense."
So, yeah, I guess he is also a comedian.
Also, Beck is not on the "crazy part of the right." I'd peg him as more on the "sane part of the Libertarians" (which does not negate your "crazy", BTW). I'd put him as far to the right as I'd put Penn Jillette to the left. Other than religious views, the two pretty much agree on everything. Beck's attitude toward political parties is the same as South Park's co-creator Matt Stone, "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals."
Of course, YMMV as where people rate right-left depends on where they stand on the political spectrum. Everyone thinks they are middle of the road. Everyone more conservative than themselves is viewed as being "right-wing" and inverse for everyone on the left of them.
I know it's off topic. Just trying to educate. I'm certain you don't spend a whole lot time watching Beck on TV or listening to him on the radio. Granted, I don't much either, but I did spend a few years listening to his radio show when it was on while I sat in traffic.
Glenn Beck Program, although laughable is not really the same as funny.
Actually, Glenn Beck is hilarious. Check out Moron Trivia as one example.
You should not judge the quality of comedy by the comedian's political beliefs. It really just makes you petty.
Finish this sequence... Million, Billion Ravens: Trillion Stu, Glenn, or Pat's Response: Yes, we can accept that. Or we could accept a billion and one.
Sure, this is hilarious. But somehow I doubt they meant it to be so funny.
Concern over some governments' determination to restrict the free flow of information. That's rich.
To be fair, governments need secrets. Not everything should be public. Now I know that you may say that if a government doesn't want an action to be made public then they shouldn't do it. But sometimes, there is a legitimate need for secrecy. For example, when a diplomat sends a wire back to Washington saying that he does not believe the diplomat from N. Korea is being entirely truthful concerning the welfare of the N. Korean citizens, that information should not be made public. It could irreparably harm negotiations that could prove beneficial to the peoples of both countries. The path that a convoy full of medical supplies and food for refuges against a warlords wishes would be another example. This is a bit different than a diplomat calling the leader of Esbonia a stinky-fart fat-head.
Some things are legitimately kept secret for a reason. Others, not so much. Wikileaks doesn't concern itself with the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Because Windows, as the OS handles the hardware. You want to play a sound in Windows? You tell Windows to play a sound through an API call. It's up to Windows to take the request and hand it off to the driver which translates it and hands it to the hardware........
And...
I see no reason why Android can't do things this way, assuming they don't now.
Android is Linux, by the way. How do you imagine it works?
I don't see the argument here. Some computers have faster CPUs, several gigs more RAM, more CPUs, bigger screens, and graphics cards that can handle lots and lots of effects. Some computers have 1024x768 resolution, a gig of RAM in this day and age, two core at 2GHz each, and on-board graphics that can't handle anti-aliasing. This is as fragmented as cell phones.
The point was that it's up to the OS to handle hardware calls, not the developers. I keep reading how these developers are bitching because different phones have different hardware. That's not the issue. The problem is that different phones had different ability. Some have 1 Ghz processors with 528MB RAM and a 4 inch screen (my Evo) while others have a 600 Mhz processor with 256 MB RAM and a 7 inch screen (cheap ass tablets).
So, it's not so much a matter of what hardware is in the phone. It's a matter of minimum hardware requirements, much like the PC world. When I grab a boxed game at Fry's for my PC, on the bottom is clearly labeled what the minimum hardware requirements are. It doesn't say that I need a Creative Labs sound card with an 512-bit wave table. It tells me I need a sound card, or at most, a Windows compatible sound card. It will tell me that I need 1 GB RAM, not 1GB DDR3 RAM. It tells me I need a processor that is 2Ghz or faster, not an AMD Athlon2 Dual Core and a Via chipset.
So, my point was that this whole fragmentation issue could be resolved if they simply implemented a "minimum hardware requirements" feature for software. BTW, I understand that Gingerbread was supposed to require certain hardware minimums. Maybe that is the solution. If Android can guarantee minimum requirements for each version of Android, all the developers would need to list is "Requires Gingerbread of better" as the minimum requirements.
As much as I dislike Apple, iPhones are a solid platform. They have a few different versions of the OS (there needs to be progress, right?), but that's it. Much better for developers and for users. While Windows Phone 7 has definitely taken a better approach than before, they also haven't considered this issue.
Basically you babbled about how there's approximately 1 iPhone. I mean face it, Linux runs on SPARC and PPC and x86 and x86-64; Windows has gone through multiple API versions and even just Vista has 40 different versions and runs on computers with one or two or six processor cores, sometimes shared, sometimes with different memory access models (flat, NUMA, single-processor-multi-core vs multi-processor vs multi-multicore and memory/cache sharing and access models) that affect performance, some with a scroll wheel or a 7 button mouse, some with joypads or joysticks, most with physical keyboards. Some very few have touch screens. Some have 3D graphics to different levels of performance.
How is this different?
Because Windows, as the OS handles the hardware. You want to play a sound in Windows? You tell Windows to play a sound through an API call. It's up to Windows to take the request and hand it off to the driver which translates it and hands it to the hardware. It doesn't matter what kind of sound card you have, all applications pretty much handle them the same way (minus various features like EAX or whatever, but even those are API independent) Want to print a document? Again, you hand the document off to the Windows Print Service. The app does not care what kind of printer you have and it can retrieve the features of the printer from Windows (B&W/Color, paper sizes etc).
I see no reason why Android can't do things this way, assuming they don't now. You want to access the GPS, ask Android "Where am I"? Want to display something on the screen? Make a generic call to Android to display something on the screen. What Android does with the calls is up to Android and the hardware drivers built into the phone. The developer should not care what kind of hardware you have as long as you have the necessary hardware.
No, but *Comedians* on the other hand are more than qualified :)
I despise Al Franken, but on this issue, it appears that this *Comedian* certainly has a better grasp on this issue than the *Experts* at the FCC.
Well, GWBush did graduate in the top 85% of his class at Yale with a degree in History. Know any successful History majors?
Well, I know of one who was a two term president. Know anyone of any degree that is more successful?
Easy mistake to make, those are "web sites" not "the internet".
OK, wise guy. What is the value of "the Internet" (it's with a capital 'I', by the way) without endpoints like the websites I mentioned? Also keep in mind that .gov sites would not exist were it not for the privately created HTTP.
Yeah and they lift a hell of a lot of research from universities. You don't think that companies spending as much on advertising as they do on R&D come up with this stuff by themselves do you?
You mean Universities like Baylor, Rice, Harvard, and Princeton? Um... yeah. Those are all private.
And yes, drug manufacturers spend billions yearly on research. See, that's why they are able to claim drugs as their own. Do you think that the US gov't is going to give a drug to Pfeizer and tell Merc to screw off? If it's gov't research, any company is free to use it. Here's a little fact for you, drug companies don't make much money off generic drugs.
As one might expect, the characterization you allude to from the YouCut project page isn't quite accurate. First off, here's links to actual research info on the so-called "soccer research" [plosone.org] (actually research into a means of quantifying individual contributions to team performance) and the sound rendering for physically based simulation project [cornell.edu]. Here's some snippets from a news article [msn.com] regarding the projects:
Strange. I don't see researching "into a means of quantifying individual contributions to team performance" as a set purpose of our, or any government. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens and give them the opportunity to pursue life as they see fit. Paying for research in team performance should not be a government function and I shouldn't be paying for it.
Just being able to pronounce the word "nuclear" properly instead of like a fucking inbred is an improvement over the last guy.
Who, I might add, also did not show us his grades.
You really shouldn't make fun of the way Jimmy Carter pronounced "nuclear". Granted, he only served on submarines... I mean, what we he know about nuclear stuff. I would say that his knowledge of all things "nucular" is much greater than yours will ever be.
And calling Carter "inbred" just because he's from Georgia shows that you are just a bigot.
When Admiral Hyman G. Rickover (then a captain) started his program to create nuclear powered submarines, Carter wanted to join the program and was interviewed by Rickover. On 1 June 1952, Carter was promoted to Lieutenant. Selected by Rickover, Carter was detached on 16 October 1952 from K-1 for duty with the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Reactor Development in Schenectady, New York. From 3 November 1952 to 1 March 1953, he served on temporary duty with the Naval Reactors Branch, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, DC to assist "in the design and development of nuclear propulsion plants for naval vessels."
Hate on Obama all you want, but if you're trying to pretend that he's not "well versed in our own government," you're just being silly. He's obviously well-educated, regardless of what you think of him.
So it's a good education that is important? Need I remind you that GWBush attended Harvard and Yale. What university did Obama attend again?
Publicly-funded science produces things like vaccines and the Internet.
Really? You mean Slashdot, Google, Yahoo!, and porn are all government funded? Wow! And here I thought those were all private industries.
Oh, and you do realize that all vaccines are produced by private companies, right? BTW, can you tell me the last drug that was created by the US Government? I would like the latest, but any will do.
Excuse me, could you point to the private enterprise that developed TCP/IP ? Oh, right it was a wasteful government grant to those egghead liberals.
Yes, Gov't created TCP/IP and the Internet as a whole. It was private inividuals that made HTML, FTP, SMTP and all the other protocols you use over your IP based network. TCP/IP by itself is worthless. Remember, when the government handed it off, it was nothing more than a way for universities to send HELLO WORLD's back and forth. It wasn't until it was handed over to private industry that we started getting things like Slashdot, Google, Yahoo and, of course, PORN!!!
Sorry, but government just laid the wires and figured out how to send messages. Everything else was the private sector.
How about the rest of it:
First, we will take a look at the National Science Foundation (NSF) - Congress created the NSF in 1950 to promote the progress of science. For this purpose, NSF makes more than 10,000 new grant awards annually, many of these grants fund worthy research in the hard sciences. Recently, however NSF has funded some more questionable projects - $750,000 to develop computer models to analyze the on-field contributions of soccer players and $1.2 million to model the sound of objects breaking for use by the video game industry. Help us identify grants that are wasteful or that you don't think are a good use of taxpayer dollars.
Do you really want your tax dollars going toward research for Soccer (Football everywhere else in the world) and video game sounds?
Oh wait. We are bashing Republicans here. Down with those ignorant Christian rednecks!
Since the blog linked in the summary is down, here is the link to the site itself: http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/ I might be missing something but I don't see anything about the National Science Foundation, never mind being the "first target". The first chosen cut was something called "New Non-Reformed Welfare Program"
SSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We awe hunting Wepublicans. We don't need no stinking facts to get on ow way.
You are right, of course. It's not that Fox News makes people stupid, it's that stupid people watch Fox News.
Sorry to make your high-horse into a pony, but you would certainly get similar results if you were to ask similar questions with the opposite slant to MSNBC views. Questions like, "True or false, Sarah Palin mistakenly said she could Russia from her house." or "True or False, George Bush's tax cuts only benefited the rich." or even "Did George Bush know about 9-11 and allow it to happen?"
If by equally biased, you are talking about MSNBC, then sure. But if you're saying all the other news channels are equally biased than you are truly a special kind of person. CNN and the major network news organizations do have a bias. This is true. However none of them so heartily embrace one side of the aisle in their coverage as FOX News and MSNBC.
Sorry, but MSNBC is NOT the left equivalent of Fox News. For example, in an average week, how many Bill O'Reilly shows have a liberal on them? The answer is five. Every single Bill O'Reilly show has at least one liberal. Usually every single Bill O'Reilly story has a liberal. Now, take the exact same time slot and and look at MSNBC. Keith Olbermann is on MSNBC while Bill O'Reilly is on Fox. How many Keith Olbermann "Countdown" shows have at least on conservative on them? The answer is zero. Keith Olbermann never has anyone on his show from the right side of the aisle, unless it is a conservative that has broken ranks with the right and is there to bash the right along with Keith Olbermann.
The same scenario echos for just about every political commentary show that is on Fox and MSNBC, with the exception of Rachel Maddow who, on occasion, will have a conservative or even a liberal that will disagree with her point of view.
See, the reason Fox claims to be "Fair and Balanced" is because they give air time to both sides of the story. MSNBC won't do that. CNN, does, when they give air time to anyone, but it's mostly just an anchor telling the left's side of the story as fact.
However, the problem with CNN is that they don't see their own bias. For example, CNN anchor Rick Sanchez himself went after Fox News for being "way, way, way, to the right" and MSNBC for being "left," and extended his infamous "I play it down the middle" label to his entire network during an August 18, 2010 segment. I believe this shows his leaning to left. When he looks leftward, he sees MSNBC just to his left. When he looks right, he sees Fox News way, way, way to the right OF HIM. What he doesn't realized is the middle is somewhere between himself and FoxNews.
I believe this is the situation many who bash FoxNews are in. Everyone sees themselves as middle of the road. When those to the left of center look in front of them, they see ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN and think, Oh, these guys are middle of the road. They see Fox way to the right of them and think that FoxNews is a right wing fringe outfit. Reporters especially fit into this category. Remember 70% of reporters voted for Clinton. Less than 50% of the population did. But, like most people, reporters literally can't see their own bias. "Truth" is merely what they agree with.
Now, go back and watch FoxNews, CNN and MSNBC. Take notes on how many statements, not stories, are slanted to the right and to the left. This is important: Don't use your own consideration of what is right and left. Think, "would a Republican agree with that?" or "Would a Democrat agree with that" to determine left vs right. If a Republican would reject it, it's a left statement. If a Democrat would reject it, it's a right statement. If possible, have a conservative standing by to assist. A REAL conservative, not just someone to the right of you.
They have been successful in killing hundreds of thousands Palestinian without those nukes.
Another poster shot down your hundreds of thousands comment. So, for your enjoyment, here are Palestinians launching rockets into Israeli neighborhoods from a boys school on their own territory.
You tell by the distance from the school that the Palestinians are sincere with their stated goals of wanting peace and safety for their people. I mean, that launcher is at least one meter from the school. The only way to be closer would be if these "militants" had babies in backpacks as they ran back and forth launching the rockets.
What saintly people you support.
"well, the Israelis are tergeting primarily civilians,"
Yeah, I keep hearing this too. Then I see a portable rocket launcher set up in an elementary school courtyard and think, "Oh, that's why." (BTW, Israel did NOT attack the rocket launcher set up next to the elementary school. They allowed it to fire all of its rockets into Israeli neighborhoods instead of risking Palestinian children. What monsters!)
why would ANYone give ANYone
ANY personal information online?
ANYwhere at ANYtime.
i'm confused.
says the NON-anonymous coward.
In some parts of the country, cigs go for eight bucks A PACK. Show me an "inspected and cared for" tomato going for 8 bucks...
It's not the cigs that cost that much. It's all the sin-taxes put one them that make them that expensive. Tobacco is relatively cheap.
Sorry, I don't consider a virus that primarily damages tobacco plants to be a scourge.
Cancer, heart disease, and emphasema, now those are scourges. But a virus that kills their primary pathogen? Nope.
The virus is also a "scourge" on tomato, pepper, potato and other plants of the family. I've heard of it wiping out entire crops.
Every heard the story of the boy that cried wolf?... Let's watch the crazy man, isn't he funny!
I remember thinking the same thing. "This Beck guy is a conspiracy theory nut!" I continued to listen because I love a good conspiracy theory. I love listening to Alex Jones, George Noory, various "truthers", "birthers", and those that think the Illuminati/Free Masons/Vandenbergs are going to/already have take over the world. But, as a conspiracy theory nut, Beck was the most entertaining. Unlike the others, I felt Beck believed what he was saying. I remember thinking he was nuts several years ago when he said that government was going to try take over the banks, major industry and our very health. What a loon! Here we are in 2010 and government has taken over the banks, the auto industry and health care.
Now, most conspiracy theories follow one of two lines. First is the Alex Jones approach. He'll take some obscure government memo concerning, say, TSA needing to be ready for (foreign) government operatives trying to take down planes, and claim he has proof via a government document that says our government wants to take down planes. The next kind of conspiracy theory is where they make long links to try to prove some obscure point. For example, politician X's gardener went to church with a guy whose sister was a radical central American revolutionary. "How dare Politician X have dealings with those who want to take over Latin America in order to spread communism here in America".
Beck is in the second group. Except rather than being a politicians gardener that knew someone, he shows video of people saying things that would shock most Americans and ties them directly to politician X. For example, Van Jones, who said he associates himself with radical revolutionaries and considers himself a communist was hand picked by Obama to be an adviser and Green Jobs Czar. Anita Jones, who said that her favorite political philosophers is Mao Zedong was Obama's communications director. This is not about some campaign staffer in Houston TX who hangs a Che poster. These are not loose affiliations. These are top level staffers to the President of the United States. Beck's point was to show who the people were that Obama was surrounding himself with as a reflection of Obama himself. If you take the time to see what Beck has to say about these people, and investigate for yourself who these people really are and what they stand for, you should be shocked. No one else was willing to look into these people and report who they are or what they had done in the past until Beck came along. I had never heard of Anita Dunn or Van Jones and never would have until Beck did his report on these two and many others (these were just the two that I saw).
McCain would have been a better President than both Bushes and Reagan.
OK, but do you think that McCain would have been a better president than Bill Clinton or Barack Obama? I mean, it doesn't say a lot if I say that Hillary Clinton would make a better president than Obama. What would say much more is if I felt that Hillary Clinton would make a better president than McCain... and I do.
Here you go, it got international coverage:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/09/23/glennbeck/
That certainly looks like brain damage from all that cocaine he was famous for doing to me.
If he replaces the clothes and doesn't shave for a few days I wouldn't be able to tell him from a mentally ill homeless guy.
Beck said, "I have the proof. I have them on tape saying these things." Um... yeah. If you had seen his show for the entire two weeks before this particular episode, you would have seen those videos of these people saying that they want to control every aspect of your life. For example, Van Jones was speaking about what he was supposed to do as Green Job Czar. He said that it was not just about hiring people to install solar panels. It was about what fuel goes into cars. It was about how much power people use. It was about removing toxic fuels for bombers to drop toxic bombs on poor brown people. In other words, it was about controlling every aspect from what kind of blender you use to stripping the military of needed fuel. Another example is the head of the EPA declaring CO2 a toxin. The EPA can make law without congress. So, if the EPA can regulate CO2, what in your life can the EPA NOT regulate? Beck showed about 10 minutes of video for each of the pictures on his blackboard.
So, this clip is not just Beck being crazy. This was the conclusion of a series that lasted about two weeks. In other words, you took him out of context and then accused him of being a homeless drug addict over the false information you linked to. I don't care how evil you think people like Beck are, I've never seen him do something so cheap and vile. So, if you think it's OK to do stuff like that, yet you claim to hate Beck because you say he does the same thing... I don't think that's why you dislike Beck. You hate him because you heard he's a conservative and you feel it's necessary to take him down. How dare someone have a view that is different than your own. All who disagree with you must be silenced!!!
I've never seen much of Beck but the clips I have seen are most definitely "this is your brain on drugs" moments. You've obviously forgotten about him talking about how he has proof of some global illuminati style conspiracy "all on tape".
I've never seen it. If you have a link, I'd appreciate you providing it. Actually, it's the first I've heard of it. Of course, I've seen that kind of crap from Alex Jones. Hell, he's even seen documents that prove it (and I'm sure he could type them up on the fly for you to)!
I've seen Glenn do some pretty far out there conspiracy stuff on a regular basis, but he's never said, "I've seen the tape". Everything I've seen him do, he's said, "Here is the clip. We'll run it for five minutes so that no one can say we take it out of context. View it for yourself. Don't take my word for it. Do your own research and make up your own mind." Actually, that's damn close to a quote when he was responding to criticism about his Anita Dunn. Of course, they accused him of taking the quote out of context anyway. You watch the clip and tell me it was taken out of context. And tell me what Beck says here that is not true or crazy.
Here, take a look at his piece on Van Jones. And, again, tell me what Beck says that is crazy or not true.
Actually, he calls himself a "rodeo clown". I assume because he tries to be funny and entertaining while doing something he considers dead serious and quite boring. Much like a rodeo clown's job is to entertain while being responsible for the safety of riders.
And... he has done what he called a "comedy tour". From Huffpo:
NEW YORK — Glenn Beck, Fox News Channel's latest sensation, is taking a comedy show on the road for six live performances over six days during the first week of June.
Beck calls his act a "poor man's Seinfeld" and intends to mix topical humor with his modern-day reimagining of Thomas Paine's 1776 pamphlet "Common Sense."
So, yeah, I guess he is also a comedian.
Also, Beck is not on the "crazy part of the right." I'd peg him as more on the "sane part of the Libertarians" (which does not negate your "crazy", BTW). I'd put him as far to the right as I'd put Penn Jillette to the left. Other than religious views, the two pretty much agree on everything. Beck's attitude toward political parties is the same as South Park's co-creator Matt Stone, "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals."
Of course, YMMV as where people rate right-left depends on where they stand on the political spectrum. Everyone thinks they are middle of the road. Everyone more conservative than themselves is viewed as being "right-wing" and inverse for everyone on the left of them.
I know it's off topic. Just trying to educate. I'm certain you don't spend a whole lot time watching Beck on TV or listening to him on the radio. Granted, I don't much either, but I did spend a few years listening to his radio show when it was on while I sat in traffic.
Glenn Beck Program, although laughable is not really the same as funny.
Actually, Glenn Beck is hilarious. Check out Moron Trivia as one example.
You should not judge the quality of comedy by the comedian's political beliefs. It really just makes you petty.
Finish this sequence... Million, Billion
Ravens: Trillion
Stu, Glenn, or Pat's Response: Yes, we can accept that. Or we could accept a billion and one.
Sure, this is hilarious. But somehow I doubt they meant it to be so funny.
Concern over some governments' determination to restrict the free flow of information. That's rich.
To be fair, governments need secrets. Not everything should be public. Now I know that you may say that if a government doesn't want an action to be made public then they shouldn't do it. But sometimes, there is a legitimate need for secrecy. For example, when a diplomat sends a wire back to Washington saying that he does not believe the diplomat from N. Korea is being entirely truthful concerning the welfare of the N. Korean citizens, that information should not be made public. It could irreparably harm negotiations that could prove beneficial to the peoples of both countries. The path that a convoy full of medical supplies and food for refuges against a warlords wishes would be another example. This is a bit different than a diplomat calling the leader of Esbonia a stinky-fart fat-head.
Some things are legitimately kept secret for a reason. Others, not so much. Wikileaks doesn't concern itself with the difference.