As far as the country is concerned, getting a BJ wasn't the problem. Lying to his family wasn't the problem. Lying to the public wasn't even the problem. Lying to a grand jury as holder of the highest public office in the country (not to mention using powers of that public office to cover it up ahead of time), WAS a problem.
Republican or Democrat affiliations aside, that's a serious matter, in my opinion. If we can't count on politicians not to lie in such forums, I don't care who it is or what they're lying about, they're putting their own interests ahead of their public duty as a citizen...and as President of the United States.
So, both W's lies and Clinton's lies are both important, in different ways.
...an unnamed software company executive was overheard saying "1 GB ought to be enough for anyone."
(A subsqeunt discussion was spawned discussing whether or not he actually said it.)
If you can't accept my PayPal of $150,000+, I could arrange to send a personal check or even a wire transfer. I'd really like to have the item for a...well, a personal collection. I'm a real buff!
Talk about context, if you're a band and you push people to iTunes to buy your album*, I suppose you benefit from your album selling, but you are also an affiliate! Fairly obvious use, but still interesting.
*As The Cure does (and they push not just to iTunes, but other services).
Well, if you read the linked Wikipedia article, you see that when the ship arrived at the Thames estuary, it came under control of local authorities...
When she arrived of Southend she came under the authority of the Thames naval control at HMS Leigh, located at the end of the Southend pier. It was the then harbour master, responsible for all shipping movements in the estuary who ordered Montgomery to a berth off the north edge of Sheerness middle sands, where she ran aground in a depth of 24 ft. of water at low tide.
and that a local company was given the job to remove the cargo or "clean up our mess," but were unable to do so.
Computers probably are increasingly pervasive, even among lower to lower middle class households now. But more to the point of...
"One wonders why someone that can't afford food would have spent money on a computer on which to play these games."
Assuming that even the poor can get credit (and I can't imagine why not, when I have marginally good credit and get about twenty pre-approved credit card offers a month, and those Rent-A-Center places seem to thrive in poorer neighborhoods), it's just too easy to "buy" things you want, but can't afford.
About two weeks after I bought my G3 iBook, my brother dropped it down a short flight of stairs, and hit a wall and tile floor before coming to rest. I guess that virtually bullet-proof, white plastic enclosure is up to snuff, because not only does the iBook still work well today, it barely has a scratch.
In case you're wondering, it faired better than my brother's "enclosure." He received a wrist fracture and a strained ligament when I dropped *him* down the stairs shortly thereafter.
This may be slightly OT to your reverse-question, but I think it's relevant to the portion of the article you quote.
When I've quizzed my MS buddies to the tune of "What can you do on Windows that I can't do on [Linux/OS X/Unix/etc.]?", the truest response, among developers, admins and other IT types anyway, is "I can build.Net applications," or "I'm an MCSE." Or in other words, "I can make a lucrative living as a developer or admin for Windows."
I realize there are shades of grey in the underlying truth of such a response, but given that the monopolistic proliferation of Windows is obviously it's main advantage, maybe a more honest question than "What can you do on your platform that I can't do on mine?" in these cases is "How much money can I make with a given platform, and how many jobs, or even companies, does your platform create and support?"
It's a real kick in the teeth that better products run such a distant second fiddle to the monopolistic ones, but it's becoming more clear to me that the only way to catch up with MS going forward is to demonstrate the financial advantages, rather than the purely convenient or practical ones.
So how do you do that? Have platform proponents for Linux, OS X, Unix, etc. done that very well? If so, is there evidence anyone is paying attention?
I'll defend Apple for a different reason, as well.
If you've been a longtime Apple consumer, you may be aware of the undeserved aspect of their reputation they've had to struggle with over time. Two quick examples: 1) last year, I was in a CompUSA and overheard a man on the verge of purchasing a G4 desktop. He asked the sales guy, "OK, I want to get this, but can I do Microsoft Office documents on it?" The sales guy's reply, "No. Nothing on Mac is compatible with PCs. Well, the documents will work sometimes if you get special conversion software." 2) Last week, I had a guy at the photomat put some professional shots we had done for a Web site on a CD for me. Just as a test, I asked, "Will I be able to use this pictures on my Mac?" His reply, "No. Probably not. Macs don't understand hi-res image files. If it's one of those iMacs, I don't think they even have CD-ROM drives."
I kid you not.
My point: Real hacks the system, and the hack is not supported by Apple. Using an unsupported method to listen to files will probably break, unintentionally or not, under a future iPod update. A bunch of Real users start calling Apple tech support to complain and, in the mean time, start telling their friends and collegues stories about how their "stupid iPod just quit playing some of my songs." The old story continues.
With a significant part of Apple's appeal lying in "ease of use," I don't blame them for defending it tooth-and-nail. And threats of suing Real may be heavyhanded, but if you've followed this story this year, you know of Glaser's recent remarks (that are somewhat misleading and even paranoid, in my opinion). I personally wouldn't think much of Apple for giving into this tactic on Real's part to either squeeze out a licensing deal, or make Apple look bad when the unsupported functionality breaks.
You had people asking (or begging perhaps) for help on how to remove the "trojan" drivers that was installed. They didn't understand why even after having returned the CD to Amazon the drivers were still on their computer. A lot of reviews were also lambasting Amazon for not being upfront about the CD being copy-protected, and perhaps they didn't like that as well.
Now *that* is interesting. If the DRM or whatever cripples the art to that extent, I'd have to side with you. I mistakingly assumed the reviews that were removed simply damned the work itself simply because it had basic copy-protection.
I'm no fan of DRM myself, but if it's only to the extent that Apple uses in its AAC downloads (as an example), I wouldn't give a crappy review to an album because of it. If it seriously affected my ability to even *use* what I purchased, or purchased the right to listen to or view, that's a different story.
Thanks for your last post. I see this case in a different light.
But it is pertinent to the review when the product is considered defective.
Pertinent to the review, yes. I'll buy that. Include comments like this in your Amazon reviews and let it affect them. But when reviews are based solely on criticisms like that (which it sounded to me like the ones that were removed were), they start to lose sight of the big picture, in my opinion.
I point to my earlier example, which was intended to illustrate the idea that reviews like that tend would tend to sound ridiculous to most consumers (music or movie lovers, what have you). OK fine, the reviewer doesn't like the media and it affects his/her opinion. But what about the music, as it compares to the band's other efforts or other songs & in the genre? If that kind of info isn't there, it looks like sour grapes to me.
And is it really *defective*? Can you not listen to it in your car or on your computer at all? And it brings down the quality of the music, or the band's effort? Hmmm. Different strokes, I guess. But I still say such reviews are impertinent if they don't at the very least include opinions on the work contained therein.
Interesting point, but can you see why Amazon would do this? Since when is a review based on the media or delivery technology pertinent to the subjective quality of the art itself (music, movies, whatever)?
"This week on Ebert and Roeper...two thumbs down for Spiderman 2. The theater we saw it in had some sort of technology in place that prevented us from shooting the screen with our camcorder."
Slashdot Mirror
How fun would it be to deal with a virus, a worm or excessive spam...in your brain.
As far as the country is concerned, getting a BJ wasn't the problem. Lying to his family wasn't the problem. Lying to the public wasn't even the problem. Lying to a grand jury as holder of the highest public office in the country (not to mention using powers of that public office to cover it up ahead of time), WAS a problem.
Republican or Democrat affiliations aside, that's a serious matter, in my opinion. If we can't count on politicians not to lie in such forums, I don't care who it is or what they're lying about, they're putting their own interests ahead of their public duty as a citizen...and as President of the United States.
So, both W's lies and Clinton's lies are both important, in different ways.
...an unnamed software company executive was overheard saying "1 GB ought to be enough for anyone." (A subsqeunt discussion was spawned discussing whether or not he actually said it.)
Dear Seller,
If you can't accept my PayPal of $150,000+, I could arrange to send a personal check or even a wire transfer. I'd really like to have the item for a...well, a personal collection. I'm a real buff!
And check my feedback!
Thanks,
PaulAllen1138
Talk about context, if you're a band and you push people to iTunes to buy your album*, I suppose you benefit from your album selling, but you are also an affiliate! Fairly obvious use, but still interesting.
*As The Cure does (and they push not just to iTunes, but other services).
Well, if you read the linked Wikipedia article, you see that when the ship arrived at the Thames estuary, it came under control of local authorities...
When she arrived of Southend she came under the authority of the Thames naval control at HMS Leigh, located at the end of the Southend pier. It was the then harbour master, responsible for all shipping movements in the estuary who ordered Montgomery to a berth off the north edge of Sheerness middle sands, where she ran aground in a depth of 24 ft. of water at low tide.
and that a local company was given the job to remove the cargo or "clean up our mess," but were unable to do so.
Computers probably are increasingly pervasive, even among lower to lower middle class households now. But more to the point of...
"One wonders why someone that can't afford food would have spent money on a computer on which to play these games."
Assuming that even the poor can get credit (and I can't imagine why not, when I have marginally good credit and get about twenty pre-approved credit card offers a month, and those Rent-A-Center places seem to thrive in poorer neighborhoods), it's just too easy to "buy" things you want, but can't afford.
About two weeks after I bought my G3 iBook, my brother dropped it down a short flight of stairs, and hit a wall and tile floor before coming to rest. I guess that virtually bullet-proof, white plastic enclosure is up to snuff, because not only does the iBook still work well today, it barely has a scratch. In case you're wondering, it faired better than my brother's "enclosure." He received a wrist fracture and a strained ligament when I dropped *him* down the stairs shortly thereafter.
This may be slightly OT to your reverse-question, but I think it's relevant to the portion of the article you quote.
When I've quizzed my MS buddies to the tune of "What can you do on Windows that I can't do on [Linux/OS X/Unix/etc.]?", the truest response, among developers, admins and other IT types anyway, is "I can build .Net applications," or "I'm an MCSE." Or in other words, "I can make a lucrative living as a developer or admin for Windows."
I realize there are shades of grey in the underlying truth of such a response, but given that the monopolistic proliferation of Windows is obviously it's main advantage, maybe a more honest question than "What can you do on your platform that I can't do on mine?" in these cases is "How much money can I make with a given platform, and how many jobs, or even companies, does your platform create and support?"
It's a real kick in the teeth that better products run such a distant second fiddle to the monopolistic ones, but it's becoming more clear to me that the only way to catch up with MS going forward is to demonstrate the financial advantages, rather than the purely convenient or practical ones.
So how do you do that? Have platform proponents for Linux, OS X, Unix, etc. done that very well? If so, is there evidence anyone is paying attention?
Interesting. When can I run iTunes on it??!
I'll defend Apple for a different reason, as well.
If you've been a longtime Apple consumer, you may be aware of the undeserved aspect of their reputation they've had to struggle with over time. Two quick examples: 1) last year, I was in a CompUSA and overheard a man on the verge of purchasing a G4 desktop. He asked the sales guy, "OK, I want to get this, but can I do Microsoft Office documents on it?" The sales guy's reply, "No. Nothing on Mac is compatible with PCs. Well, the documents will work sometimes if you get special conversion software." 2) Last week, I had a guy at the photomat put some professional shots we had done for a Web site on a CD for me. Just as a test, I asked, "Will I be able to use this pictures on my Mac?" His reply, "No. Probably not. Macs don't understand hi-res image files. If it's one of those iMacs, I don't think they even have CD-ROM drives."
I kid you not.
My point: Real hacks the system, and the hack is not supported by Apple. Using an unsupported method to listen to files will probably break, unintentionally or not, under a future iPod update. A bunch of Real users start calling Apple tech support to complain and, in the mean time, start telling their friends and collegues stories about how their "stupid iPod just quit playing some of my songs." The old story continues.
With a significant part of Apple's appeal lying in "ease of use," I don't blame them for defending it tooth-and-nail. And threats of suing Real may be heavyhanded, but if you've followed this story this year, you know of Glaser's recent remarks (that are somewhat misleading and even paranoid, in my opinion). I personally wouldn't think much of Apple for giving into this tactic on Real's part to either squeeze out a licensing deal, or make Apple look bad when the unsupported functionality breaks.
Well, he can question human spaceflight all he wants. But I still question Van Allen ditching David Lee Roth for Sammy Hagar.
You had people asking (or begging perhaps) for help on how to remove the "trojan" drivers that was installed. They didn't understand why even after having returned the CD to Amazon the drivers were still on their computer. A lot of reviews were also lambasting Amazon for not being upfront about the CD being copy-protected, and perhaps they didn't like that as well.
Now *that* is interesting. If the DRM or whatever cripples the art to that extent, I'd have to side with you. I mistakingly assumed the reviews that were removed simply damned the work itself simply because it had basic copy-protection.
I'm no fan of DRM myself, but if it's only to the extent that Apple uses in its AAC downloads (as an example), I wouldn't give a crappy review to an album because of it. If it seriously affected my ability to even *use* what I purchased, or purchased the right to listen to or view, that's a different story.
Thanks for your last post. I see this case in a different light.
But it is pertinent to the review when the product is considered defective.
Pertinent to the review, yes. I'll buy that. Include comments like this in your Amazon reviews and let it affect them. But when reviews are based solely on criticisms like that (which it sounded to me like the ones that were removed were), they start to lose sight of the big picture, in my opinion.
I point to my earlier example, which was intended to illustrate the idea that reviews like that tend would tend to sound ridiculous to most consumers (music or movie lovers, what have you). OK fine, the reviewer doesn't like the media and it affects his/her opinion. But what about the music, as it compares to the band's other efforts or other songs & in the genre? If that kind of info isn't there, it looks like sour grapes to me.
And is it really *defective*? Can you not listen to it in your car or on your computer at all? And it brings down the quality of the music, or the band's effort? Hmmm. Different strokes, I guess. But I still say such reviews are impertinent if they don't at the very least include opinions on the work contained therein.
Interesting point, but can you see why Amazon would do this? Since when is a review based on the media or delivery technology pertinent to the subjective quality of the art itself (music, movies, whatever)? "This week on Ebert and Roeper...two thumbs down for Spiderman 2. The theater we saw it in had some sort of technology in place that prevented us from shooting the screen with our camcorder."