Exactly. From the Boston Herald: "Miers would follow a long and distinguished group of Supreme Court judges without previous judicial experience - men like Hugo Black, Earl Warren, Felix Frankfurter and Louis Brandeis. In fact, according to a White House memo, 10 of the 34 justices appointed since 1933 came not from the bench but from that president's administration."
I see a diverse bench as a good thing. The more I hear about this woman, the more I like her. Especially after John Roberts. Except she is from Texas...
No, no record of arguing Supreme Court cases (not that it's a requirement), but she is the chief legal counsel for the White House staff. From the wiki article
The Office of Counsel to the President is responsible for advising on all legal aspects of policy questions, legal issues arising in connection with the President's decision to sign or veto legislation, ethical questions, financial disclosures, and conflicts of interest during employment and post employment. The Counsel's Office also helps define the line between official and political activities, oversees executive appointments and judicial selection, handles Presidential pardons, reviews legislation and Presidential statements, and handles lawsuits against the President in his role as President, as well as serving as the White House contact for the Department of Justice.
I'd say that makes a pretty good qualification to at least be considered for the job. All she has to do is not mention her passion for the blood of newborns in the hearings and she has a really good shot.
I can't say it's a great thing for America to have so many Republican justices, but I don't see how anyone can get wrapped up on this point? So she was good at her job. Is that something that we need to villify?
That's a very good point. I had that in the back of my mind as I wrote this and my reply to myself. But at the same time, I do believe someone can stand up and say that the people are on the wrong witch-hunt.
Wow, ok that sounded way more cynical than I actually am. To clarify, politicians aren't out to always harm their country. If they can make a good decision that their constituents will agree with, they will do that (usually). The problem is that once most of these people get to Washington or the state capitol, their morality and reasoning skills seem to be greatly diminished. I think that most of them are under too much pressure from multiple groups to make a fair judgement on anything. Most of them aren't in a position or aren't willing to shrug off these external factors and make common sense decisions. I understand that politics is their career, and it's unfortunate that to stay in the business you have to sacrifice the part of yourself that would've made a good lawmaker.
To get back on topic briefly, this is why video games are the flogging boy of the media and of our government. There is no vocal group standing up to this. Perhaps when generation X or Y or pural Z gets old enough to count themselves among the majority of voters, we will be in the position our parents are that don't want to see activities we enjoy get litigated to oblivion.
Blaming TV and movies isn't going to get you votes. Almost all polticians are out to appease the voters, not solve problems. Not only do the television and movie industries have huge lobbies, these are two things nearly every parent enjoys themselves. It's much easier to target video games as an evil when no parent understands what it is all about. And when as a politician you have the opportunity to spin your wheels over something and make it look like you are saving the children, you take it or someone else will.
Unlike the above poster I only heard about the show from a couple of my friends. The were both discussing it pretty often after both bought the DVDs around the time they were released. I had never heard of it before and borrowed the set for a week. It surely didn't take much hype on their part for me to fall in love with the short-lived series. I'm not one to have a soft spot in my heart for scifi, even though I am a geek. I don't seek out sci fi like a lot of the more hardcore, but when things do find their way to me I am pretty discerning. Firefly succeded where others have failed because it was more than technological wet dream. It's got a very unique and well formed view of the future (which is what originally drew me to continue watching the series), the characters are very identifiable and empathetic, and the plotlines and story arc are, for the most part, very intriguing.
I often think that those who are unimpressed with the show felt so because it paints a very unglamorous pictures of the future. The way I see it, this could have been a documentary sent back in time. Everything is so believeable to me. I find that the Firefly/ Cowboy Bebop view of the future, one in which our toys have changed but that humanity hasn't, is as close to an accurate prediction of the future as I've seen.
While I would love to subscribe to this thought, I'm sad that it won't pan out quite how you described it. I saw the movie tonight after work at a theater near New Brunswick, NJ (15 minutes from Rutgers campus if you're unfamiliar with NJ). I was the ONLY one in the theater until about 5 minutes before the previews started (and got the seat at the perfect center of the place). Ok, that's not so bad, I usually don't show up until the movie starts anyway. By the end, I looked around and saw no more than 40 people. Possibly 30. The movie made me tear up (don't laugh) out of genuine emotion over *ahem* certain events that took place. If people look at this movie and see science fiction, it's certainly a sad state this country is in that so many are so short-sighted. Don't worry though, I'll be seeing it a few more times over the next week to pad up the box office figures.
Re:Talking out both sides of out mouths.
on
Pepping Up Windows
·
· Score: 1
I don't understand this argument. Why should Microsoft sell you someone else's products?
If they were to give you the option of installing...
I'm sorry, I didn't know Windows prevented me from doing any of this. If Microsoft were to bundle all these options for you, not only would many still be unhappy because package c was excluded, and not only would many complain about further bloat, but they would also have to support other people's applications. I think this line of reasoning is unreasonable. Why should Ford give you the choice of using a Porsche engine?
Thank you for taking valuable time out of your day to bash the US on a completely separate topic. Now could you point me toward anything that would indicate a need to rest control of the internet with the UN?
How is it a threat to diversity the way it is now? Why is everyone invoking such imflammatory rhetoric to describe the horrors of a US housed internet? What has been the problem thus far? I can see a thousand problems with moving control to the UN, but none with the current system. Should we risk screwing up the diversity you seem to enjoy so much to satiate someone's taste for power?
As a US citizen I would feel my government has failed me if they were to willingly hand over control of the internet to any other international entity. As much as I care about fostering growth throughout the world, I'm sorry but I'm much more concerned over my nations well-being. In handing over control, we would be subject to all the uncertainties and problems every developing nation seems to experience. We would lose a vital aspect of our infrastructure, both commercial and military and that doesn't sit well with me. You can have all the views of the US you want, but to think lowly of us for protecting a national asset is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.
Many countries, particularly developing ones, have become increasingly concerned about the U.S. control, which stems from the country's role in creating the Internet as a Pentagon project and funding much of its early development.
Anyone care to tell me any problems that have arisen out of (50 year old) government funding? Are there any specific problems or is this an unfounded, possibly contrived concern? It seems to me as if governments are creating situations that, in reality, don't seem likely to occur in order to win over support.
What fanless video card do you own that can play Doom3 just fine? And are we talking 'just fine' as in 400x300 with no textures? But to answer your question, you really are out of the game when it comes to PC upgrades. Every mainstream card I can think of since the Voodoo 3 had fans. There have been many fanless versions along the way, but every single one I have seen gets released with a fan.
There are some issues if you are trying to build a top-of-the-line system with the Asus boards. I own an A8N-E and with fast timed Corsair ram the board won't play nice. I would put the problem on Corsair (since they used to lie about their timings) but others have reported problems with other brands as well. I don't mean to say they make horrible products, I have been pretty happy with mine, but they have lost their outstanding reputation among enthusiasts which they had held for a long time.
This game is the ultimate in CRPGs. For the old-school pen & paper D&D fan, this game had it all. There was action (lots of it), tons of story, billions of quests, compelling NPCs that got more interesting the longer you played with them and the game wove all this together beautifully. For a fan of the series it got even better. The arc that covered the Baldur's Gate franchise was one of the best continuous stories I have every experienced in a game. I won't spoil anything for those who would still finish playing the 4 games, but I would definitely say that the plot builds up steam every minute of play until the final expansion which, I feel, finishes things off a bit expectadly, but appropriate nonetheless. If you like D&D or like CRPGs (not FF clones) then you owe it to yourself to "suffer" outdated graphics but gorgeous art to experience the whole collection of games.
I thought the reason Microsoft loved HD-DVD was because it already had movie studios willing to make the discs using their VC-1 codec. Googling for clarifation, I see that both formats support the codec so perhaps the only thing MS has to lose is the current support for their codec on HD-DVD.
It's really tempting to drive around and look for the mice myself. Not only would I be the first human to die of the plague in quite some time, I would no longer have to live in New Jersey. Win, freakin' win, baby!
Yea, seriously kids. Don't base your perception of reality on what some crusty old computer geek says. Do what I do and trust everything you hear on MTV.
I know the idea of a video capable iPod hasn't been too enticing around here as users complain of small screen areas. I have to say, however, that after purchasing an iRiver H340 and flashing the Korean firmware I love the ability to play video if the fancy strikes me. The screen is big enough to make it worth it to watch movies or tv shows on a flight (or on my lunch break).
I'd be really interested to see what Apple can do for video on a portable jukebox. iRiver's implementation, while nice, seems a bit 'after the fact' so I know there is potential.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. From the Boston Herald: "Miers would follow a long and distinguished group of Supreme Court judges without previous judicial experience - men like Hugo Black, Earl Warren, Felix Frankfurter and Louis Brandeis. In fact, according to a White House memo, 10 of the 34 justices appointed since 1933 came not from the bench but from that president's administration." I see a diverse bench as a good thing. The more I hear about this woman, the more I like her. Especially after John Roberts. Except she is from Texas...
I can't say it's a great thing for America to have so many Republican justices, but I don't see how anyone can get wrapped up on this point? So she was good at her job. Is that something that we need to villify?
That's a very good point. I had that in the back of my mind as I wrote this and my reply to myself. But at the same time, I do believe someone can stand up and say that the people are on the wrong witch-hunt.
Wow, ok that sounded way more cynical than I actually am. To clarify, politicians aren't out to always harm their country. If they can make a good decision that their constituents will agree with, they will do that (usually). The problem is that once most of these people get to Washington or the state capitol, their morality and reasoning skills seem to be greatly diminished. I think that most of them are under too much pressure from multiple groups to make a fair judgement on anything. Most of them aren't in a position or aren't willing to shrug off these external factors and make common sense decisions. I understand that politics is their career, and it's unfortunate that to stay in the business you have to sacrifice the part of yourself that would've made a good lawmaker. To get back on topic briefly, this is why video games are the flogging boy of the media and of our government. There is no vocal group standing up to this. Perhaps when generation X or Y or pural Z gets old enough to count themselves among the majority of voters, we will be in the position our parents are that don't want to see activities we enjoy get litigated to oblivion.
Blaming TV and movies isn't going to get you votes. Almost all polticians are out to appease the voters, not solve problems. Not only do the television and movie industries have huge lobbies, these are two things nearly every parent enjoys themselves. It's much easier to target video games as an evil when no parent understands what it is all about. And when as a politician you have the opportunity to spin your wheels over something and make it look like you are saving the children, you take it or someone else will.
I'm sure you won't be disappointed.
Unlike the above poster I only heard about the show from a couple of my friends. The were both discussing it pretty often after both bought the DVDs around the time they were released. I had never heard of it before and borrowed the set for a week. It surely didn't take much hype on their part for me to fall in love with the short-lived series. I'm not one to have a soft spot in my heart for scifi, even though I am a geek. I don't seek out sci fi like a lot of the more hardcore, but when things do find their way to me I am pretty discerning. Firefly succeded where others have failed because it was more than technological wet dream. It's got a very unique and well formed view of the future (which is what originally drew me to continue watching the series), the characters are very identifiable and empathetic, and the plotlines and story arc are, for the most part, very intriguing.
I often think that those who are unimpressed with the show felt so because it paints a very unglamorous pictures of the future. The way I see it, this could have been a documentary sent back in time. Everything is so believeable to me. I find that the Firefly/ Cowboy Bebop view of the future, one in which our toys have changed but that humanity hasn't, is as close to an accurate prediction of the future as I've seen.
While I would love to subscribe to this thought, I'm sad that it won't pan out quite how you described it. I saw the movie tonight after work at a theater near New Brunswick, NJ (15 minutes from Rutgers campus if you're unfamiliar with NJ). I was the ONLY one in the theater until about 5 minutes before the previews started (and got the seat at the perfect center of the place). Ok, that's not so bad, I usually don't show up until the movie starts anyway. By the end, I looked around and saw no more than 40 people. Possibly 30. The movie made me tear up (don't laugh) out of genuine emotion over *ahem* certain events that took place. If people look at this movie and see science fiction, it's certainly a sad state this country is in that so many are so short-sighted. Don't worry though, I'll be seeing it a few more times over the next week to pad up the box office figures.
I don't understand this argument. Why should Microsoft sell you someone else's products?
If they were to give you the option of installing...
I'm sorry, I didn't know Windows prevented me from doing any of this. If Microsoft were to bundle all these options for you, not only would many still be unhappy because package c was excluded, and not only would many complain about further bloat, but they would also have to support other people's applications. I think this line of reasoning is unreasonable. Why should Ford give you the choice of using a Porsche engine?
It was, you are right. The parent is just your typical /. sensationalist/ karma whore.
Thank you for taking valuable time out of your day to bash the US on a completely separate topic. Now could you point me toward anything that would indicate a need to rest control of the internet with the UN?
How is it a threat to diversity the way it is now? Why is everyone invoking such imflammatory rhetoric to describe the horrors of a US housed internet? What has been the problem thus far? I can see a thousand problems with moving control to the UN, but none with the current system. Should we risk screwing up the diversity you seem to enjoy so much to satiate someone's taste for power?
As a US citizen I would feel my government has failed me if they were to willingly hand over control of the internet to any other international entity. As much as I care about fostering growth throughout the world, I'm sorry but I'm much more concerned over my nations well-being. In handing over control, we would be subject to all the uncertainties and problems every developing nation seems to experience. We would lose a vital aspect of our infrastructure, both commercial and military and that doesn't sit well with me. You can have all the views of the US you want, but to think lowly of us for protecting a national asset is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.
What fanless video card do you own that can play Doom3 just fine? And are we talking 'just fine' as in 400x300 with no textures? But to answer your question, you really are out of the game when it comes to PC upgrades. Every mainstream card I can think of since the Voodoo 3 had fans. There have been many fanless versions along the way, but every single one I have seen gets released with a fan.
There are some issues if you are trying to build a top-of-the-line system with the Asus boards. I own an A8N-E and with fast timed Corsair ram the board won't play nice. I would put the problem on Corsair (since they used to lie about their timings) but others have reported problems with other brands as well. I don't mean to say they make horrible products, I have been pretty happy with mine, but they have lost their outstanding reputation among enthusiasts which they had held for a long time.
This game is the ultimate in CRPGs. For the old-school pen & paper D&D fan, this game had it all. There was action (lots of it), tons of story, billions of quests, compelling NPCs that got more interesting the longer you played with them and the game wove all this together beautifully. For a fan of the series it got even better. The arc that covered the Baldur's Gate franchise was one of the best continuous stories I have every experienced in a game. I won't spoil anything for those who would still finish playing the 4 games, but I would definitely say that the plot builds up steam every minute of play until the final expansion which, I feel, finishes things off a bit expectadly, but appropriate nonetheless. If you like D&D or like CRPGs (not FF clones) then you owe it to yourself to "suffer" outdated graphics but gorgeous art to experience the whole collection of games.
Doh. Forgot to close the tag. That is the worst-lookng post ever.
Amazon is where I usually go for old games I want to come back and play. They also have it without the expansion, but I enjoyed the expansion for the epic scope it put on the character you spent so much time playing in BG2.
I thought the reason Microsoft loved HD-DVD was because it already had movie studios willing to make the discs using their VC-1 codec. Googling for clarifation, I see that both formats support the codec so perhaps the only thing MS has to lose is the current support for their codec on HD-DVD.
It's really tempting to drive around and look for the mice myself. Not only would I be the first human to die of the plague in quite some time, I would no longer have to live in New Jersey. Win, freakin' win, baby!
Yea, seriously kids. Don't base your perception of reality on what some crusty old computer geek says. Do what I do and trust everything you hear on MTV.
but every person on the planet knows how to move their hands in free space.
Tell that to Terri Schiavo... too soon?
Can't happen if they don't have the proper video decoding chip built into the iPod itself. Nothing firmware can do about it.
I know the idea of a video capable iPod hasn't been too enticing around here as users complain of small screen areas. I have to say, however, that after purchasing an iRiver H340 and flashing the Korean firmware I love the ability to play video if the fancy strikes me. The screen is big enough to make it worth it to watch movies or tv shows on a flight (or on my lunch break).
I'd be really interested to see what Apple can do for video on a portable jukebox. iRiver's implementation, while nice, seems a bit 'after the fact' so I know there is potential.