Now the screen shots, and the ones on Apple's website look very pretty. However, one thing I have been noticing, looking at Word, Works, Open Office, AbiWord, etc. Although the quality of the icons are different, and there are subtle differences in usability, they all seem to be very similar.
Do people think this is because we have evolved to the design to something which is useful and "optimal", or because people are no longer willing to change a paradigm which may alienate new users? Are there any word processor suites (or stand alones) that differ significantly?
The comment was about the lack of comments on Slashdot not any commentary on the post. On a tech website where front page stories receive hundreds of comments in moments, I found it unusual that this had none.
If you had RTFC, you'd know that.
Not just profit. They can now also claim Windows is now more secure. Look! We have antiSpyware software! Why not fix the problems in the OS that make it so easy to install and so hard to get rid of these programs instead?
Of course it is. I didn't RFTA (of course, why would I), but if the tax involves products bought in one state and sent to another, its inter-state commerce which the Federal Gov't absolutely has a right to regulate.
Although I do agree,for all intents and purposes the 10th amendment no longer exists. This is the fault of the States themselves as well as the Federal Gov't. The Federal Government appropriates so much money that is solely for State's needs that they essentially blackmail states into compliance.
For instance, with the national speed limit, the state's didn't *have* to implement the law, but if they didn't, the Federal Gov't would withhold money for roads. The same thing's true for education, drunk driving, etc.
The State's are forced to comply, because if they refuse the money, their citizen's are being penalized twice. They lose the money from the gov't (which they have paid in taxes) and the state must tax them at a higher rate to cover the services that the Federal money originally paid for.
Of course the alternative, which people rarely seem to discuss, is for the States to seriously slash away at the fat in their operations, and reduce their scope to only do what they are supposed to, and *then* tell the Federal Government to take a hike when it tries to blackmail them.
Its the argument that's made all the time, but its all based on the premise that giving the data over will *actually* increase safety. Given the government's track record, I would hardly see that as a given.
So at the moment, we are giving up our personal informaiton, but all we are getting is the possibility of more security. There will be no public review as to whether the loss of privacy will *actually* increase security. There will be no conesquences if it doesn't.
This could actually be one of the worst uses of Flash I have ever seen. Its amusing that this is an honest attempt at a website, and not some way conspiracy by flash-haters to undermine its use.
Turn those two rectangles on their side and make them boobies, however, and now you're talking.
But fro mthe political talk shows at the time, the dialog didn't shake out that way.
When Clinton's drug use came up, all of the Conservative pundits were outraged at his drug use (the "I didn't inhale" line only gave them a nice slogan to use). The Liberal pundits all brushed it off as not important. When it was found to have had used drugs, the tables turned. Conservative pundits rage for Clinton's drug use magically disappeared, while Liberal pundits suddenly "found" theirs.
The problem with your post (which I agree with, BTW), is that you are talking about the actual issues involved. If only the pundit shows had done that. On these shows, it never was about the issue, it was only about "If my team does it, its ok, if the other guy does it, its not.".
That was intentional. Hypocracy is the most vile form of hypocrisy. Far, far worse. As a matter of fact, its so bad that when you try to search for it on Google, it asks you if you meant "hypocrisy". Google, in its quest not to be evil, is trying to hide the truth and steer people away from hypocracy to the milder pastures of hypocricy.
One thing Jon didn't do on the Crossfire episode is give a specific example of why shows like Crossfire are so bad. So, here is one I thought of.
Bill Clinton smoked pot in his younger years. George Bush did coke in college.
When Clinton was running for office, the conservative pundits all jumped on him for doing drugs and breaking the law. The liberal pundits all replied by saying "Hey, that was a long time ago and he was just experimenting. Besides what's the big deal?"
When Bush was running for office, the liberal pundits all jumped on him for doing drugs and breaking the law. The conservative pundits all replied by saying "Hey, that was a long time ago and he was just experimenting. Besides what's the big deal?"
In all of this hypocracy and mess lurks an important issue. Is it ok for someone who broke the law, to be the Chief Executive in charge of enforcing those very laws they broke? Does the serious of the offense play a part?
But no, Crossfire type shows allow their guests to shout at one another about the "other guy" being wrong while at the same time avoiding the actual issue altogether.
If you want compare yourself to a comed show, go ahead.
Crossfire claims to be a show dealing with Real Issues(TM) and Real Serious Debates(TM). What Jon demonstrated quite eloquently, was that, in fact, Crossfire (and shows like it) are nothing more than the same kind of entertainment he provides.
The crucial difference being that his show is advertised as comedy. Crossfire advertises itself as journalism. If Tucker wants to chide Jon for not being "journalistic" enough on his show, the door is wide open for Jon to do the same. Its the hypocracy that is so nauseating. That Tucker and Begala think they are doing some great thing by asking Tough Questions(TM) that allow them to get to the Truth(TM).
In reality, they are not asking tough questions they are only asking inflammatory ones. And this allows each side to retreat to their talking points to while copmletely ignoring the actual issue at hand.
Jon exposes this, and the best they can do is say "Be funny" or "You're boring"? Their utter failure to defend their show in any meaningful way was more dmaning of their show than Jon's smart ass comments.
It shows you how bad journalism has gotten when someone can step in and just demolish them like that.
When Carlson tried to act all indignant about Jon sucking up to Kerry, it was all over. With humor and sarcasm, Jon just blew him out of the water. Crossfire claims to be a "real" news show, but Jon exposed it for what it really is.
Its not that this is something new; what's so great is how he does it on their own show. People always have to suck up to these jack asses because they are either afraid to look bad (politicians) or want to be asked back (journalists and politicians).
The result is something more fake than The Daily Show, because it refuses to recognize the absurdity. Its all about shouting and mock-rage from people who care very little for the issue at hand, and are only looking for their "side" to win. The thought process seems to be, if my side did it, then its ok. If the other guy did it, it must be bad somehow.
Just watching begala and carlson stammer and stutter was great. Watching them try to get back on to "funny" topics was painful to watch as they were so obviously lost and out-gunned. Carlson, who prides himself on being so intelligent was reduced to saying "Be Funny". Jon shut him down on that too.
In the middle of it all, Begala and Carlson start whinng for a commercial break. Most likely because they had wet themselves in the previous 5 minutes and needed a change.
Secondly, (and I am saying this as an atheist), there is absoultely no conflict with believing in separation of church and state and voting according to your religious principles.
I am pro-life (somewhat), and an atheist (and a Libertarian). I see the fetus (though not until later stages of development) as a viable entity and as deserving of the same protections of Life, Liberty, and Property as anyone else.
Exactly. Even the New York Times, that bastion of right wing conservatism, agreed.
So it appears that every election from now on will happen twice. Once with the voters, and then with the courts.
(Sigh)
Is there any hope that the posturing and silly parisanship will end? Is there any point where "winning" for the party will be less important than improving America?
In my opinion, the connection is not solid enough. I may give a large campaign contribution because I know you already follow my thinking in areas of importance. I may give you a large compaign contribution because I hate the other guy.
Again, the large contribution should not, by itself, be a crime. In addition, there needs to be some actual evidence of bribary or favoritism.
I shouldn't get a speeding ticket just because my new (fictional) Ferarri can go 150+ miles per hour. I should only get a ticket when I actually break the speed limit.
Nope, you're right. I misread the "group" aspect to mean a group of people wanting to donate to a campaign.
It's late (or some other excuse)...
And to answer your question, I would say no. This is because the tax payer money is not voluntary, and what is happening is a forced redistribution of wealth. The government is using its power to feed itself.
Third parties are fine when there is not a really critical choice to be made in an election - and, I recognize that that is the case most of the time. When the choice is critical, however, voting for a third-party candidate is, in reality, saying that you don't really care which of the major-party candidates wins. If that's the case, just don't bother to vote.
The thing is though, if everyone who felt the 2 major candidates weren't worth voting for, actually did vote for the 3rd party candidate they wanted, there would be pretty big shift. The "Big Two" candidates would have to work much harder at building coalitions with the minor parties which tends to result in more moderate government.
The key above is "everyone". For the moment, too many people feel that a 3rd party vote is wasted vote and so don't vote. It becomes a self fullfilling prophesy.
Slashdot Mirror
Do people think this is because we have evolved to the design to something which is useful and "optimal", or because people are no longer willing to change a paradigm which may alienate new users? Are there any word processor suites (or stand alones) that differ significantly?
Damn....of course that was supposed to be "...not any commentary on the *article*."
The comment was about the lack of comments on Slashdot not any commentary on the post. On a tech website where front page stories receive hundreds of comments in moments, I found it unusual that this had none. If you had RTFC, you'd know that.
Idiot? More than likely. But in this case, it was more of a simple typo.
A slashdot story on the front page this long with no replies? Maybe the real question is, Does any one care if J2EE is ready for primetime.
Not just profit. They can now also claim Windows is now more secure. Look! We have antiSpyware software! Why not fix the problems in the OS that make it so easy to install and so hard to get rid of these programs instead?
The time, but rarely the inclination...
Although I do agree,for all intents and purposes the 10th amendment no longer exists. This is the fault of the States themselves as well as the Federal Gov't. The Federal Government appropriates so much money that is solely for State's needs that they essentially blackmail states into compliance.
For instance, with the national speed limit, the state's didn't *have* to implement the law, but if they didn't, the Federal Gov't would withhold money for roads. The same thing's true for education, drunk driving, etc.
The State's are forced to comply, because if they refuse the money, their citizen's are being penalized twice. They lose the money from the gov't (which they have paid in taxes) and the state must tax them at a higher rate to cover the services that the Federal money originally paid for.
Of course the alternative, which people rarely seem to discuss, is for the States to seriously slash away at the fat in their operations, and reduce their scope to only do what they are supposed to, and *then* tell the Federal Government to take a hike when it tries to blackmail them.
So at the moment, we are giving up our personal informaiton, but all we are getting is the possibility of more security. There will be no public review as to whether the loss of privacy will *actually* increase security. There will be no conesquences if it doesn't.
This could actually be one of the worst uses of Flash I have ever seen. Its amusing that this is an honest attempt at a website, and not some way conspiracy by flash-haters to undermine its use. Turn those two rectangles on their side and make them boobies, however, and now you're talking.
No, but isn't it refreshing that a VP was actually honest about the features of their DB in comparison to what else is out there?
When Clinton's drug use came up, all of the Conservative pundits were outraged at his drug use (the "I didn't inhale" line only gave them a nice slogan to use). The Liberal pundits all brushed it off as not important. When it was found to have had used drugs, the tables turned. Conservative pundits rage for Clinton's drug use magically disappeared, while Liberal pundits suddenly "found" theirs.
The problem with your post (which I agree with, BTW), is that you are talking about the actual issues involved. If only the pundit shows had done that. On these shows, it never was about the issue, it was only about "If my team does it, its ok, if the other guy does it, its not.".
Down With Censorship!
Bill Clinton smoked pot in his younger years. George Bush did coke in college.
When Clinton was running for office, the conservative pundits all jumped on him for doing drugs and breaking the law. The liberal pundits all replied by saying "Hey, that was a long time ago and he was just experimenting. Besides what's the big deal?"
When Bush was running for office, the liberal pundits all jumped on him for doing drugs and breaking the law. The conservative pundits all replied by saying "Hey, that was a long time ago and he was just experimenting. Besides what's the big deal?"
In all of this hypocracy and mess lurks an important issue. Is it ok for someone who broke the law, to be the Chief Executive in charge of enforcing those very laws they broke? Does the serious of the offense play a part?
But no, Crossfire type shows allow their guests to shout at one another about the "other guy" being wrong while at the same time avoiding the actual issue altogether.
If you want compare yourself to a comed show, go ahead.
Crossfire claims to be a show dealing with Real Issues(TM) and Real Serious Debates(TM). What Jon demonstrated quite eloquently, was that, in fact, Crossfire (and shows like it) are nothing more than the same kind of entertainment he provides.
The crucial difference being that his show is advertised as comedy. Crossfire advertises itself as journalism. If Tucker wants to chide Jon for not being "journalistic" enough on his show, the door is wide open for Jon to do the same. Its the hypocracy that is so nauseating. That Tucker and Begala think they are doing some great thing by asking Tough Questions(TM) that allow them to get to the Truth(TM).
In reality, they are not asking tough questions they are only asking inflammatory ones. And this allows each side to retreat to their talking points to while copmletely ignoring the actual issue at hand.
Jon exposes this, and the best they can do is say "Be funny" or "You're boring"? Their utter failure to defend their show in any meaningful way was more dmaning of their show than Jon's smart ass comments.
Jon's was one of quiet exasperation coupled with legitimate anger, and just a dash of contempt.
Carlsons' tone was one of self-righteousness, followed quickly by stammering, defensiveness, and forced-incredulity.
Begala (who I otherwise despise) was at least wise enough to keep quiet through most of it. He seemed to understand that they were screwed.
When Carlson tried to act all indignant about Jon sucking up to Kerry, it was all over. With humor and sarcasm, Jon just blew him out of the water. Crossfire claims to be a "real" news show, but Jon exposed it for what it really is.
Its not that this is something new; what's so great is how he does it on their own show. People always have to suck up to these jack asses because they are either afraid to look bad (politicians) or want to be asked back (journalists and politicians).
The result is something more fake than The Daily Show, because it refuses to recognize the absurdity. Its all about shouting and mock-rage from people who care very little for the issue at hand, and are only looking for their "side" to win. The thought process seems to be, if my side did it, then its ok. If the other guy did it, it must be bad somehow.
Just watching begala and carlson stammer and stutter was great. Watching them try to get back on to "funny" topics was painful to watch as they were so obviously lost and out-gunned. Carlson, who prides himself on being so intelligent was reduced to saying "Be Funny". Jon shut him down on that too.
In the middle of it all, Begala and Carlson start whinng for a commercial break. Most likely because they had wet themselves in the previous 5 minutes and needed a change.
Except the puppies were Carlson and Begala and the boots were Truth, so it was cool.
Secondly, (and I am saying this as an atheist), there is absoultely no conflict with believing in separation of church and state and voting according to your religious principles.
I am pro-life (somewhat), and an atheist (and a Libertarian). I see the fetus (though not until later stages of development) as a viable entity and as deserving of the same protections of Life, Liberty, and Property as anyone else.
So it appears that every election from now on will happen twice. Once with the voters, and then with the courts.
(Sigh)
Is there any hope that the posturing and silly parisanship will end? Is there any point where "winning" for the party will be less important than improving America?
Again, the large contribution should not, by itself, be a crime. In addition, there needs to be some actual evidence of bribary or favoritism.
I shouldn't get a speeding ticket just because my new (fictional) Ferarri can go 150+ miles per hour. I should only get a ticket when I actually break the speed limit.
It's late (or some other excuse)...
And to answer your question, I would say no. This is because the tax payer money is not voluntary, and what is happening is a forced redistribution of wealth. The government is using its power to feed itself.
Individual or a group of individuals, what's the difference? In the libertarian philosophy, nothing.
Either a wonderful sense of irony, or you're just an ass...
The thing is though, if everyone who felt the 2 major candidates weren't worth voting for, actually did vote for the 3rd party candidate they wanted, there would be pretty big shift. The "Big Two" candidates would have to work much harder at building coalitions with the minor parties which tends to result in more moderate government. The key above is "everyone". For the moment, too many people feel that a 3rd party vote is wasted vote and so don't vote. It becomes a self fullfilling prophesy.