I did RTFA. I'm sure you did too, but your comprehension appears lacking. No figures are provided, therefore you're simply making assumptions to suit your point of view.
I don't find arguments based the simplistic assertion of pre-internet technology and business models from the 80s particularly convincing. I believe technology is capable of changing the way the world works. I reckon the idea of an artist getting YouTube revenue is a great one, far more important than what I might think of the existence and attitudes of the majors.
If advertising has value, then there's nothing wrong in principle for one corporation to negotiate with another over the appropriate split. This is even more relevant given that online revenues from advertising are expected to be part of the entertainment business model in future.
What actual numbers do you have to know that it is Warner making the bigger mistake?
Why is your behaviour as a consumer relevant if most other consumers behaviour is different? (I should say *particularly* relevant, I don't mean to say people like us who buy a lot music shouldn't be taken in account)
Why should YouTube be considered exactly the same as a TV channel in face of overwhelming evidence that the internet is a different beast altogether?
How on earth is the interests of the people in their late 30's a good indication of the college age group?
How does it follow that because YouTube is a great way to find music, Warner has no right no negotiate terms?
I'm not saying Warner is perfect, just that you're not making sense.
CDs sales are declining, yet your argument is that because you as an individual still buy CDs at a rate much greater than the average person, it is only YouTube that should financially benefit from Warner's content attracting visitors to the site. I don't follow the logic.
The idea that the punter has free access to the catalogue, for which the label is compensated for by the site - that is a new business model that makes sense to me if the business parties can work out a deal. Once the quality is high enough, why buy a CD at all?
And you consider yourself representative even thought you've bought literally dozens of albums? Does it really make sense to use your comparatively unusual example as an argument?
It's strange to me that we're talking about a YouTube as if it were just a TV channel. Surely we can handle the concept of new business models as well as new technologies here. I sometimes "tune in" to YouTube to listen to my choice of music, not what the major labels are pushing that week. Clearly this is a change; an artist can't post material to YouTube and expect a return in the way that heavy exposure on MTV will (or used to).
If the ad revenue from having a catalog on demand is worth more to YouTube than it is to Warner, then what should happen is that YouTube starts paying the artists via whatever commercial entity they've signed up with. As CD sales decline and things move to online models, and MTV moves to reality shows rather than music, it becomes even more likely that the old model of paying for time on MTV to generate CD sales is less viable.
I don't have any numbers, but that's precisely why I prefer to think about it rather than summarily dismissing a different perspective because of my own personal buying habits. Doesn't it make sense to move to generating revenue through online ads? It has worked for other companies, I believe.
Fair point; my experience is with companies that do have that headcount. Although if you understand the reasons, then categorising them as "insane" implies you don't agree with them.
I guess I'm curious how many listed firms are so small that development and administration are performed by the same person. I mean, if I were a shareholder I don't know I'd like the idea of an IT department producing systems that only the developer was capable of deploying and managing. From a management point of view, requiring apps and changes be produced that will be implemented by another person strikes me as a useful discipline. My experience is only with companies large enough for this to be a practical necessity, however.
(on a related note, the software vendor I work for sells amongst other things software deployment management tools. At a certain scale, producing an audit trail is the free byproduct of automating a process for simple efficiencies. This effectively forces that particular segregation of duties irrespective of SOX. Of course, a byproduct of the "certain scale" threshold is that I don't have direct experience of companies with the problem you describe.)
All that said, In the context of various related back office functions (finance, audit, security, risk), just how much incremental headcount are we talking about in the context of justifying major security holes? Are we really talking any difference at all?
I'm not denying that SOX has been excessive overall, but this most basic security requirement has never struck me as unreasonable for a listed company. What has seemed ridiculous is the way that companies put more money into SOX - let's leaving aside for now whether that's a good or bad thing - and it gets swallowed up by the finance function. Therefore the workload and headcount impact on IT is ugly. Which gets back to "what is an IT person" issue elsewhere in the thread.
People doing development aren't allowed to touch production systems, for example.
From a general technical perspective, why would you want to skip the test stage? From a security / fraud perspective, why would you want to give your biggest security risk (your own employees) unfettered, untrackable, potentially automated access to sensitive data?
Is there an argument you are presenting beyond simple assertions? Why shouldn't commercial scale copyright infringement be treated as a criminal activity?
No, I understand it. I just disagree with it, or at least some of your restrictions on it.
Provide some evidence of your understanding beyond your own definition. I based my argument on an external source (Wikipedia, as democratic a source as they come):
Technical terminology is the specialized vocabulary of a field. These terms have specific definitions within the field, which is not necessarily the same as their meaning in common use. Jargon is similar, but more informal in definition and use, while legal terms of art or words of art have meanings that are strictly defined by law.
Rather than find an independent check against your opinion, you go through convoluted logic to provide your own definition. You claim you are being democractic, but this is more indicative of an ego motivated argument. For instance, I'd be perfectly happy with anyone who used Xeroxing to describe how they use their desktop scanner and printer, but your viewpoint sounds rather pretentious to me:
In this case, there is a word that is used very consistently that clearly refers to a specific method using a specific device to solve a practical problem.
I mean, seriously? It can't just be for someone who had one copy of something, but wanted ten and knew there was a gadget of unknown wizardry on the second floor that could help? Or used by the guy with the desktop setup? Your claim to be speaking for the general public, against the scientists and engineers who try to "own" words, rings rather hollow. I'm not a scientist or an engineer - I work in sales and marketing. I have no need to refer to any word I use as technical terminology, unless I have need to do so, in which case I would verify the word rather than invent an argument to justify my position. My ego doesn't need it, and I've no desire to be disrespectful of those use careers make proper use of it.
I think you make some interesting points. I disagree, but enjoyed thinking about why because it's a classic subject. Forgive the length, just enjoying some mental exercise here...
It describes an action that is specifically related to a specific action with a specific technology. That is my whole point.
First, this is a questionable assertion. On what basis can you say that people don't use "Xerox" if they are not in fact using traditional photocopying to copy their piece of paper? I would know exactly what someone meant if they said they were Xeroxing something, even if they were in fact scanning something.
But in any case, it doesn't matter. You could apply the same argument to Hoovering and Googling, if it were valid. There is nothing wrong with a colloquialism having a precise definition, in fact it's rather desirable. Colloquial use of a trademark does not a technical term make, however. The fact that something enters the popular lexicon does not make it a technical term. It should in some form be formally recognised, not simply widely used. A simple thought experiment: if you asked a company's representative what their product did, and the best they came up with was their own company's name, you'd probably want to get past the marketing bullshit and ask for someone capable of using what might be described as technical terminology. If someone said, "it's a technical term because I'm talking about a technical thing", I would immediately write that person off for having no credibility whatsoever.
In the case of Xerox, the technical term is electrophotography. Look up the original patent if you like.
The longer people use it, the more valid it becomes in fact.
No. This completely misrepresents the principle involved here, namely the difference between language generally and technical vocabularies. No matter how many people continue to use Xerox as a verb, no matter for how long, it will not cease to be a trademark (assuming Xerox continue to renew it) and it will not therefore become a technical term. Industry simply does not accept a competitor's trademark as the formal definition of what they do, and the inventor is usually quite happy with this because in the public's mind their own invention is the definition of the new thing. As a corollary, a technical term does not need popular usage to be recognised or documented as such. And as yet a further twist, while technical terms may indeed evolve over time, it is not the viewpoint of the general public that decides this.
It is not up to you or I to determine the validity of a term. The majority made it, therefore it exists.
This is not the case. There are any number of formal bodies and institutions around the world that do not conduct referendums on technical matters. Personally, I love democracy but can't stand to hear what is effectively groupthink as a way of deciding technical subjects. The majority don't understand the subject in question; why defer to them?
I know what the difference is between copyright, trademarks, and patents.
Your next step is to understand what technical terminology is. Try wikipedia...
To be fair, you could argue Xerox is so closely bound to electrophotography that they are interchangeableable, but there's a number of problems with this:
Even then, the technical term becomes xerography.
It is invalid to use exceptional cases to argue a general one.
I still struggle to believe that "Xeroxing" is part of the specialised vocabulary in that field, as comparable to the general public.
The timeline is difficult, namely that Xerox was a trademark years before it became perceived by many as a technical term. Technical terminology is used to have precise conversations, which is difficult if you can be diverted by this kind of discussion. If Xeroxing is a technical term, it's a really bad one to use in
That's just speculation, not an example. And given the software market is several decades old now, it's baseless speculation to boot. It's easier to take out a class action suit in the US, so I could equally speculate that costs should be higher in the US to take that into account.
Therefore the question remains - can you provide an example?
Not really, I thought he did extremely well in the role, and the fact it took him from relative obscurity to star overnight around the world suggests a lot of others thought so too.
Why wonder? Does it have to be any more complicated than you have a different opinion?
There is no troll tone in my post; in no way are my comments off-topic or irrelevant. Why on earth do you think your condescending post full of bullshit deserves a respectful tone?
it's clearly not as obvious as you think
Actually, the reason I made a sarcastic Captain Obvious comment is precisely because I don't think the situation is obvious. That's also the reason I mentioned that there are so many other factors involved. Just to remind you - you're the one trying to over-simplify the situation.
good product generates money while crap doesn't
This is complete, utter bullshit. You're either completely full of it, or an idiot who thinks that Paris Hilton is in fact a business genius.
why point out the error in your thinking
I pointed out the error in yours, but you've not even tried to point out the error in mine. You've simply re-phrased your original assertion like some political spin doctor who thinks that saying the same thing twice is somehow supposed to be an argument. The fact that there are idiots in the corporate world does not prevent you from being an idiot yourself. You also seemed to have missed my reference to "soulless people" who think in terms of money, not art. So thank you Captain Obvious, but I'm already aware of what Big Media is saying.
No, the successful opening weekend has a lot to do with marketing, rather than the quality of the movie. Although of course a good movie is easier to market, it also has to be visually impressive, of a mass market genre, building on established characters or actors, and so on. Just because something is a good film doesn't mean the mass market will like it. Ang Lee's Hulk is a good example - good film, true to the source material, lots of critics liked it, just as much action as The Incredible Hulk, stiffs because it isn't mindless enough for the Hulk Smash fans. Unless you're of the belief that everyone should have the same opinion, there's no way to guarantee a well made film will get a wildly positive response, so the difference between The Dark Knight (38hrs after opening) and The Hulk (2 weeks before the opening) is monetarily significant.
Make good product and people will pay money for it. It's not rocket science.
Thank you Captain Obvious, but also: Make good product and people will steal it. It's not rocket science. That isn't to get into the old "you can't steal intellectual property" argument, it's just to point out the vacuity of the statement.
I very much doubt that anyone at Warner is claiming the successful opening weekend is entirely due to the "extra vigilance", except for the people responsible for those particular measures. Nonetheless there is a clear business case for yet another measure in what must have been a fairly comprehensive production including viral marketing, advertising, product placement, casting, and other processes that some soulless people will measure in terms of money rather than art.
Of course, if you don't want those soulless money people involved, on principle you shouldn't watch films like The Dark Knight because they are well beyond the budgets of indie film making.
That is not a fair question. It is a simple matter to define what you want as only those options available within the confines of your ideology. There is no way to check if you or anyone else has foregone anything you might have chosen with a pragmatic mindset. It then becomes a circular argument - you claim you are pragmatic because you claim to have made pragmatic choices.
The labels "pure" and "pragmatic" are both positive labels whose meanings are easily determined. Clearly being one does not prescribe you from being the other, but then isn't the fact they have a lot common very much implied by the GP's post?
The lack of maturity in your posting belies your low ID. You've not borrowed your father's account, have you?
It's normally a good indication when some uses phrases like "cranio-rectal inversion" that they have a complex about their level of intelligence. While you're happy to hand out comments such as "just another ethically challenged politicians", you appear incapable of handling the same in return such as "just another intellectually challenged voter". There's all sorts of wonderful implications when someone mirrors your own turn of phrase, but you don't seem to have noted any of them. Cool headed thinking would appear to be beyond you, possibly the most dangerous form of intellectual failure.
You also appear to lack the basic skills necessary for dealing with reality, namely understanding the difference between fact and opinion. You say that Obama had nothing to gain, but why should I take your opinion as fact? It is always the case that once the primaries are over, the candidate will move towards the center and risk losing some of their base in favor winning independent and opposition voters. Obama's decision is in line with that proven method, and picking up Republican voters who don't like McCain is definitely on the agenda. To change your vote on the basis of a single, primarily left wing issue suggests you are far too biased to be able to judge whether Obama's utterly expected move to the centre, in line with proven campaign techniques, has absolutely no positive effect.
Having Congress and President in different parties is a reasonable philosophy. However, if your voting philosophy derives from nothing but a distrust of all politicians then it is not one arrived at with any great thinking behind it. Being willing to break it only because you thought Obama was a far better man than any other political leader ever has been is curious. It sounds ridiculously naive to me, although the tone of your comments suggest the necessary lack of maturity to be so inclined.
Knee jerk cliches such as "narrow minded" and "wearing blinders" are simply not indicative of a keen intellect either. My post was a comment purely on the inadequacies of your earlier post, so there is simply no basis for those comments, other than the fact I've clearly offended your sensitive little soul.
Here's the thing. You have to deal with reality, because it's the only one we've got. And unless you've got some whizzy plan to rid the world of politics, your contribution to the democratic process depends on an ability to differentiate between politicians.
You strongly imply all politicians are the same, even though any basic ethics or philosophy class would be able to cover the differences between e.g. accepting a compromise believing it necessary for the long term public good, and hypocritically advocating a position for selfish gain.
All you're really doing is show that you're just another intellectually challenged voter.
The GP uses a logical argument that is a cliche for a whining teenager, so you should think about your own post a little bit. To paraphrase: "I can't see something, therefore the failure is yours". See the problem? Or do you need to work on your comprehension skills?
Slashdot Mirror
I did RTFA. I'm sure you did too, but your comprehension appears lacking. No figures are provided, therefore you're simply making assumptions to suit your point of view.
I don't find arguments based the simplistic assertion of pre-internet technology and business models from the 80s particularly convincing. I believe technology is capable of changing the way the world works. I reckon the idea of an artist getting YouTube revenue is a great one, far more important than what I might think of the existence and attitudes of the majors.
If advertising has value, then there's nothing wrong in principle for one corporation to negotiate with another over the appropriate split. This is even more relevant given that online revenues from advertising are expected to be part of the entertainment business model in future.
What actual numbers do you have to know that it is Warner making the bigger mistake?
Why is your behaviour as a consumer relevant if most other consumers behaviour is different? (I should say *particularly* relevant, I don't mean to say people like us who buy a lot music shouldn't be taken in account)
Why should YouTube be considered exactly the same as a TV channel in face of overwhelming evidence that the internet is a different beast altogether?
How on earth is the interests of the people in their late 30's a good indication of the college age group?
How does it follow that because YouTube is a great way to find music, Warner has no right no negotiate terms?
I'm not saying Warner is perfect, just that you're not making sense.
CDs sales are declining, yet your argument is that because you as an individual still buy CDs at a rate much greater than the average person, it is only YouTube that should financially benefit from Warner's content attracting visitors to the site. I don't follow the logic.
The idea that the punter has free access to the catalogue, for which the label is compensated for by the site - that is a new business model that makes sense to me if the business parties can work out a deal. Once the quality is high enough, why buy a CD at all?
I don't see how your argument makes sense.
YouTube, part of a huge multinational corporation, is comparable to a fan club?
Wanting to supply content is the same as wanting to shut down sites to prevent content being supplied?
People watching videos for free is different from people watching videos for free?
I mean, where's the logic?
Really? I thought the business was heading towards these 360 deals where everything counts.
So what kind of terms and conditions have been agreed to recently?
And you consider yourself representative even thought you've bought literally dozens of albums? Does it really make sense to use your comparatively unusual example as an argument?
It's strange to me that we're talking about a YouTube as if it were just a TV channel. Surely we can handle the concept of new business models as well as new technologies here. I sometimes "tune in" to YouTube to listen to my choice of music, not what the major labels are pushing that week. Clearly this is a change; an artist can't post material to YouTube and expect a return in the way that heavy exposure on MTV will (or used to).
If the ad revenue from having a catalog on demand is worth more to YouTube than it is to Warner, then what should happen is that YouTube starts paying the artists via whatever commercial entity they've signed up with. As CD sales decline and things move to online models, and MTV moves to reality shows rather than music, it becomes even more likely that the old model of paying for time on MTV to generate CD sales is less viable.
I don't have any numbers, but that's precisely why I prefer to think about it rather than summarily dismissing a different perspective because of my own personal buying habits. Doesn't it make sense to move to generating revenue through online ads? It has worked for other companies, I believe.
So the corporation that doesn't want to compensate the artist at all is even fairer? How does that work?
Yes, such as police arming themselves heavily and then carrying out no-knock raids that kill innocent citizens.
But do you have an argument in favor of the Second Amendment?
Wrong.
You should read up on the Data Protection Act.
Fair point; my experience is with companies that do have that headcount. Although if you understand the reasons, then categorising them as "insane" implies you don't agree with them.
I guess I'm curious how many listed firms are so small that development and administration are performed by the same person. I mean, if I were a shareholder I don't know I'd like the idea of an IT department producing systems that only the developer was capable of deploying and managing. From a management point of view, requiring apps and changes be produced that will be implemented by another person strikes me as a useful discipline. My experience is only with companies large enough for this to be a practical necessity, however.
(on a related note, the software vendor I work for sells amongst other things software deployment management tools. At a certain scale, producing an audit trail is the free byproduct of automating a process for simple efficiencies. This effectively forces that particular segregation of duties irrespective of SOX. Of course, a byproduct of the "certain scale" threshold is that I don't have direct experience of companies with the problem you describe.)
All that said, In the context of various related back office functions (finance, audit, security, risk), just how much incremental headcount are we talking about in the context of justifying major security holes? Are we really talking any difference at all?
I'm not denying that SOX has been excessive overall, but this most basic security requirement has never struck me as unreasonable for a listed company. What has seemed ridiculous is the way that companies put more money into SOX - let's leaving aside for now whether that's a good or bad thing - and it gets swallowed up by the finance function. Therefore the workload and headcount impact on IT is ugly. Which gets back to "what is an IT person" issue elsewhere in the thread.
From a general technical perspective, why would you want to skip the test stage? From a security / fraud perspective, why would you want to give your biggest security risk (your own employees) unfettered, untrackable, potentially automated access to sensitive data?
What civil right is being trampled here?
Is there an argument you are presenting beyond simple assertions? Why shouldn't commercial scale copyright infringement be treated as a criminal activity?
Provide some evidence of your understanding beyond your own definition. I based my argument on an external source (Wikipedia, as democratic a source as they come):
Rather than find an independent check against your opinion, you go through convoluted logic to provide your own definition. You claim you are being democractic, but this is more indicative of an ego motivated argument. For instance, I'd be perfectly happy with anyone who used Xeroxing to describe how they use their desktop scanner and printer, but your viewpoint sounds rather pretentious to me:
I mean, seriously? It can't just be for someone who had one copy of something, but wanted ten and knew there was a gadget of unknown wizardry on the second floor that could help? Or used by the guy with the desktop setup? Your claim to be speaking for the general public, against the scientists and engineers who try to "own" words, rings rather hollow. I'm not a scientist or an engineer - I work in sales and marketing. I have no need to refer to any word I use as technical terminology, unless I have need to do so, in which case I would verify the word rather than invent an argument to justify my position. My ego doesn't need it, and I've no desire to be disrespectful of those use careers make proper use of it.
I think you make some interesting points. I disagree, but enjoyed thinking about why because it's a classic subject. Forgive the length, just enjoying some mental exercise here...
First, this is a questionable assertion. On what basis can you say that people don't use "Xerox" if they are not in fact using traditional photocopying to copy their piece of paper? I would know exactly what someone meant if they said they were Xeroxing something, even if they were in fact scanning something.
But in any case, it doesn't matter. You could apply the same argument to Hoovering and Googling, if it were valid. There is nothing wrong with a colloquialism having a precise definition, in fact it's rather desirable. Colloquial use of a trademark does not a technical term make, however. The fact that something enters the popular lexicon does not make it a technical term. It should in some form be formally recognised, not simply widely used. A simple thought experiment: if you asked a company's representative what their product did, and the best they came up with was their own company's name, you'd probably want to get past the marketing bullshit and ask for someone capable of using what might be described as technical terminology. If someone said, "it's a technical term because I'm talking about a technical thing", I would immediately write that person off for having no credibility whatsoever.
In the case of Xerox, the technical term is electrophotography. Look up the original patent if you like.
No. This completely misrepresents the principle involved here, namely the difference between language generally and technical vocabularies. No matter how many people continue to use Xerox as a verb, no matter for how long, it will not cease to be a trademark (assuming Xerox continue to renew it) and it will not therefore become a technical term. Industry simply does not accept a competitor's trademark as the formal definition of what they do, and the inventor is usually quite happy with this because in the public's mind their own invention is the definition of the new thing. As a corollary, a technical term does not need popular usage to be recognised or documented as such. And as yet a further twist, while technical terms may indeed evolve over time, it is not the viewpoint of the general public that decides this.
This is not the case. There are any number of formal bodies and institutions around the world that do not conduct referendums on technical matters. Personally, I love democracy but can't stand to hear what is effectively groupthink as a way of deciding technical subjects. The majority don't understand the subject in question; why defer to them?
Your next step is to understand what technical terminology is. Try wikipedia...
To be fair, you could argue Xerox is so closely bound to electrophotography that they are interchangeableable, but there's a number of problems with this:
That's just speculation, not an example. And given the software market is several decades old now, it's baseless speculation to boot. It's easier to take out a class action suit in the US, so I could equally speculate that costs should be higher in the US to take that into account.
Therefore the question remains - can you provide an example?
Could you give an example of how consumer protections lead to higher cost for software? I don't follow the logic.
Not really, I thought he did extremely well in the role, and the fact it took him from relative obscurity to star overnight around the world suggests a lot of others thought so too.
Why wonder? Does it have to be any more complicated than you have a different opinion?
There is no troll tone in my post; in no way are my comments off-topic or irrelevant. Why on earth do you think your condescending post full of bullshit deserves a respectful tone?
Actually, the reason I made a sarcastic Captain Obvious comment is precisely because I don't think the situation is obvious. That's also the reason I mentioned that there are so many other factors involved. Just to remind you - you're the one trying to over-simplify the situation.
This is complete, utter bullshit. You're either completely full of it, or an idiot who thinks that Paris Hilton is in fact a business genius.
I pointed out the error in yours, but you've not even tried to point out the error in mine. You've simply re-phrased your original assertion like some political spin doctor who thinks that saying the same thing twice is somehow supposed to be an argument. The fact that there are idiots in the corporate world does not prevent you from being an idiot yourself. You also seemed to have missed my reference to "soulless people" who think in terms of money, not art. So thank you Captain Obvious, but I'm already aware of what Big Media is saying.
No, the successful opening weekend has a lot to do with marketing, rather than the quality of the movie. Although of course a good movie is easier to market, it also has to be visually impressive, of a mass market genre, building on established characters or actors, and so on. Just because something is a good film doesn't mean the mass market will like it. Ang Lee's Hulk is a good example - good film, true to the source material, lots of critics liked it, just as much action as The Incredible Hulk, stiffs because it isn't mindless enough for the Hulk Smash fans. Unless you're of the belief that everyone should have the same opinion, there's no way to guarantee a well made film will get a wildly positive response, so the difference between The Dark Knight (38hrs after opening) and The Hulk (2 weeks before the opening) is monetarily significant.
Thank you Captain Obvious, but also: Make good product and people will steal it. It's not rocket science. That isn't to get into the old "you can't steal intellectual property" argument, it's just to point out the vacuity of the statement.
I very much doubt that anyone at Warner is claiming the successful opening weekend is entirely due to the "extra vigilance", except for the people responsible for those particular measures. Nonetheless there is a clear business case for yet another measure in what must have been a fairly comprehensive production including viral marketing, advertising, product placement, casting, and other processes that some soulless people will measure in terms of money rather than art.
Of course, if you don't want those soulless money people involved, on principle you shouldn't watch films like The Dark Knight because they are well beyond the budgets of indie film making.
That is not a fair question. It is a simple matter to define what you want as only those options available within the confines of your ideology. There is no way to check if you or anyone else has foregone anything you might have chosen with a pragmatic mindset. It then becomes a circular argument - you claim you are pragmatic because you claim to have made pragmatic choices.
The labels "pure" and "pragmatic" are both positive labels whose meanings are easily determined. Clearly being one does not prescribe you from being the other, but then isn't the fact they have a lot common very much implied by the GP's post?
The lack of maturity in your posting belies your low ID. You've not borrowed your father's account, have you?
It's normally a good indication when some uses phrases like "cranio-rectal inversion" that they have a complex about their level of intelligence. While you're happy to hand out comments such as "just another ethically challenged politicians", you appear incapable of handling the same in return such as "just another intellectually challenged voter". There's all sorts of wonderful implications when someone mirrors your own turn of phrase, but you don't seem to have noted any of them. Cool headed thinking would appear to be beyond you, possibly the most dangerous form of intellectual failure.
You also appear to lack the basic skills necessary for dealing with reality, namely understanding the difference between fact and opinion. You say that Obama had nothing to gain, but why should I take your opinion as fact? It is always the case that once the primaries are over, the candidate will move towards the center and risk losing some of their base in favor winning independent and opposition voters. Obama's decision is in line with that proven method, and picking up Republican voters who don't like McCain is definitely on the agenda. To change your vote on the basis of a single, primarily left wing issue suggests you are far too biased to be able to judge whether Obama's utterly expected move to the centre, in line with proven campaign techniques, has absolutely no positive effect.
Having Congress and President in different parties is a reasonable philosophy. However, if your voting philosophy derives from nothing but a distrust of all politicians then it is not one arrived at with any great thinking behind it. Being willing to break it only because you thought Obama was a far better man than any other political leader ever has been is curious. It sounds ridiculously naive to me, although the tone of your comments suggest the necessary lack of maturity to be so inclined.
Knee jerk cliches such as "narrow minded" and "wearing blinders" are simply not indicative of a keen intellect either. My post was a comment purely on the inadequacies of your earlier post, so there is simply no basis for those comments, other than the fact I've clearly offended your sensitive little soul.
Reality probably does that to you a lot.
Here's the thing. You have to deal with reality, because it's the only one we've got. And unless you've got some whizzy plan to rid the world of politics, your contribution to the democratic process depends on an ability to differentiate between politicians.
You strongly imply all politicians are the same, even though any basic ethics or philosophy class would be able to cover the differences between e.g. accepting a compromise believing it necessary for the long term public good, and hypocritically advocating a position for selfish gain.
All you're really doing is show that you're just another intellectually challenged voter.
The GP uses a logical argument that is a cliche for a whining teenager, so you should think about your own post a little bit. To paraphrase: "I can't see something, therefore the failure is yours". See the problem? Or do you need to work on your comprehension skills?