We don't have socialized medicine today in the US, and people are NOT dying in the streets
Actually people are already dying in the streets because of the sucky healthcare system.
Still, it's not fully privatized like Ron Paul wants. There are still public hospitals and medicare, aren't there? It's currently bad, but would get a lot worse under Libertarian-style policies.
There are several solutions to the high cost of healthcare, but further government interference is not one of them. Bureaucratic regulations and the tax code have moved healthcare from ala carte to carte blanche. No wonder costs are skyrocketing.
So, how do you explain that healthcare costs are much lower in those countries with more public healthcare, and America's healthcare costs are among the highest in the world? Seems like it's the for-profit industry and lack of government intervention that is making costs so high.
To me, "left", is universal healthcare, the "Bush is Evil" mantra, the "you're a bigot because you want to keep out illegal immigrants" mindset, the "killing babies is acceptable" stance, the "secular is the only way to go" crowd, and many other "secular-progressive" ideological traits.
So, how can MSNBC and CNN be "left wing" to you, when neither of them would ever make such statements?
If you want to clone frequently, cough up the $28 for SuperDuper. It has a 'smart update' feature that only copies changed files after the initial clone, so subsequent clone jobs finish much more quickly. You can also schedule jobs with the paid version.
The curent version of Carbon Copy Cloner has this feature, too.
why can't the OS come bundled with "all the little utilities and applications" you've come to depend on?
Because everybody has different preferences and needs in the utilities and apps they use. For some people, everything bundled with MacOS and iLife is all they will ever need. others want totally different things.
as for your settings, they can be exported on a mac (maybe on windows too - I don't really know it that well)
You don't need to export them - there is the "Mac Migration Assistant" which can copy them from your previous OS/Mac.
would be neat to get to a world where the CD that comes with your computer has all the programs you need on it....
I don't think so. It's wasteful and outdated. I can get current versions from the software vendor's website. Stuff on a physical disc is almost guaranteed to be outdated by a newer release. plus there's the fact that all the software I need would never fit on a single disc, be it CD, DVD or BluRay.
My OS upgrade could have been messed up because of mouse drivers. That is actually pretty funny...
Just the image of somebody driving a mouse is funny. What do they have instead of fender benders? Does the presence of a cat cause uncontrollable speeding?
What's wrong with (1), the plain old upgrade? That's what I always use, and have never had a problem. Of course, I back up before and upgrade - but why should I erase and do a clean install? Daring Fireball reference:
Arguments that there is something mysteriously dangerous or deficient about the default upgrade procedure -- and that you should do a clean install instead, followed by tedious hours manually migrating software and data and preferences from your old installation -- are voodoo. Apple's installer engineers spend a ton of time making the default upgrade procedure as convenient as possible.
And also, I realize that' this is just me justifying bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior, but FoxNews is Fair and Balanced.
Excuse me? How can you even repeat this as if it's true? It's completely unbalanced.
Unfortunately right now, with the mainstream media leaning so very far-left, I'm sorry, that's insane. None of the mainstream media is remotely left-leaning. It's all right-leaning - just that most of it is not as so far to the extreme right as Fox. Unless you have some kind of alternate-universe definition of "left" and "right."
Yes, yes, you're right. The US just marches in and blows up restaurants and vegetable markets using wheelbarrow and taxi bombs
No, they use more sophisticated weapons, rather improvised explosives.
are actually just swell guys who just want the good old days when Saddam's sons took care of daily operations. You are SO tuned into things, I can see.
And you're making shit up that I never said. It'ws funny how you think people who disagree with you must love Saddam. It's such a strawman. Anyway - you're avoiding the issue - why is it better to have innocents killed in Iraq by people other than Saddam? How are the victims any better off because it happens under US occupation, than under Saddam's rule?
The only way it would work is if the law says that the owner (or person who registered the vehicle) is responsible for it at all times.
You are responsible for your own car, aren't you? Anyway, the way this works is that if you were not driving at the time, you nominate the person who was, and they get charged. After all, you should know who you loan your car too. And if it was stolen, you should have reported it stolen. I don't see what the problem with this system is, that's how it works in many countries around the world.
Speed limits are arbitrary, and (specifically on the highways between Brisbane and Melbourne) designed to make money, not save lives.
There's a simple solution to that - if you don't exceed the speed limit, they won't make any money from the cameras. So, if they are about making money, then they would be removed once they stopped being profitable. Unfortunately, it seems highly unlikely to get the majority of people to obey the road rules for even one day or one week - so it looks like the cameras are here to stay. I still think it would be a hilarous protest, though - everybody obey the law today, and screw the police and government. It would be an act of civil obedience.
I don't want you to assume anything about my claim. I'd like you to critically evaluate it, asking questions if necessary.
Ok, here's my evaluation: The comment about "subverting the left" didn't make any sense.
Here's my question: What, exactly, did you mean by that?
You go on to write a bunch of weasel words, and avoid simply addressing the issues directly and clarifying your statement. That's not very useful. So, please tell us what you meant.
Uh, what? Why am I trollish? I don't troll - you just want to label me in that way, because you don't seem capable of honest discussion. And nobody paid me for the karma bonus... not sure what you're getting at there.
More like people dying in the streets because they can't afford healthcare or other social services. I heard Ron Paul interviewed, and his views seem to be based on total naivete. His heart seems to be in the right place, but he hasn't thought his position through. His argument for opposing government healthcare was basically "Back in my day, doctors would treat people for free if they couldn't afford to pay. Things were much better then." That's just not going to happen in a corporate-run system - there's no way a few kind-hearted doctors are going to cope with the sheer number of people needing free treatment. We don't live in the nostalgic small-town world of his memories anymore, and we probably didn't back then - at least not in the way he remembers it.
It's probably because Republicans have problems voting for a transvestite, no matter how attractive they find him. It's probably a latent/closet homosexual thing.
Oh yeah, and you don't think CNN and MSNBC is doing the same thing with the "Dems"??? Wake Up!
That's hilarious. Oh, you were being serious? I guess you must live in some kind of bizarro world. The situation isn't even remotely similar. CNN and MSNBC have given pleanty of support to the Republicans, and I'd like to see some evidence that they favor the Democratic party. Wake up, indeed.
I responded directly to YOU with a linkito Brad's in-depth explanation that most "content" is implicitly copyrighted
"Most" is not the same as "all". In that link, the first point actually implies that there is uncopyrighted content - although it is wise to assume that all content is copyrighted. So, your own link contradicts this argument
Not to break your bubble, but not every word I wrote was aimed at you. Sorry to cause you angst.
So, why reply to me? That's generally what the "reply" link is used for. I'm not feeling angst, but puzzlement about the the totally unrelated stuff which was posted in a reply to me.
Copyright is essential not only for me to make a living, but for me to create a humor genre that most people enjoy, rather than one that makes most people cringe.
The Internet has made possible the mass distribution of creative works. But it is up to the copyright holder to decide if free distribution works for their material. Just because you *can* steal a copyrighted work, doesn't mean you should.
Don't paint all copyright holders with the EVIL RIAA brush.
WTF? All I did was simply answer a simple question factually. Not all material is copyrighted.
When did I mention anything about copyright holders being evil or like the RIAA? I make my living from copyrighted content, too. I have tens of thousands of copyrighted images. But what does your little rant have to do with the question? It's obvious that not all work is copyrighted, so how was my answer wrong? Given that I never said anything other than "no", why did you write that screed about totally irrelevant stuff?
No, it's correct. There is plenty material that is not copyrighted. Therefore, it cannot be true that all material is copyrighted.
I think you are the one who changed the question. I was responding to your changed definiition of "all". Just because some people/corporations assume that everything is copyrighted, does not make it true.
To the person writing this filter, the amount is small enough to be irrelevant... In many countries you cannot renounce some or all of your copyright. Even the US does not have a statutory mechanism for doing so. And even if you can, how is the filter going to know? The default stance of copyright law is "everything is copyrighted".
Even if something is copyrighted, it doesn't mean that Viacom holds the copyright, or it isn't allowed to be distributed online via sites like Youtube. It's perfectly possible for something to be copyrighted and distributed on the web or by P2P. When it comes down to it, Viacom owns a small minority of the world's copyrighted material - so the content that doesn't fall under its scope is hardly "small enough to be irrelevant". It's very relevant, and in fact comprises the majority of content.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually people are already dying in the streets because of the sucky healthcare system.
Still, it's not fully privatized like Ron Paul wants. There are still public hospitals and medicare, aren't there? It's currently bad, but would get a lot worse under Libertarian-style policies.
There are several solutions to the high cost of healthcare, but further government interference is not one of them. Bureaucratic regulations and the tax code have moved healthcare from ala carte to carte blanche. No wonder costs are skyrocketing.So, how do you explain that healthcare costs are much lower in those countries with more public healthcare, and America's healthcare costs are among the highest in the world? Seems like it's the for-profit industry and lack of government intervention that is making costs so high.
So, how can MSNBC and CNN be "left wing" to you, when neither of them would ever make such statements?
The curent version of Carbon Copy Cloner has this feature, too.
Yeah, Unsanity is like the syphillis of the Mac world. However, being Mac-based, it's good-looking syphillis that's easy to use.
Because everybody has different preferences and needs in the utilities and apps they use. For some people, everything bundled with MacOS and iLife is all they will ever need. others want totally different things.
as for your settings, they can be exported on a mac (maybe on windows too - I don't really know it that well)You don't need to export them - there is the "Mac Migration Assistant" which can copy them from your previous OS/Mac.
would be neat to get to a world where the CD that comes with your computer has all the programs you need on itI don't think so. It's wasteful and outdated. I can get current versions from the software vendor's website. Stuff on a physical disc is almost guaranteed to be outdated by a newer release. plus there's the fact that all the software I need would never fit on a single disc, be it CD, DVD or BluRay.
Huh? Windows gets taken down by third party apps all the time, and there is no screaming. It's just considered normal.
Just the image of somebody driving a mouse is funny. What do they have instead of fender benders? Does the presence of a cat cause uncontrollable speeding?
I think the word you are looking for is "snappier." Haven't you read your Apple Style Guidelines for Slashdot Posts?
What's wrong with (1), the plain old upgrade? That's what I always use, and have never had a problem. Of course, I back up before and upgrade - but why should I erase and do a clean install? Daring Fireball reference:
Excuse me? How can you even repeat this as if it's true? It's completely unbalanced.
Unfortunately right now, with the mainstream media leaning so very far-left, I'm sorry, that's insane. None of the mainstream media is remotely left-leaning. It's all right-leaning - just that most of it is not as so far to the extreme right as Fox. Unless you have some kind of alternate-universe definition of "left" and "right."No, they use more sophisticated weapons, rather improvised explosives.
are actually just swell guys who just want the good old days when Saddam's sons took care of daily operations. You are SO tuned into things, I can see.And you're making shit up that I never said. It'ws funny how you think people who disagree with you must love Saddam. It's such a strawman. Anyway - you're avoiding the issue - why is it better to have innocents killed in Iraq by people other than Saddam? How are the victims any better off because it happens under US occupation, than under Saddam's rule?
You are responsible for your own car, aren't you? Anyway, the way this works is that if you were not driving at the time, you nominate the person who was, and they get charged. After all, you should know who you loan your car too. And if it was stolen, you should have reported it stolen. I don't see what the problem with this system is, that's how it works in many countries around the world.
There's a simple solution to that - if you don't exceed the speed limit, they won't make any money from the cameras. So, if they are about making money, then they would be removed once they stopped being profitable. Unfortunately, it seems highly unlikely to get the majority of people to obey the road rules for even one day or one week - so it looks like the cameras are here to stay. I still think it would be a hilarous protest, though - everybody obey the law today, and screw the police and government. It would be an act of civil obedience.
Ok, here's my evaluation: The comment about "subverting the left" didn't make any sense.
Here's my question: What, exactly, did you mean by that?
You go on to write a bunch of weasel words, and avoid simply addressing the issues directly and clarifying your statement. That's not very useful. So, please tell us what you meant.
Uh, what? Why am I trollish? I don't troll - you just want to label me in that way, because you don't seem capable of honest discussion. And nobody paid me for the karma bonus... not sure what you're getting at there.
You really are clueless, aren't you? Never read his writings, and not particularly familiar with the show, are you?
More like people dying in the streets because they can't afford healthcare or other social services. I heard Ron Paul interviewed, and his views seem to be based on total naivete. His heart seems to be in the right place, but he hasn't thought his position through. His argument for opposing government healthcare was basically "Back in my day, doctors would treat people for free if they couldn't afford to pay. Things were much better then." That's just not going to happen in a corporate-run system - there's no way a few kind-hearted doctors are going to cope with the sheer number of people needing free treatment. We don't live in the nostalgic small-town world of his memories anymore, and we probably didn't back then - at least not in the way he remembers it.
It's probably because Republicans have problems voting for a transvestite, no matter how attractive they find him. It's probably a latent/closet homosexual thing.
Oh, that makes all the difference in the world! I'm sure the victims will be happy to know that... oh, wait.
I'm trying to understand why you seem to think it's somehow better for the US to do this than Saddam.
That's hilarious. Oh, you were being serious? I guess you must live in some kind of bizarro world. The situation isn't even remotely similar. CNN and MSNBC have given pleanty of support to the Republicans, and I'd like to see some evidence that they favor the Democratic party. Wake up, indeed.
That's a big pressure cooker! Now they just have to find enough ravioli to fill it.
Flame? What?
I responded directly to YOU with a linkito Brad's in-depth explanation that most "content" is implicitly copyrighted"Most" is not the same as "all". In that link, the first point actually implies that there is uncopyrighted content - although it is wise to assume that all content is copyrighted. So, your own link contradicts this argument
Not to break your bubble, but not every word I wrote was aimed at you. Sorry to cause you angst.So, why reply to me? That's generally what the "reply" link is used for. I'm not feeling angst, but puzzlement about the the totally unrelated stuff which was posted in a reply to me.
WTF? All I did was simply answer a simple question factually. Not all material is copyrighted.
When did I mention anything about copyright holders being evil or like the RIAA? I make my living from copyrighted content, too. I have tens of thousands of copyrighted images. But what does your little rant have to do with the question? It's obvious that not all work is copyrighted, so how was my answer wrong? Given that I never said anything other than "no", why did you write that screed about totally irrelevant stuff?
No, it's correct. There is plenty material that is not copyrighted. Therefore, it cannot be true that all material is copyrighted.
I think you are the one who changed the question. I was responding to your changed definiition of "all". Just because some people/corporations assume that everything is copyrighted, does not make it true.
Even if something is copyrighted, it doesn't mean that Viacom holds the copyright, or it isn't allowed to be distributed online via sites like Youtube. It's perfectly possible for something to be copyrighted and distributed on the web or by P2P. When it comes down to it, Viacom owns a small minority of the world's copyrighted material - so the content that doesn't fall under its scope is hardly "small enough to be irrelevant". It's very relevant, and in fact comprises the majority of content.