The Democrat party is all about silencing the opposition.
Anyone who has paid any attention to politics in the past 9 years knows how ridiculous that statement is, and also knows how to correctly spell "the Democratic Party". But more importantly, even the fairness doctrine that conservatives dread so much (even though no one is trying to bring it back) was never about silencing opposition. It was about providing a balance of viewpoints -- you know, like Fox News claims to do.
BTW, your second link requires paid registration. I'm amused that you're paying to hear conspiracy theories when there are already plenty online for free.
I heard a warning in November (from Republicans of course) that the Fairness Doctrine, trying to legislate the content of the internet and talk radio, would come under the guise of Net Neutrality.
Republicans spreading FUD against a proposal (net neutrality) that favors consumers over big business? What a shocker!
The fairness doctrine has never had anything to do with the internet, BTW. There aren't even any serious proposals to bring it back for radio, much less apply it to the internet.
If you suck at topping off (like nearly everyone I've ever seen attempt to do it) then you over-fill and 100% of the gas is no longer in the tank...
Uh.. what? What's so hard about topping off? Hold the pump handle until it stops. Hold it again until it stops again. Done. I've never overfilled doing it this way.
You may not be aware, but Obama's appointees dropped the charges against the Panthers being referred to here. [...] The fact that you didn't draw the inference right away also speaks to the difference in media coverage between the two events.
Thanks, but I'm aware of that. The point remains: I'm not defending the Panthers' actions or the decision to drop charges against them, and their actions last year do not excuse this year's spate of right-wing thuggery.
Look into it a bit, but I think you'll agree that what those men did was far more threatening than the men carrying guns to prove a point.
Actually, I think using guns and barely-obfuscated calls to violence to intimidate people is somewhat worse than using nightsticks and racial slurs to intimidate people, but that's beside the point. Both deserve condemnation. One does not excuse the other.
I'm simply going to point out that what they were doing was also perfectly legal in the locations where this occurred.
I'm sure it was - just like it's also perfectly legal for a shouting, angry mob to disrupt a town hall meeting. But like I said, both acts are intended to stifle debate and intimidate their opponents. Some thuggish behavior is legal, but even thugs who act legally deserve to be criticized for it.
News flash. Not all of us piss ourselves at the sight of a gun. Open carry was once a way of life in this country, and nobody bitched about being "intimidated".
Because in those situations, the guns weren't being used for intimidation. Now they are.
If you fear for your safety in a country that respects the right of an individual to protect his own life
Guys carrying rifles outside a presidential event and shouting about "watering the tree of liberty" and "forcefully resisting" the will of the majority aren't protecting their own lives, they're making implicit threats against the lives of others. You know it, I know it, and the thugs in question certainly know it.
As opposed to the members of the New Black Panther Party who stood outside a polling place and threatened violence against those they perceived as likely to vote against their preferred candidate?
No. I haven't defended any Black Panthers, and I condemn such tactics no matter who uses them. Did you mean to reply to someone else? Or are you trying to excuse this recent spate of organized right-wing thuggery by pointing to a case of voter intimidation from last year?
Pelosi didn't call anyone a fascist. She pointed out, correctly, that people have been carrying swastikas to town hall meetings. In fact, as you can see, it's the right-wing demonstrators who have been accusing Obama and other Democrats of fascism, not the other way around.
Threatened violence is OK if the almighty State does it.
To put it bluntly, that's what a "state" does: it monopolizes force. That's how it works in every country. If you don't like the idea of a state using force to enforce laws written by elected representatives, feel free to move to the libertarian paradise known as Somalia.
Of course, the key distinction here is between (1) enforcing laws that were passed by the elected representatives of the people and (2) suppressing debate and intimidating one's political opponents. Armed lunatics like Kostric and Broughton were not put in power by any majority of voters: they think they have the right to intimidate others not because the will of the people is on their side, but simply because they have weapons.
As far as I know there was one guy carrying guns outside a town hall event (it's not quite clear to me from the reports, so there may have been others also carrying guns outside that event). However, he was not "brandishing" the guns, he was carrying them.
There have been at least two: William Kostric in New Hampshire and Christopher Broughton in Arizona.
Both are members of the same right-wing organization which calls for "resistance... against unconstitutional or illegal behavior by government officials".
Kostric proclaimed that "it is time to water the tree of liberty", alluding to Jefferson's quote about the "blood of tyrants and patriots". Broughton claimed "we will forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority with a vote".
These are not simply men who disagree with some proposed legislation. These are men who've chosen to use the implicit threat of violence against their political opponents.
Dems already call people who disagree with the healthcare reform plan terrorists
False. Shutting down town hall meetings != disagreeing with the healthcare reform plan.
It's still hyperbole to call them "terrorists", but don't pretend the people Congressman Hill was referring to were merely expressing an opposing viewpoint -- their mission is to stifle debate and intimidate their opponents, just like the folks who've been brandishing guns outside the events.
And if you have Verizon or Comcast, they'll monitor that and shut of your Internet access.
They certainly will not. I'm lucky enough to live in an area where Comcast never messed with torrents (and unlucky enough to live in an area where Verizon's FIOS is unavailable), but AFAIK they don't do it anywhere anymore -- they just cap you at 250 GB per month.
Same goes for governments. See the drug cartels in Mexico. Or would you argue that Mexico does not have a government?
The Mexican government does have a legal monopoly on force. They just can't enforce it effectively.
I think I get what you're driving at, but if anyone who wants something from you and has the means to coerce you to provide it is a form of government, then the only possible escape from government is to isolate yourself from all other humans and live off the land. And even then, any animal big enough to maul you is arguably a form of government as well.
The docs are inferior, the support, as it is offered and as it exists in the real world, is inferior, and the distribution infrastructure is incredibly inferior.
You mean the distribution infrastructure that lets you post applications at your own discretion, without fearing that they'll be rejected for arbitrary reasons or "held in review" indefinitely, and all for less than Apple charges? Yeah, really inferior.
Also, if you think Google would waste their actual API coders' time by shoving them onto an IRC channel for hours a day, you're deluding yourself. Google would use the same intermediates Apple does, except their time would not be not spent as efficiently, because it's pissed away in DCC chat sessions instead of documented, searchable, user-rated forums.
It's funny how you use the word "would" here, as if this is all purely hypothetical: as if Android coders don't already respond to app developers on IRC (as well as "documented, searchable, user-rated forums"). Your theory about what Google "would" do is invalidated by real-world evidence of what they actually do.
These "quit the government" types often define government as that which has a monopoly on force. Warlords have plenty of force, but no monopoly: you can fight them off if you have enough weapons/soldiers of your own.
And if you can't gather weapons and soldiers as efficiently as the warlords, well, that's the free market at work, right?
Yeah. For one thing, it's not just "tech support". It's "developer support". It's the person on the phone's JOB to help you solve your problem; they've been practicing it eight hours a day nonstop; they have direct contact with the people who wrote the APIs and even the people who designed the hardware, and when you're speaking to them, you have their FULL attention.
"Developer support" is still more "support" than "developer". While you're settling for a middleman who has "direct contact" with the people who wrote the iPhone APIs, Android developers can have their very own direct contact with the people who wrote the Android APIs. And again, they aren't limited to two incidents.
Sure is great to have both!
Indeed it is. But, correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't Apple make you choose between them? Contact Apple privately or post your question in a public forum where no one from Apple will see it.
You want to make this about Linux, then get offended at your own proffered stereotype? Have fun with that.
If you don't think the GP was repeating a tired old Linux stereotype, then what do you think it was? It certainly has no bearing on the reality of Android development, so do you think it's just a coincidence that the analogy he made up happens to be exactly the same as what trolls say about Linux, the OS that Android is based on?
But why am I wasting my breath - if you honestly think an open IRC channel is superior to a developer phone-support incident, then you're probably not a software developer, you're a hobbyist with a shiny new underdog to root for, at the expense of common sense.
Actually, I've been developing software professionally for a decade.
And yes, I do honestly think that IRC channels and newsgroups where you can have unlimited direct contact with developers are better than a couple of phone support incidents with someone whose job is talking on the phone, not writing code. If you disagree, I can't help but suspect that you're the hobbyist here, more comfortable with dialing 800 numbers than speaking to developers as peers -- or perhaps just one of Apple's favorite customers, the kind who thinks everything is better when you're paying for it.
I'm not sure if you've ever dealt with real support from a company but having someone on the phone who knows wtf they are doing and works with you until its resolved is a little different than posting to newsgroups.
I'm not sure if you've ever dealt with a real support from a developer, but having someone on the newsgroup (or IRC) who knows WTF they are doing and works with you until it's resolved is a little different than phoning tech support.
Especially when there's no limit on the number of "incidents" you can get help with, and especially when your questions can be answered by fellow application developers in addition to the people who wrote the library you're trying to use.
With android you get left standing naked in the middle of a field with nothing, not even a pair of shoes and told that if you look around and dig around you can find information on how to build some shoes, cloths, eventually maybe a compass and a map to find your way out of the field to your destination.
That's a nice glib stereotype of all things Linux-related, and there's even a grain of truth when it comes to, say, getting your Wi-Fi working in Gentoo or whatever.
But that stereotype is hilariously inaccurate when it comes to Android development, as anyone can see if they spend a few minutes browsing the SDK documentation, reading tutorials, or looking at the official support forums. It's too bad you didn't do that before posting.
It's really, really easy to get started with iPhone development. You pay Apple a small fee and get access to piles and piles of sample code, great documentation, a mature API, and you even get 2 support incidents in which you get to interact with a real Apple developer for your money.
With Android, you get access to piles and piles of code without having to pay anyone. Want to know how the default music player works? Just look at the source code. Good luck finding the source to the iPhone's music player.
If you want to interact with a real Android developer, just post on the newsgroups or find them on IRC. Again, it's free.
I haven't done iPhone development, so I can't comment on the relative quality of Android's documentation or API, but they seem fine to me.
At least with the iPhone there is a viable alternate channel for sales, Cydia - totally outside the realm of Apple's control, the Diagon Alley of apps. They claim over a million devices jailbroken, which places the total size of the market near the viable Android market!
There's a viable alternative to the Android Market, too. See SlideME.
As for it being "illegal", come on. It's not even at level of jaywalking it terms of moral questionability and what are they going to write a ticket for? Dangerously wild consumption of mobile resources?
Not quite. As you surely know, Apple has claimed that jailbreaking violates (1) copyright law and (2) the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Indeed, so is speeding. Everyone obeys that too...
Of course they don't, just like people don't avoid jailbreaking just because Apple says it's illegal.
But you've accidentally found a grain of truth here: drivers do tend to prefer roads where the speed limits are higher, rather than speeding illegally on roads with lower limits. I would rather drive 60 MPH on the freeway, where it's legal, than on a side street where it isn't.
Frankly I have more faith in him than you do though and I'm sure his reasons were more technical.
Oh, really? So that's what you meant when you said "But don't pretend [your reasons] are technical because at the core they are not. There's nothing wrong with buying something based on emotion but it is wrong to claim cold hard technical fact when it is not so.";)
Slashdot Mirror
The Democrat party is all about silencing the opposition.
Anyone who has paid any attention to politics in the past 9 years knows how ridiculous that statement is, and also knows how to correctly spell "the Democratic Party". But more importantly, even the fairness doctrine that conservatives dread so much (even though no one is trying to bring it back) was never about silencing opposition. It was about providing a balance of viewpoints -- you know, like Fox News claims to do.
BTW, your second link requires paid registration. I'm amused that you're paying to hear conspiracy theories when there are already plenty online for free.
I heard a warning in November (from Republicans of course) that the Fairness Doctrine, trying to legislate the content of the internet and talk radio, would come under the guise of Net Neutrality.
Republicans spreading FUD against a proposal (net neutrality) that favors consumers over big business? What a shocker!
The fairness doctrine has never had anything to do with the internet, BTW. There aren't even any serious proposals to bring it back for radio, much less apply it to the internet.
If you suck at topping off (like nearly everyone I've ever seen attempt to do it) then you over-fill and 100% of the gas is no longer in the tank...
Uh.. what? What's so hard about topping off? Hold the pump handle until it stops. Hold it again until it stops again. Done. I've never overfilled doing it this way.
The newspapers in Seattle were screaming about a Swine Flu outbreak at the local university
Actually, that outbreak was at WSU, which is about 300 miles away from Seattle. (The one in Seattle is UW.)
You may not be aware, but Obama's appointees dropped the charges against the Panthers being referred to here. [...] The fact that you didn't draw the inference right away also speaks to the difference in media coverage between the two events.
Thanks, but I'm aware of that. The point remains: I'm not defending the Panthers' actions or the decision to drop charges against them, and their actions last year do not excuse this year's spate of right-wing thuggery.
Look into it a bit, but I think you'll agree that what those men did was far more threatening than the men carrying guns to prove a point.
Actually, I think using guns and barely-obfuscated calls to violence to intimidate people is somewhat worse than using nightsticks and racial slurs to intimidate people, but that's beside the point. Both deserve condemnation. One does not excuse the other.
I don't think you can use the term 'thug' here unless you are also willing to put Washington, Jefferson, and company in that same category.
I think I can. Overthrowing colonial rule is not at all the same thing as intimidating your fellow citizens.
The 2nd Amendment exists to allow the citizenry to overthrow a despotic America.
Right -- not to allow some citizens to suppress debate through the implicit threat of violence.
I'm simply going to point out that what they were doing was also perfectly legal in the locations where this occurred.
I'm sure it was - just like it's also perfectly legal for a shouting, angry mob to disrupt a town hall meeting. But like I said, both acts are intended to stifle debate and intimidate their opponents. Some thuggish behavior is legal, but even thugs who act legally deserve to be criticized for it.
News flash. Not all of us piss ourselves at the sight of a gun. Open carry was once a way of life in this country, and nobody bitched about being "intimidated".
Because in those situations, the guns weren't being used for intimidation. Now they are.
If you fear for your safety in a country that respects the right of an individual to protect his own life
Guys carrying rifles outside a presidential event and shouting about "watering the tree of liberty" and "forcefully resisting" the will of the majority aren't protecting their own lives, they're making implicit threats against the lives of others. You know it, I know it, and the thugs in question certainly know it.
As opposed to the members of the New Black Panther Party who stood outside a polling place and threatened violence against those they perceived as likely to vote against their preferred candidate?
No. I haven't defended any Black Panthers, and I condemn such tactics no matter who uses them. Did you mean to reply to someone else? Or are you trying to excuse this recent spate of organized right-wing thuggery by pointing to a case of voter intimidation from last year?
Pelosi didn't call anyone a fascist. She pointed out, correctly, that people have been carrying swastikas to town hall meetings. In fact, as you can see, it's the right-wing demonstrators who have been accusing Obama and other Democrats of fascism, not the other way around.
Threatened violence is OK if the almighty State does it.
To put it bluntly, that's what a "state" does: it monopolizes force. That's how it works in every country. If you don't like the idea of a state using force to enforce laws written by elected representatives, feel free to move to the libertarian paradise known as Somalia.
Of course, the key distinction here is between (1) enforcing laws that were passed by the elected representatives of the people and (2) suppressing debate and intimidating one's political opponents. Armed lunatics like Kostric and Broughton were not put in power by any majority of voters: they think they have the right to intimidate others not because the will of the people is on their side, but simply because they have weapons.
As far as I know there was one guy carrying guns outside a town hall event (it's not quite clear to me from the reports, so there may have been others also carrying guns outside that event). However, he was not "brandishing" the guns, he was carrying them.
There have been at least two: William Kostric in New Hampshire and Christopher Broughton in Arizona.
Both are members of the same right-wing organization which calls for "resistance ... against unconstitutional or illegal behavior by government officials".
Kostric proclaimed that "it is time to water the tree of liberty", alluding to Jefferson's quote about the "blood of tyrants and patriots". Broughton claimed "we will forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority with a vote".
These are not simply men who disagree with some proposed legislation. These are men who've chosen to use the implicit threat of violence against their political opponents.
Dems already call people who disagree with the healthcare reform plan terrorists
False. Shutting down town hall meetings != disagreeing with the healthcare reform plan.
It's still hyperbole to call them "terrorists", but don't pretend the people Congressman Hill was referring to were merely expressing an opposing viewpoint -- their mission is to stifle debate and intimidate their opponents, just like the folks who've been brandishing guns outside the events.
And if you have Verizon or Comcast, they'll monitor that and shut of your Internet access.
They certainly will not. I'm lucky enough to live in an area where Comcast never messed with torrents (and unlucky enough to live in an area where Verizon's FIOS is unavailable), but AFAIK they don't do it anywhere anymore -- they just cap you at 250 GB per month.
More importantly, name one thing that HDMI has prevented you from doing compared to, say, DVI which has none of your hated "teh DRMz!" in it.
Actually, it does. HDCP (the DRM part) works over DVI as well as HDMI.
Some of us like to watch shows as they come out, instead of waiting one or more years for them to come out on DVD or praying Hulu will play them.
For most shows with any sort of following, a torrent is usually available within a couple hours after the live broadcast.
Same goes for governments. See the drug cartels in Mexico. Or would you argue that Mexico does not have a government?
The Mexican government does have a legal monopoly on force. They just can't enforce it effectively.
I think I get what you're driving at, but if anyone who wants something from you and has the means to coerce you to provide it is a form of government, then the only possible escape from government is to isolate yourself from all other humans and live off the land. And even then, any animal big enough to maul you is arguably a form of government as well.
The docs are inferior, the support, as it is offered and as it exists in the real world, is inferior, and the distribution infrastructure is incredibly inferior.
You mean the distribution infrastructure that lets you post applications at your own discretion, without fearing that they'll be rejected for arbitrary reasons or "held in review" indefinitely, and all for less than Apple charges? Yeah, really inferior.
Also, if you think Google would waste their actual API coders' time by shoving them onto an IRC channel for hours a day, you're deluding yourself. Google would use the same intermediates Apple does, except their time would not be not spent as efficiently, because it's pissed away in DCC chat sessions instead of documented, searchable, user-rated forums.
It's funny how you use the word "would" here, as if this is all purely hypothetical: as if Android coders don't already respond to app developers on IRC (as well as "documented, searchable, user-rated forums"). Your theory about what Google "would" do is invalidated by real-world evidence of what they actually do.
Warlords are a type of government.
These "quit the government" types often define government as that which has a monopoly on force. Warlords have plenty of force, but no monopoly: you can fight them off if you have enough weapons/soldiers of your own.
And if you can't gather weapons and soldiers as efficiently as the warlords, well, that's the free market at work, right?
Is there an easy way to quit using the government?
Move to Somalia. It's a government-free paradise!
Yeah. For one thing, it's not just "tech support". It's "developer support". It's the person on the phone's JOB to help you solve your problem; they've been practicing it eight hours a day nonstop; they have direct contact with the people who wrote the APIs and even the people who designed the hardware, and when you're speaking to them, you have their FULL attention.
"Developer support" is still more "support" than "developer". While you're settling for a middleman who has "direct contact" with the people who wrote the iPhone APIs, Android developers can have their very own direct contact with the people who wrote the Android APIs. And again, they aren't limited to two incidents.
Sure is great to have both!
Indeed it is. But, correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't Apple make you choose between them? Contact Apple privately or post your question in a public forum where no one from Apple will see it.
You want to make this about Linux, then get offended at your own proffered stereotype? Have fun with that.
If you don't think the GP was repeating a tired old Linux stereotype, then what do you think it was? It certainly has no bearing on the reality of Android development, so do you think it's just a coincidence that the analogy he made up happens to be exactly the same as what trolls say about Linux, the OS that Android is based on?
But why am I wasting my breath - if you honestly think an open IRC channel is superior to a developer phone-support incident, then you're probably not a software developer, you're a hobbyist with a shiny new underdog to root for, at the expense of common sense.
Actually, I've been developing software professionally for a decade.
And yes, I do honestly think that IRC channels and newsgroups where you can have unlimited direct contact with developers are better than a couple of phone support incidents with someone whose job is talking on the phone, not writing code. If you disagree, I can't help but suspect that you're the hobbyist here, more comfortable with dialing 800 numbers than speaking to developers as peers -- or perhaps just one of Apple's favorite customers, the kind who thinks everything is better when you're paying for it.
I'm not sure if you've ever dealt with real support from a company but having someone on the phone who knows wtf they are doing and works with you until its resolved is a little different than posting to newsgroups.
I'm not sure if you've ever dealt with a real support from a developer, but having someone on the newsgroup (or IRC) who knows WTF they are doing and works with you until it's resolved is a little different than phoning tech support.
Especially when there's no limit on the number of "incidents" you can get help with, and especially when your questions can be answered by fellow application developers in addition to the people who wrote the library you're trying to use.
With android you get left standing naked in the middle of a field with nothing, not even a pair of shoes and told that if you look around and dig around you can find information on how to build some shoes, cloths, eventually maybe a compass and a map to find your way out of the field to your destination.
That's a nice glib stereotype of all things Linux-related, and there's even a grain of truth when it comes to, say, getting your Wi-Fi working in Gentoo or whatever.
But that stereotype is hilariously inaccurate when it comes to Android development, as anyone can see if they spend a few minutes browsing the SDK documentation, reading tutorials, or looking at the official support forums. It's too bad you didn't do that before posting.
It's really, really easy to get started with iPhone development. You pay Apple a small fee and get access to piles and piles of sample code, great documentation, a mature API, and you even get 2 support incidents in which you get to interact with a real Apple developer for your money.
With Android, you get access to piles and piles of code without having to pay anyone. Want to know how the default music player works? Just look at the source code. Good luck finding the source to the iPhone's music player.
If you want to interact with a real Android developer, just post on the newsgroups or find them on IRC. Again, it's free.
I haven't done iPhone development, so I can't comment on the relative quality of Android's documentation or API, but they seem fine to me.
At least with the iPhone there is a viable alternate channel for sales, Cydia - totally outside the realm of Apple's control, the Diagon Alley of apps. They claim over a million devices jailbroken, which places the total size of the market near the viable Android market!
There's a viable alternative to the Android Market, too. See SlideME.
As for it being "illegal", come on. It's not even at level of jaywalking it terms of moral questionability and what are they going to write a ticket for? Dangerously wild consumption of mobile resources?
Not quite. As you surely know, Apple has claimed that jailbreaking violates (1) copyright law and (2) the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Indeed, so is speeding. Everyone obeys that too...
Of course they don't, just like people don't avoid jailbreaking just because Apple says it's illegal.
But you've accidentally found a grain of truth here: drivers do tend to prefer roads where the speed limits are higher, rather than speeding illegally on roads with lower limits. I would rather drive 60 MPH on the freeway, where it's legal, than on a side street where it isn't.
Frankly I have more faith in him than you do though and I'm sure his reasons were more technical.
Oh, really? So that's what you meant when you said "But don't pretend [your reasons] are technical because at the core they are not. There's nothing wrong with buying something based on emotion but it is wrong to claim cold hard technical fact when it is not so." ;)