That's not the main reason. Apple is trying to encourage the ubiquity of the iPod connector interface, and including A2DP would severely undermine this, as car and electronics manufacturers would just use that to interface with iPods and iPhones instead of the proprietary iPod port. This would put Apple's competitors on much more equal footing with Apple with accessories and 3rd party electronics integration.
Since Apple acquired Fingerworks and all their IP, and they've patented every aspect of the iPhone more significant than the color choice, it would seem that they've got Multitouch(TM) capabilities fairly tightly locked up in patents, and they've strongly hinted that they will bring down a world of legal hurt on anyone that tries to implement similar functionality... Blame our overzealous patent system for the lack of Multitouch(TM) equivalent on this device.
You can use a regular DVD ripper to get rid of the CSS and then use Handbrake. That's what I do. It's not good to let Handbrake run your DVD drive for the whole time it performs its conversion anyway. Rip DVD to your HD first, then use Handbrake to rip to H.264.
The best bet is an optical format, as it doesn't have magnetic or electric leakage problems of solid state and magnetic storage. The only problem is that recordable optical media use dyes that have a questionable stability for that kind of time frame. It would be best to get the discs professionally pressed, so that there is no degradable dye used to store the data, but actual physical grooves. You'll have to press a couple thousand copies anyway, so it won't hurt to include several copies in the box. Just make sure you don't heat them up when you're trying to weld the box shut.
Keeps your logic skills sharp. It's good mental exercise, in the vein of Brain Age and such... Gotta keep that noggin fit, especially if your day job isn't challenging you enough.
I would hope that they continue their usual dirty tactics of forced obsolescence and lock-in, so that people eventually get fed up with having to keep giving MS money for no added value, and are inclined to switch over to OSS for their own benefit.
Unfortunately, no one can publish any good iPhone development books or resources because of the NDA Apple has in place for the SDK, compounding the problem you bring up.
Yes, the tilt sensors are very precise, but you do get some random noise that you have to account for in your software. Current tilt-based games such as Labyrinth (marble table game) and Super Monkey Ball are very playable, and the motion detection is incredibly sensitive and quite realistic. An anonymous EA developer actually commented on the iPhone's accelerometer's characteristics as an input device in this story, where it is compared with the Wii remote minus the Motion Plus additions.
Strange, their non-i-prefixed hardware doesn't seem limited to me... They were suing an *unlicensed distributor* of Mac OS X, and for trademark abuse, not merely someone who sold "OS-compatible hardware". Mac OS X is stable because it's a mature foundation, in part due to its BSD userland, but also its unique microkernel design and rich, mature API set and development environment. The proof is in the pudding, and the software available for MacOS X is some of the most consistent, visually appealing and well-designed available for any platform. Using the platform is an excellent mix of usable software to the deepest level of detail, access to extensive development and productivity tools, and relatively unobstructive operation, making it a true joy to use. Until Linux and common Linux software reaches this level of maturity, this is the best I've got. I boot into Windows for work, and that's... functional, but with my current choices, you can take my OS X when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. As for Apple being mislabeled as open, they've been some important contributors to some fairly central GPL and OSS projects, including GCC and KHTML, not to mention the contributions they've distributed, such as Zeroconf/mpd, launchd, sproutcore, qtss, among others. They might not give away their crowned jewels, but they do their share. In the end, OS X is POSIX compatible, and it has a bash shell, and it's a perfect training ground for tomorrow's Linux developers. It plays nice with Linux software, even if the same isn't true in the other direction, and it's an incredibly flexible and smooth OS. Plus, it interfaces well with my iPhone... : P
That's strange; most people seem to have no problems with jailbroken iPod Touches or iPhones, and my jailbroken iPhone is the perfect mix of functionality, stability and openness, and I've installed about four pages of random free apps from the jailbreaking community. YMMV, but I think it's possible to make the iPhone more open, perhaps only optionally for the user, while keeping stability. They could easily add an option somewhere in the iPhone it iPod Touch settings in iTunes or on the device itself to 'Allow untrusted software', with a spooky warning about stability and security, and then it could let the user have enough rope to hang themselves. The OS is basically Mac OS X, and if they can pull it off well on Macs, there's no reason the iPhone OS couldn't be more accessible.
I'll jump on this grenade. There are a couple aspects that mitigate Apple's abusiveness. The first is that they are selectively abusive, with only particular aspects of their product offerings. For example, they are abusive with many of the products related to iTunes, including DRM'd digital content, and locked down iPods, iPhones and AppleTV. For the rest of their products, including Macs, Mac OS X, and the software they write, they are typically *more open* and *less controlling* than their direct competitors (Macs use standard parts you can swap as easily as those from competing OEMs, Mac OS X is largely built on open standards, and their software typically don't have any onerous activation or any outlandishly annoying copy protection.
For those that are locked down, they offer the best products on the market from a usability and integration standpoint. For iPods, I don't really care about using my Nano for anything other than playing standard format MP3s and AACs, and it handles this task perfectly. For the iPhone, I've stuck with jailbroken firmware, allowing me total access, and I put up with fighting the vendor like this for the privilege of giving them my money because the iPhone OS and hardware has no competition at the moment. For the AppleTV, it works seamlessly with all the Macs and PCs on my LAN sharing their iTunes libraries, and I use it to play standard format audio and video files from my media server. It sucks that there's no ability to install 3rd party software and extend its functionality, but I find that it offers enough value for its cost with the standard software, given the limitations of the device (limited input options, practicality of using a 10' interface to accomplish tasks when I've already got my iPhone with me to handle complex tasks no matter where I am).
Point is, Apple typically has locked down their offerings in places where it doesn't matter too much to the user, or where they can offer enough of an advantage over their competition to compensate. DRM'd content on iTunes? Don't buy any. Locked down iPod and AppleTV? Doesn't bother me all that much, as their applications are limited by their form factors more than their software. With the iPhone, it DOES bother me, but I put up with it because it's a usable UNIX computer with advanced APIs in my pocket, and it can be circumvented. They still sell great computers that aren't really locked down in any way, they make decent electronics that integrate well with those computers to leverage their stored content in new ways, and they make a hell of a cell phone/pocket computer, once you've cracked its protection schemes. I wouldn't hope for Apple to dominate any more markets (after the digital music player) if this is the way they're going to handle the iPhone platform, but they offer some great products, and they keep their competitors on their toes, benefiting us all. That being said, please keep hauling flak at Apple whenever they do something user-hostile, as they can sure use the negative attention, encouraging them to back off and play nice.
That's a load of crap. Their products are popular because they work well. Locking them down is *one way* to ensure that they will work well, and designing them robustly so that they are flexible, powerful and simple to use is *another way*. Apple won't be able to keep this tight control once there starts being some competition that can offer both user control and good usability.
Screw that. Mandatory driver signing is unacceptable, as it's no longer a general purpose computer strictly under my control. The answer to your question is that NO, you can't sign your own drivers for Vista and/or distribute them to other people to use. It would be like the vendor keeping control of the root account with some super secret password, and only giving the user some crippled 'admin' account without access to the whole computer. When I bought my computer, the OS and all its files became mine, and I'm free to tinker with it to my heart's content. I don't mind having a certification process for 'safe' drivers, and then have some mechanism for booting in safe mode with only safe drivers loaded if there is a problem with one of the unapproved drivers. The user should still be free to write their own kernel extensions, and load experimental ones from other people if they choose, however.
The day Apple moves to protect the Mac OS from its owner despite their wishes is the day I begin my Linux migration. I'm quite thankful that the open source community has given us a viable alternative should OS vendors try to take control away from the user. Windows Vista 64 is completely unacceptable to me because of the protected kernel space, and I'd drop Apple in a second, despite being quite fond of the Mac OS, if they try to pull something like that.
Obama has never promised to pull out of Iraq. His presentation to AIPAC shows he's just as capable of beligerant diplomacy with Iran as McCain. As for Obama wanting a large middle class, that's very nice, but there's no indication he has any plans to that end, and he hasn't said anything substantial. Again, pretty words and no promises.
You sound like you've taken a big swig of the Kool Aid, and you show a completely superficial understanding of what Paul actually proposes. The point of allowing states to have a larger say over their policy is that, besides being how the constitution of this country was structured, we have much more representation at the state level than at the federal level, that the citizens will be able to keep things more in check. Our representation at the federal level is so poor, and so prone to corruption, that there is a need to decentralize more power to where it will be accountable to voters.
This last administration has clearly demonstrated the hazard of centralizing power at the federal level, and you just haven't learned your lesson. You are prepared to keep supporting the centralization of power, with single points of failure for the entire country, even though you should know that it will be abused, and voters will be helpless in fixing the problem, since it takes too much dirty money to get elected to federal office. So yeah, Paul is right, let the states have more of the federal government's power, and let the voters have a bigger say over their government, and let them vote with their feet by moving to a different state if theirs screws up too badly.
Compare their actual promises, not their rhetoric. You have to look at what they actually say they will do. Chances are, at the end of the day, what we do in Iraq will be the same with both, what we do in Iran will be the same, both will close Guantanamo (because the Supreme Court just took away its purpose), both will try to manage the recession in similar ways (leave it up to the Fed), both will fail at fixing health care, both will attempt to salvage the 'No Child Left Behind' program, and both will continue to use the US Army as the world's police instead of as a defense force, both will continue to operate the hundreds of US military bases around the world at a huge financial cost to our country.
When we compare to a truly different candidate such as Ron Paul, who was serious about humility in foreign relations, about deferring authority over government programs back to the states, where the level of representation isn't quite as poor as at the national level, and about significantly cutting federal spending and trying to get our finances and government services in order so we DON'T pop the Social Security and Medicare bubbles. I wouldn't try to compare either current main party candidates to Paul's track record of working in these directions.
Although Obama does SEEM LIKE a decent guy, with a good head on his shoulders, I have little faith that he will respond to our debt crisis appropriately, and his recent lip service to AIPAC shows that he's just as capable of hubris and notions of ruling the world as any of these other jackasses we've had as president lately. So we'll see, he may be a step above McCain, and he may even be less destructive to our country, but as far as I'm concerned, neither of them have shown that they understand what the real problems are, nor that they are capable of facing them head-on. My vote will not be going to either of them. Obama talks a decent game of lip service to libertarians, but I'm not stupid enough to think that he's even on the same page.
You make a good point, and I should have qualified my statement by requiring 'many' differences. You do highlight a significant difference on a very important issue. That being said, the scope of their differences is still fairly limited when compared with the issues Paul was putting on the table, such as what our foreign policy in general should be towards other countries. It's not often that we get to support such radical notions as humility in foreign relations, or greater trust in the regulatory power of the free market to keep corruption in check, given our terrible, terrible representation in the legislature. After such high aspirations, the differences between the remaining candidates seem insignificant by comparison. I will admit that this is likely a false impression, and that there are some substantial differences that might favor one candidate over the other. I just can't help but feel let down by the reduced expectations, however.
I disagree completely. In most ways, the nominees from the Democratic and Republican parties are incredibly similar. In fact, it's quite difficult to find any substantial differences in the campaign promises of either Obama or McCain, once you get past the different tones they use to the actual meat of what they say they will do. Clearly, there is a large number of Americans that feel poorly represented by both candidates, and this leaves an opportunity for the formation of serious alternative political parties. When we factor in the revolution taking place in media distribution, it's quite possible that we are in for some serious changes in American politics.
Paul has a heavy economist and foreign relations background from the committees he's been a member of in Congress, combined with little hesitation to speak out without fear of ruffling feathers, and this has allowed him to articulate proposed radical technical changes to the structure of our country which get at the heart of the situation we currently find ourselves in. Those types of ideas would not have come from most party apparatchiks, and while it's easy to argue that they are impractical and beyond the scope of the powers granted a US president, they have illuminated some of the fundamental problems this country must wrestle with, and exposed a large number of people to some of the workings of our government, which is never a bad thing.
The fact that we're having discussions on monetary policy, the US's role in the world, and other serious issues often glanced over in most political debate is worth a great deal to this country, and anything that helps more people get involved in their government can only be to our advantage, regardless of ideology. Politics as usual as covered in classic media has been extremely shallow and limited up to this point, and we're witnessing a great shift as populism controls the distribution of information on the internet. If the Democratic and Republican parties can't tell which direction the wind is blowing, and fail to adjust their trajectory, then it is entirely possible that they might start losing support in favor of new groups.
Either way, with such a fundamental change in information distribution taking place at the national and global level, it's foolish to count on historical trends alone to predict future outcomes.
That's only applicable if you join a foreign armed forces and fight against the US, which is not the case with Jose Padilla. Trying to apply that mechanism for citizenship nullification to cases such as Padilla's is an extremely slipper slope, as any organization can be declared 'terrorist', and participants stripped of their constitutional rights. No, Padilla should have gotten his fair trial.
Slashdot Mirror
The one with relatively consistent hardware capabilities in high volumes, and with a sizable proven software sales marketplace?
That's not the main reason. Apple is trying to encourage the ubiquity of the iPod connector interface, and including A2DP would severely undermine this, as car and electronics manufacturers would just use that to interface with iPods and iPhones instead of the proprietary iPod port. This would put Apple's competitors on much more equal footing with Apple with accessories and 3rd party electronics integration.
You can download them all directly over WiFi...
Since Apple acquired Fingerworks and all their IP, and they've patented every aspect of the iPhone more significant than the color choice, it would seem that they've got Multitouch(TM) capabilities fairly tightly locked up in patents, and they've strongly hinted that they will bring down a world of legal hurt on anyone that tries to implement similar functionality... Blame our overzealous patent system for the lack of Multitouch(TM) equivalent on this device.
You can use a regular DVD ripper to get rid of the CSS and then use Handbrake. That's what I do. It's not good to let Handbrake run your DVD drive for the whole time it performs its conversion anyway. Rip DVD to your HD first, then use Handbrake to rip to H.264.
Get out of my mind!
You do NOT want to mess with the stupid people lobby... They are a powerful group.
The best bet is an optical format, as it doesn't have magnetic or electric leakage problems of solid state and magnetic storage. The only problem is that recordable optical media use dyes that have a questionable stability for that kind of time frame. It would be best to get the discs professionally pressed, so that there is no degradable dye used to store the data, but actual physical grooves. You'll have to press a couple thousand copies anyway, so it won't hurt to include several copies in the box. Just make sure you don't heat them up when you're trying to weld the box shut.
Keeps your logic skills sharp. It's good mental exercise, in the vein of Brain Age and such... Gotta keep that noggin fit, especially if your day job isn't challenging you enough.
I hate the fact that they always generalize from what one person is doing to all slashdotters...
: P
I would hope that they continue their usual dirty tactics of forced obsolescence and lock-in, so that people eventually get fed up with having to keep giving MS money for no added value, and are inclined to switch over to OSS for their own benefit.
Unfortunately, no one can publish any good iPhone development books or resources because of the NDA Apple has in place for the SDK, compounding the problem you bring up.
Yes, the tilt sensors are very precise, but you do get some random noise that you have to account for in your software. Current tilt-based games such as Labyrinth (marble table game) and Super Monkey Ball are very playable, and the motion detection is incredibly sensitive and quite realistic. An anonymous EA developer actually commented on the iPhone's accelerometer's characteristics as an input device in this story, where it is compared with the Wii remote minus the Motion Plus additions.
Strange, their non-i-prefixed hardware doesn't seem limited to me... They were suing an *unlicensed distributor* of Mac OS X, and for trademark abuse, not merely someone who sold "OS-compatible hardware". Mac OS X is stable because it's a mature foundation, in part due to its BSD userland, but also its unique microkernel design and rich, mature API set and development environment. The proof is in the pudding, and the software available for MacOS X is some of the most consistent, visually appealing and well-designed available for any platform. Using the platform is an excellent mix of usable software to the deepest level of detail, access to extensive development and productivity tools, and relatively unobstructive operation, making it a true joy to use. Until Linux and common Linux software reaches this level of maturity, this is the best I've got. I boot into Windows for work, and that's ... functional, but with my current choices, you can take my OS X when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. As for Apple being mislabeled as open, they've been some important contributors to some fairly central GPL and OSS projects, including GCC and KHTML, not to mention the contributions they've distributed, such as Zeroconf/mpd, launchd, sproutcore, qtss, among others. They might not give away their crowned jewels, but they do their share. In the end, OS X is POSIX compatible, and it has a bash shell, and it's a perfect training ground for tomorrow's Linux developers. It plays nice with Linux software, even if the same isn't true in the other direction, and it's an incredibly flexible and smooth OS. Plus, it interfaces well with my iPhone... : P
That's strange; most people seem to have no problems with jailbroken iPod Touches or iPhones, and my jailbroken iPhone is the perfect mix of functionality, stability and openness, and I've installed about four pages of random free apps from the jailbreaking community. YMMV, but I think it's possible to make the iPhone more open, perhaps only optionally for the user, while keeping stability. They could easily add an option somewhere in the iPhone it iPod Touch settings in iTunes or on the device itself to 'Allow untrusted software', with a spooky warning about stability and security, and then it could let the user have enough rope to hang themselves. The OS is basically Mac OS X, and if they can pull it off well on Macs, there's no reason the iPhone OS couldn't be more accessible.
I'll jump on this grenade. There are a couple aspects that mitigate Apple's abusiveness. The first is that they are selectively abusive, with only particular aspects of their product offerings. For example, they are abusive with many of the products related to iTunes, including DRM'd digital content, and locked down iPods, iPhones and AppleTV. For the rest of their products, including Macs, Mac OS X, and the software they write, they are typically *more open* and *less controlling* than their direct competitors (Macs use standard parts you can swap as easily as those from competing OEMs, Mac OS X is largely built on open standards, and their software typically don't have any onerous activation or any outlandishly annoying copy protection.
For those that are locked down, they offer the best products on the market from a usability and integration standpoint. For iPods, I don't really care about using my Nano for anything other than playing standard format MP3s and AACs, and it handles this task perfectly. For the iPhone, I've stuck with jailbroken firmware, allowing me total access, and I put up with fighting the vendor like this for the privilege of giving them my money because the iPhone OS and hardware has no competition at the moment. For the AppleTV, it works seamlessly with all the Macs and PCs on my LAN sharing their iTunes libraries, and I use it to play standard format audio and video files from my media server. It sucks that there's no ability to install 3rd party software and extend its functionality, but I find that it offers enough value for its cost with the standard software, given the limitations of the device (limited input options, practicality of using a 10' interface to accomplish tasks when I've already got my iPhone with me to handle complex tasks no matter where I am).
Point is, Apple typically has locked down their offerings in places where it doesn't matter too much to the user, or where they can offer enough of an advantage over their competition to compensate. DRM'd content on iTunes? Don't buy any. Locked down iPod and AppleTV? Doesn't bother me all that much, as their applications are limited by their form factors more than their software. With the iPhone, it DOES bother me, but I put up with it because it's a usable UNIX computer with advanced APIs in my pocket, and it can be circumvented. They still sell great computers that aren't really locked down in any way, they make decent electronics that integrate well with those computers to leverage their stored content in new ways, and they make a hell of a cell phone/pocket computer, once you've cracked its protection schemes. I wouldn't hope for Apple to dominate any more markets (after the digital music player) if this is the way they're going to handle the iPhone platform, but they offer some great products, and they keep their competitors on their toes, benefiting us all. That being said, please keep hauling flak at Apple whenever they do something user-hostile, as they can sure use the negative attention, encouraging them to back off and play nice.
That's a load of crap. Their products are popular because they work well. Locking them down is *one way* to ensure that they will work well, and designing them robustly so that they are flexible, powerful and simple to use is *another way*. Apple won't be able to keep this tight control once there starts being some competition that can offer both user control and good usability.
AND, if you know their login and password...
Screw that. Mandatory driver signing is unacceptable, as it's no longer a general purpose computer strictly under my control. The answer to your question is that NO, you can't sign your own drivers for Vista and/or distribute them to other people to use. It would be like the vendor keeping control of the root account with some super secret password, and only giving the user some crippled 'admin' account without access to the whole computer. When I bought my computer, the OS and all its files became mine, and I'm free to tinker with it to my heart's content. I don't mind having a certification process for 'safe' drivers, and then have some mechanism for booting in safe mode with only safe drivers loaded if there is a problem with one of the unapproved drivers. The user should still be free to write their own kernel extensions, and load experimental ones from other people if they choose, however.
The day Apple moves to protect the Mac OS from its owner despite their wishes is the day I begin my Linux migration. I'm quite thankful that the open source community has given us a viable alternative should OS vendors try to take control away from the user. Windows Vista 64 is completely unacceptable to me because of the protected kernel space, and I'd drop Apple in a second, despite being quite fond of the Mac OS, if they try to pull something like that.
Obama has never promised to pull out of Iraq. His presentation to AIPAC shows he's just as capable of beligerant diplomacy with Iran as McCain. As for Obama wanting a large middle class, that's very nice, but there's no indication he has any plans to that end, and he hasn't said anything substantial. Again, pretty words and no promises.
You sound like you've taken a big swig of the Kool Aid, and you show a completely superficial understanding of what Paul actually proposes. The point of allowing states to have a larger say over their policy is that, besides being how the constitution of this country was structured, we have much more representation at the state level than at the federal level, that the citizens will be able to keep things more in check. Our representation at the federal level is so poor, and so prone to corruption, that there is a need to decentralize more power to where it will be accountable to voters.
This last administration has clearly demonstrated the hazard of centralizing power at the federal level, and you just haven't learned your lesson. You are prepared to keep supporting the centralization of power, with single points of failure for the entire country, even though you should know that it will be abused, and voters will be helpless in fixing the problem, since it takes too much dirty money to get elected to federal office. So yeah, Paul is right, let the states have more of the federal government's power, and let the voters have a bigger say over their government, and let them vote with their feet by moving to a different state if theirs screws up too badly.
Compare their actual promises, not their rhetoric. You have to look at what they actually say they will do. Chances are, at the end of the day, what we do in Iraq will be the same with both, what we do in Iran will be the same, both will close Guantanamo (because the Supreme Court just took away its purpose), both will try to manage the recession in similar ways (leave it up to the Fed), both will fail at fixing health care, both will attempt to salvage the 'No Child Left Behind' program, and both will continue to use the US Army as the world's police instead of as a defense force, both will continue to operate the hundreds of US military bases around the world at a huge financial cost to our country.
When we compare to a truly different candidate such as Ron Paul, who was serious about humility in foreign relations, about deferring authority over government programs back to the states, where the level of representation isn't quite as poor as at the national level, and about significantly cutting federal spending and trying to get our finances and government services in order so we DON'T pop the Social Security and Medicare bubbles. I wouldn't try to compare either current main party candidates to Paul's track record of working in these directions.
Although Obama does SEEM LIKE a decent guy, with a good head on his shoulders, I have little faith that he will respond to our debt crisis appropriately, and his recent lip service to AIPAC shows that he's just as capable of hubris and notions of ruling the world as any of these other jackasses we've had as president lately. So we'll see, he may be a step above McCain, and he may even be less destructive to our country, but as far as I'm concerned, neither of them have shown that they understand what the real problems are, nor that they are capable of facing them head-on. My vote will not be going to either of them. Obama talks a decent game of lip service to libertarians, but I'm not stupid enough to think that he's even on the same page.
You make a good point, and I should have qualified my statement by requiring 'many' differences. You do highlight a significant difference on a very important issue. That being said, the scope of their differences is still fairly limited when compared with the issues Paul was putting on the table, such as what our foreign policy in general should be towards other countries. It's not often that we get to support such radical notions as humility in foreign relations, or greater trust in the regulatory power of the free market to keep corruption in check, given our terrible, terrible representation in the legislature. After such high aspirations, the differences between the remaining candidates seem insignificant by comparison. I will admit that this is likely a false impression, and that there are some substantial differences that might favor one candidate over the other. I just can't help but feel let down by the reduced expectations, however.
I disagree completely. In most ways, the nominees from the Democratic and Republican parties are incredibly similar. In fact, it's quite difficult to find any substantial differences in the campaign promises of either Obama or McCain, once you get past the different tones they use to the actual meat of what they say they will do. Clearly, there is a large number of Americans that feel poorly represented by both candidates, and this leaves an opportunity for the formation of serious alternative political parties. When we factor in the revolution taking place in media distribution, it's quite possible that we are in for some serious changes in American politics.
Paul has a heavy economist and foreign relations background from the committees he's been a member of in Congress, combined with little hesitation to speak out without fear of ruffling feathers, and this has allowed him to articulate proposed radical technical changes to the structure of our country which get at the heart of the situation we currently find ourselves in. Those types of ideas would not have come from most party apparatchiks, and while it's easy to argue that they are impractical and beyond the scope of the powers granted a US president, they have illuminated some of the fundamental problems this country must wrestle with, and exposed a large number of people to some of the workings of our government, which is never a bad thing.
The fact that we're having discussions on monetary policy, the US's role in the world, and other serious issues often glanced over in most political debate is worth a great deal to this country, and anything that helps more people get involved in their government can only be to our advantage, regardless of ideology. Politics as usual as covered in classic media has been extremely shallow and limited up to this point, and we're witnessing a great shift as populism controls the distribution of information on the internet. If the Democratic and Republican parties can't tell which direction the wind is blowing, and fail to adjust their trajectory, then it is entirely possible that they might start losing support in favor of new groups.
Either way, with such a fundamental change in information distribution taking place at the national and global level, it's foolish to count on historical trends alone to predict future outcomes.
Nope, it's because your opinion was clearly wrong. : P
That's only applicable if you join a foreign armed forces and fight against the US, which is not the case with Jose Padilla. Trying to apply that mechanism for citizenship nullification to cases such as Padilla's is an extremely slipper slope, as any organization can be declared 'terrorist', and participants stripped of their constitutional rights. No, Padilla should have gotten his fair trial.