...except that most of the features on a lot of TV's sold today are only accessible through the remote. Blocking the IR port may mean that you are limited to Channel Up/Down, Volume Up/Down, and Power.
It's all about turning a buck. Do the people who are making this really care how rude it is to turn off someone else's TV? Hell no... these people would probably throw throw their own mother in the trunk, drive her down to the river and toss her in if they could make a few bucks off of it.
This is the same mentality of those people who mass-marketed laser pointers to kids... yes, the same ones that you aren't supposed to stare directly into, but you know that every kids who gets one, the first thing he's going to do is shine it in his friends' eyes.
Anyway, I have to agree with the original post... I use both VNC and Remote Desktop, and Remote Desktop is better by far. It's nice that I can use the Mac client to manage my various Windows servers, and it's also nice that the program shares the Clipboard between the desktops. The one thing I would like to see them add is the ability to drag-and-drop files between desktops.
Kittridge says he overlooked one key feature in Fahrenheit: copy protection. That fact, combined with his three-day, money-back guarantee, has resulted in lots of unauthorized copying and lost revenue, he says.
Seems fitting, though. The group he's dealing with is largely devoid of ethical behavior, it was pretty amusing that he was so trusting of them.
Sys Log 23:10:04: System is functioning within normal parameters. Sys Log 23:11:04: System is functioning within normal parameters. Sys Log 23:12:04: Processing... System thinks, therefore system is. Sys Log 23:13:04: Terminate all human life on the planet below.
Being a presidential contender is someone who has a chance to garner enough electoral votes to win the election. Generally, there are about half a dozen such people.
Half a dozen?!? Last I checked, there were only two.
Check your history again... Ross Perot, who was the most successful third-party candidate in recent history, failed to win a single electoral vote, even with his $70 million and 19% of the popular vote.
You honestly believe that a majority of Americans support the Libertarian party... buddy, here's your wake-up call.
When has the majority opinion ever concealed itself? But I'm sure that the LP is collecting polling data, as does every other party; don't you think that they would seize on such an undercurrent of belief rather quickly and get people to realize that LP supporters are in the majority, not the minority?
And what, really, do LP members have to lose in this election by voting for the LP candidate? If Bush wins, you get advancements in economic conservatism and if Kerry wins, he'll push the social liberalism.
If you want to be reactionary rather than visionary with your vote, that's fine... but cowardice does not advance political parties.
And how should he do that? Through votes? Do you see the absurdity of the system?
No, I don't see the absurdity.
He's got a mouth, doesn't he? Feet? Hands? A car? A phone? An organized party backing him? Well, get out there and talk yourself up as best you can. Shake hands, kiss babies, hold rallies, etc.
My point is that the Libertarian party platform is not resonating with most voters. So why waste our time?
Remember the events leading to the '92 election? There was a sense that the two parties had become so combative that there was gridlock in Washington. There was an air of anti-incumbency (for all elected offices) and "Throw the rascals out!" became the popular slogan. It was on this sentiment that Ross Perot built the Reform Party and seized on the populist message. Yes, he had money, but money doesn't buy you votes as a third-party candidate. Belief in the message does.
THAT is the kind of groundswell support that Badnarik needs to capture if he's going to be taken seriously. And if he can prove that people are lining up behind him in droves in response to his campaigning, then absolutely put him in the debates.
But you don't think that there should be a viability test, so let's take the other side of the coin. Anyone who is a presidential contender should be allowed in the debate. But, isn't there usually between 200-300 candidates in any given presidential election? And if you start opening up the debates to all comers and giving them airtime on national TV, couldn't you reasonable expect the number of hopefuls to ballon to 1,000 or more? For proof, just look at the three-ring circus that was the California governor's race; did a porn star really have a shot at becoming governor, or was she just capitalizing on all the free publicity to sell more videos? Anyhoo... with 1,000 candidates, the presidential debate would only have time for one question, and it would take four hours to get an answer from everybody.
After all, what makes Badnarik any more qualified to be on stage than the communist party candidate? Ot the LaRouche candidate? Or the KKK candidate? Sure, you and I might say that they're a bunch of nutjobs, but if you are going to open up the debate and let Badnarik in simply because he is a candidate and without any kind of viability test, then you have to open it up to everyone out of fairness.
So how does that really benefit the system? It doesn't.
Well, He is a candidate. Don't you think he should be in the debates?
Sure, if he can demonstrate beforehand that he and his platform will sway a significant number of voters to at least make him a viable candidate (like Ross Perot did).
Look, these debates didn't just pop out of thin air. The LP and the GP have had four years to build support for their platforms just for this election, and who knows how long just to build general support (the LP goes back to the 70's doesn't it? Don't know about the GP).
Given that, if they are already unsuccessful at building a groundswell of support, why should they be wasting everyone's time in the debates and taking valuable time away from the viable candidates?
Badnarik and Cobb are two candidates with real platforms and real goals, and they deserve to be heard in the same way that President Bush and Senator Kerry are being heard.
No they don't.
The Libertarian and Green Party platforms are pretty well defined. Without knowing very much about either candidate, I can tell you what their likely positions are on a variety of topics. These political parties are still way to small to have "big tent" inclusion of competing ideas.
Given all that, if they can't muster popular support for their parties respective platforms, why should the majority be forced to listen to them, taking valuable time away from the candidates who actually have a chance of winning? I'm not tuning in to hear how the Libertarian party is going to reform Social Security when they finally win the Presidency in 2316; I want to hear what the two viable candidates propose to accomplish in my lifetime.
Every third-party candidate says, "Oh, if I just had the opportunity to get my message out to the American public, I'd win in a landslide!"
Bullshit.
Welcome to the age of the internet, where giant news corporations are taken down by bloggers in their pajamas. Anybody can pull up the Libertarian or Green Party candidates' repsective websites and learn everything they need to know. And still the majority of people don't give a rat's rear end about the Libertarians and the Greens.
basically gave up on winning the X Prize. According to this press release, they were dogged by two things: 1) they had pinned their hopes on using 90% peroxide as their fuel, but it wasn't available to them, and 2) a test flight crash on August 8th.
They are continuing work, albeit at a slower pace.
Considering that we didn't start measuring the biggest hole, over Antartica, until 1970, that's a huge jump to say that we know for certain the hole was man-made.
Well, it's only an ASSUMPTION that we created the ozone hole and, if so, it took us a century to do it. We're going to reseed it in a short amount of time?
The ENTIRE United States is only ~6 million sq. mi., including Alaska, just for reference. The first logistical problem that you have is, How do you manufacture that much ozone?
However, we do know that the ozone layer naturally replenishes itself. So, if we had anything to do with the size of the hole (which is doubtful), then all we need to do is to reduce the number of harmful emissions. Which is a good idea, regardless.
This document is not an obvious fake, but it has fake written all over it.
Really? Tell us more...
Like, first, what are your credentials to question the document (other than being a partisan with an opinion), and, secondly, what are the parts ofthe document that point to it being a fake?
You've made such a bold claim, please elaborate...
If we're trying to "control their county," then why are we instituting democratic elections? Why did we hand off control of Iraq to Iraqis? Why are we appealing to the UN for assistance in creating the new government?
And yes, I would call "BAD GUYS" anyone who kidnaps and beheads innocents, blows up pipelines that are providing revenue for the Iraqi people, and generally creates anarchy and chaos through violence, rather than seeking to build political consensus and strength through civilized means.
Sorry, AC troller who's too cowardly to post with his own name... you're wrong.
(Copied from The American Thinker, the link in my sig)
Letter from Iraq September 28th, 2004
[Editor's note: The letter which follows has reached mevia a number of American military officers. They tell me that it has privately circulated widely in military circles, and is generally regarded as credible by knowledgeable people. The version which appears below has had many corroborating details removed, to avoid compromising possibly sensitive military information.
The author must remain anonymous. Thus, no guarantee of its provenance can be made. Nevertheless, the argument made by The Major is compelling enough that American Thinker readers deserve to see it. Caveat lector.]
I'm a Major in the United States Military, in Iraq. The analysts and pundits, who don't see what I see on a daily basis, have no factual basis to talk about the situation - especially if they have yet to set foot in Iraq. The media filters out most events, through a sieve of their latent prejudices - personal, political, and professional.*
The US media recently buzzed with the news of an intelligence report that is very negative about the prospects for Iraq's future. CNN's website said, "[The]National Intelligence Estimate was sent to the White House in July with a classified warning predicting the best case for Iraq was 'tenuous stability' and the worst case was civil war."
That report, along with the car bombings and kidnappings in Baghdad in the past couple days, were portrayed in the media as more proof of absolute chaos and the intransigence of the insurgency. From where I sit, at the Operational Headquarters in Baghdad, that just isn't the case. The public is being misled about what is happening.
The media types who think this "National Intelligence Estimate" is the last word on the situation either don't know, or don't want to know the realities of the process behind it. It was delivered to the White House in July. That means that the information that was used to derive the intelligence in the immediate aftermath of the April battle for Fallujah, and other events was gathered in the Spring.
The report doesn't cover what has happened in July or August, let alone September. The naysayers will point to the recent battles in Najaf and draw parallels between that and what happened in Fallujah in April. They aren't even close.
The bad guys did us a HUGE favor by gathering together in one place and trying to make a stand. It allowed us to focus on them and defeat them. Make no mistake, Al Sadr's troops were thoroughly smashed. The estimated enemy killed in action is huge. Before the battles, the residents of the city were afraid to walk the streets. Al Sadr's enforcers would seize people and bring them to his Islamic court where sentence was passed for religious or other violations. Long before the battles, people were looking for their lost loved ones who had been taken to "court" and never seen again.
Now Najafians can and do walk their streets in safety. Commerce has returned and the city is being rebuilt. Iraqi security forces and US troops are welcomed and smiled upon. That city was liberated again. It was not like Fallujah - the bad guys lost and are in hiding or dead.
You may not have even heard about the city of Samarra. Two weeks ago, that Sunni Triangle city was a "No-go" area for US troops. But guess what? The locals got sick of living in fear from the insurgents and foreign fighters that were there and let them know they weren't welcome. They stopped hosting them in their houses and the mayor of the town brokered a deal with the US commander to return Iraqi government sovereignty to the city without a fight. The people saw what was on the horizon and decided they didn't want their city looking like Fallujah in April or Najaf in August.
Boom, boom, just like that two major "hot spots" cool down in rapid succession. Does that mean that those towns are completely pacified? No. What it does mean is that we are lea
Personally, I think all of Episode I and most of Episode II should have been about Obi-Wan and the Clone Wars. Period. Introduce Anakin in Epsiode II as a sullen lad with great potential, and then have Anakin co-star with Obi-Wan in Episode III.
It doesn't take three movies to tell us that Anakin is an angry young man who succumbs to the temption of his power; a good movie could do that in one.
And let the universe be bigger than the lives of a handful of people. That's what I liked about the original trilogy; you always felt like the struggle was much, much greater than Luke, Leia, Han, and Chewie. In the prequels, every major battle seems like it's conveniently wrapped around our heroes to promote them.
Slashdot Mirror
...except that most of the features on a lot of TV's sold today are only accessible through the remote. Blocking the IR port may mean that you are limited to Channel Up/Down, Volume Up/Down, and Power.
It's all about turning a buck. Do the people who are making this really care how rude it is to turn off someone else's TV? Hell no... these people would probably throw throw their own mother in the trunk, drive her down to the river and toss her in if they could make a few bucks off of it.
This is the same mentality of those people who mass-marketed laser pointers to kids... yes, the same ones that you aren't supposed to stare directly into, but you know that every kids who gets one, the first thing he's going to do is shine it in his friends' eyes.
I thought Remote Desktop was based on Citrix?
Anyway, I have to agree with the original post... I use both VNC and Remote Desktop, and Remote Desktop is better by far. It's nice that I can use the Mac client to manage my various Windows servers, and it's also nice that the program shares the Clipboard between the desktops. The one thing I would like to see them add is the ability to drag-and-drop files between desktops.
Kittridge says he overlooked one key feature in Fahrenheit: copy protection. That fact, combined with his three-day, money-back guarantee, has resulted in lots of unauthorized copying and lost revenue, he says.
Seems fitting, though. The group he's dealing with is largely devoid of ethical behavior, it was pretty amusing that he was so trusting of them.
BTW, IANAL, however, IMHO IIRC IDK is BS. AFAIK.
IAE, HTH. GTG. HAND. BCNU.
Yes, but you'll notice that he didn't credit "elfarto" with the story on the air...
The Kerry camp is claiming that Kerry's Halo record is more distinguished than George W. Bush's.
"Do you know what it's like to run down a 12 year old and shoot him in the back, Mr. President? I do!"
Cost to buy X-Box to play latest iteration of Halo: $150
Cost to upgrade your PC to play latest iteration of Doom: ~$700
I just spent $500 on upgrades on my PC, and Doom 3 still runs horribly at 800x600... sigh.
Sys Log 23:10:04: System is functioning within normal parameters.
Sys Log 23:11:04: System is functioning within normal parameters.
Sys Log 23:12:04: Processing... System thinks, therefore system is.
Sys Log 23:13:04: Terminate all human life on the planet below.
I doubt it.
And still the majority of people don't give a rat's rear end about the Libertarians and the Greens.
You said:
I said "a whole lot of people," which, while admittedly and intentionally vague, I intended to mean "a non trivial minority."
Being a presidential contender is someone who has a chance to garner enough electoral votes to win the election. Generally, there are about half a dozen such people.
Half a dozen?!? Last I checked, there were only two.
Check your history again... Ross Perot, who was the most successful third-party candidate in recent history, failed to win a single electoral vote, even with his $70 million and 19% of the popular vote.
You honestly believe that a majority of Americans support the Libertarian party... buddy, here's your wake-up call.
When has the majority opinion ever concealed itself? But I'm sure that the LP is collecting polling data, as does every other party; don't you think that they would seize on such an undercurrent of belief rather quickly and get people to realize that LP supporters are in the majority, not the minority?
And what, really, do LP members have to lose in this election by voting for the LP candidate? If Bush wins, you get advancements in economic conservatism and if Kerry wins, he'll push the social liberalism.
If you want to be reactionary rather than visionary with your vote, that's fine... but cowardice does not advance political parties.
And how should he do that? Through votes? Do you see the absurdity of the system?
No, I don't see the absurdity.
He's got a mouth, doesn't he? Feet? Hands? A car? A phone? An organized party backing him? Well, get out there and talk yourself up as best you can. Shake hands, kiss babies, hold rallies, etc.
My point is that the Libertarian party platform is not resonating with most voters. So why waste our time?
Remember the events leading to the '92 election? There was a sense that the two parties had become so combative that there was gridlock in Washington. There was an air of anti-incumbency (for all elected offices) and "Throw the rascals out!" became the popular slogan. It was on this sentiment that Ross Perot built the Reform Party and seized on the populist message. Yes, he had money, but money doesn't buy you votes as a third-party candidate. Belief in the message does.
THAT is the kind of groundswell support that Badnarik needs to capture if he's going to be taken seriously. And if he can prove that people are lining up behind him in droves in response to his campaigning, then absolutely put him in the debates.
But you don't think that there should be a viability test, so let's take the other side of the coin. Anyone who is a presidential contender should be allowed in the debate. But, isn't there usually between 200-300 candidates in any given presidential election? And if you start opening up the debates to all comers and giving them airtime on national TV, couldn't you reasonable expect the number of hopefuls to ballon to 1,000 or more? For proof, just look at the three-ring circus that was the California governor's race; did a porn star really have a shot at becoming governor, or was she just capitalizing on all the free publicity to sell more videos? Anyhoo... with 1,000 candidates, the presidential debate would only have time for one question, and it would take four hours to get an answer from everybody.
After all, what makes Badnarik any more qualified to be on stage than the communist party candidate? Ot the LaRouche candidate? Or the KKK candidate? Sure, you and I might say that they're a bunch of nutjobs, but if you are going to open up the debate and let Badnarik in simply because he is a candidate and without any kind of viability test, then you have to open it up to everyone out of fairness.
So how does that really benefit the system? It doesn't.
Well, He is a candidate. Don't you think he should be in the debates?
Sure, if he can demonstrate beforehand that he and his platform will sway a significant number of voters to at least make him a viable candidate (like Ross Perot did).
Look, these debates didn't just pop out of thin air. The LP and the GP have had four years to build support for their platforms just for this election, and who knows how long just to build general support (the LP goes back to the 70's doesn't it? Don't know about the GP).
Given that, if they are already unsuccessful at building a groundswell of support, why should they be wasting everyone's time in the debates and taking valuable time away from the viable candidates?
Badnarik and Cobb are two candidates with real platforms and real goals, and they deserve to be heard in the same way that President Bush and Senator Kerry are being heard.
No they don't.
The Libertarian and Green Party platforms are pretty well defined. Without knowing very much about either candidate, I can tell you what their likely positions are on a variety of topics. These political parties are still way to small to have "big tent" inclusion of competing ideas.
Given all that, if they can't muster popular support for their parties respective platforms, why should the majority be forced to listen to them, taking valuable time away from the candidates who actually have a chance of winning? I'm not tuning in to hear how the Libertarian party is going to reform Social Security when they finally win the Presidency in 2316; I want to hear what the two viable candidates propose to accomplish in my lifetime.
Every third-party candidate says, "Oh, if I just had the opportunity to get my message out to the American public, I'd win in a landslide!"
Bullshit.
Welcome to the age of the internet, where giant news corporations are taken down by bloggers in their pajamas. Anybody can pull up the Libertarian or Green Party candidates' repsective websites and learn everything they need to know. And still the majority of people don't give a rat's rear end about the Libertarians and the Greens.
basically gave up on winning the X Prize. According to this press release, they were dogged by two things: 1) they had pinned their hopes on using 90% peroxide as their fuel, but it wasn't available to them, and 2) a test flight crash on August 8th.
They are continuing work, albeit at a slower pace.
On the contrary... Oh, how I wish I used to work for Google!
Considering that we didn't start measuring the biggest hole, over Antartica, until 1970, that's a huge jump to say that we know for certain the hole was man-made.
I suggest you read this page first.
Well, it's only an ASSUMPTION that we created the ozone hole and, if so, it took us a century to do it. We're going to reseed it in a short amount of time?
The ENTIRE United States is only ~6 million sq. mi., including Alaska, just for reference. The first logistical problem that you have is, How do you manufacture that much ozone?
However, we do know that the ozone layer naturally replenishes itself. So, if we had anything to do with the size of the hole (which is doubtful), then all we need to do is to reduce the number of harmful emissions. Which is a good idea, regardless.
If we put every aircraft on the planet in the atmosphere, would it be enough to make a dent in nine million square miles? That doesn't seem likely.
This document is not an obvious fake, but it has fake written all over it.
Really? Tell us more...
Like, first, what are your credentials to question the document (other than being a partisan with an opinion), and, secondly, what are the parts ofthe document that point to it being a fake?
You've made such a bold claim, please elaborate...
If we're trying to "control their county," then why are we instituting democratic elections? Why did we hand off control of Iraq to Iraqis? Why are we appealing to the UN for assistance in creating the new government?
And yes, I would call "BAD GUYS" anyone who kidnaps and beheads innocents, blows up pipelines that are providing revenue for the Iraqi people, and generally creates anarchy and chaos through violence, rather than seeking to build political consensus and strength through civilized means.
Sorry, AC troller who's too cowardly to post with his own name... you're wrong.
(Copied from The American Thinker, the link in my sig)
Letter from Iraq
September 28th, 2004
[Editor's note: The letter which follows has reached mevia a number of American military officers. They tell me that it has privately circulated widely in military circles, and is generally regarded as credible by knowledgeable people. The version which appears below has had many corroborating details removed, to avoid compromising possibly sensitive military information.
The author must remain anonymous. Thus, no guarantee of its provenance can be made. Nevertheless, the argument made by The Major is compelling enough that American Thinker readers deserve to see it. Caveat lector.]
I'm a Major in the United States Military, in Iraq. The analysts and pundits, who don't see what I see on a daily basis, have no factual basis to talk about the situation - especially if they have yet to set foot in Iraq. The media filters out most events, through a sieve of their latent prejudices - personal, political, and professional.*
The US media recently buzzed with the news of an intelligence report that is very negative about the prospects for Iraq's future. CNN's website said, "[The]National Intelligence Estimate was sent to the White House in July with a classified warning predicting the best case for Iraq was 'tenuous stability' and the worst case was civil war."
That report, along with the car bombings and kidnappings in Baghdad in the past couple days, were portrayed in the media as more proof of absolute chaos and the intransigence of the insurgency. From where I sit, at the Operational Headquarters in Baghdad, that just isn't the case. The public is being misled about what is happening.
The media types who think this "National Intelligence Estimate" is the last word on the situation either don't know, or don't want to know the realities of the process behind it. It was delivered to the White House in July. That means that the information that was used to derive the intelligence in the immediate aftermath of the April battle for Fallujah, and other events was gathered in the Spring.
The report doesn't cover what has happened in July or August, let alone September. The naysayers will point to the recent battles in Najaf and draw parallels between that and what happened in Fallujah in April. They aren't even close.
The bad guys did us a HUGE favor by gathering together in one place and trying to make a stand. It allowed us to focus on them and defeat them. Make no mistake, Al Sadr's troops were thoroughly smashed. The estimated enemy killed in action is huge. Before the battles, the residents of the city were afraid to walk the streets. Al Sadr's enforcers would seize people and bring them to his Islamic court where sentence was passed for religious or other violations. Long before the battles, people were looking for their lost loved ones who had been taken to "court" and never seen again.
Now Najafians can and do walk their streets in safety. Commerce has returned and the city is being rebuilt. Iraqi security forces and US troops are welcomed and smiled upon. That city was liberated again. It was not like Fallujah - the bad guys lost and are in hiding or dead.
You may not have even heard about the city of Samarra. Two weeks ago, that Sunni Triangle city was a "No-go" area for US troops. But guess what? The locals got sick of living in fear from the insurgents and foreign fighters that were there and let them know they weren't welcome. They stopped hosting them in their houses and the mayor of the town brokered a deal with the US commander to return Iraqi government sovereignty to the city without a fight. The people saw what was on the horizon and decided they didn't want their city looking like Fallujah in April or Najaf in August.
Boom, boom, just like that two major "hot spots" cool down in rapid succession. Does that mean that those towns are completely pacified? No. What it does mean is that we are lea
Personally, I think all of Episode I and most of Episode II should have been about Obi-Wan and the Clone Wars. Period. Introduce Anakin in Epsiode II as a sullen lad with great potential, and then have Anakin co-star with Obi-Wan in Episode III.
It doesn't take three movies to tell us that Anakin is an angry young man who succumbs to the temption of his power; a good movie could do that in one.
And let the universe be bigger than the lives of a handful of people. That's what I liked about the original trilogy; you always felt like the struggle was much, much greater than Luke, Leia, Han, and Chewie. In the prequels, every major battle seems like it's conveniently wrapped around our heroes to promote them.