michaelrjohnson
Jul 27, 10:03 AM
Rule 1 of Apple Events:
You never get all the marbles.
Very very wise, Chundles. You are correct.
(In other words, they're always disappointing on some level to someone.) :)
You never get all the marbles.
Very very wise, Chundles. You are correct.
(In other words, they're always disappointing on some level to someone.) :)
Alexsaru
Sep 13, 06:54 AM
I was interested to see that they were unable to max out CPU utilization on all 8 cores in the system. I hope it's due to the software these days not being ready to fully utilize more than one or two cores and not due to OSX's ability to scale to larger core counts. Since that's obviously where we're heading. Does anyone know about the potential for scalability of OSX to large numbers of CPU's/cores? I know some *nix varieties and BSD varieties do this really well, but one wonders if they were thinking this far in the future when they developed OSX. It'll be interesting to see...
Tomaz
Aug 7, 07:08 PM
sadly I cant by any more letters to complete a better signature.!
You should at least "by" a "u"... (and maybe an apostrophe) :D
You should at least "by" a "u"... (and maybe an apostrophe) :D
asterizk
Nov 28, 07:05 PM
I think they'll be a long way off getting money from every iPod sold. For a start its such an illogical thing to ask for (Did the music companies ask for money for every CD player or Tape Recorder sold? Nope), plus I suspect the main reason that Microsoft agreed to pay money in the first place is that they needed to get the music labels on board to boost the Zune Music Store, Microsoft was in the weaker position here and I believe the labels exploited that weakness.
Yup.. Gruber made a similar statement (http://daringfireball.net/2006/11/buy_that_for_a_dollar) recently.
Yup.. Gruber made a similar statement (http://daringfireball.net/2006/11/buy_that_for_a_dollar) recently.
hayesk
Nov 29, 10:45 AM
If Universal gets a royalty from every iPod, then I will help myself to Universal's music library. After all, isn't that what the fee is for?
mwswami
Jul 21, 09:53 AM
Before thinking about Apple competing with Sun in the Server market check out Sun's recently released x86 server products. They are very impressive and much higher up the "food chain" than what Apple is expected to compete in.
Sun Fire X4600 (http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4600/). It has 8 sockets with support for up to 16 Opteron cores today and 32 Q1 next year. It is designed to be easily upgradable - processors are on separate cards connected via HyperTransport backplane.
Sun Fire X4500 (http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4500/). A "hybrid" server (code name "Thumper") with 28TB directly attached storage and 2 Opteron Sockets (4 cores) in a 4U packaging. The storage density is at least 4 times traditional NAS/SAN - you can have a quarter Peta Byte on a 42U rack!!
Sun Blade 8000 (http://www.sun.com/servers/blades/8000/). A 19U chassis supporting 10 8-way (now, 16-way Q1 2007) blades. This platform will also support Sun's Ultrasparc T1 (8 cores, 32 threads) and the upcoming UltraSparc T2 (8 cores, 64 threads) processors.
Sun Fire X4600 (http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4600/). It has 8 sockets with support for up to 16 Opteron cores today and 32 Q1 next year. It is designed to be easily upgradable - processors are on separate cards connected via HyperTransport backplane.
Sun Fire X4500 (http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4500/). A "hybrid" server (code name "Thumper") with 28TB directly attached storage and 2 Opteron Sockets (4 cores) in a 4U packaging. The storage density is at least 4 times traditional NAS/SAN - you can have a quarter Peta Byte on a 42U rack!!
Sun Blade 8000 (http://www.sun.com/servers/blades/8000/). A 19U chassis supporting 10 8-way (now, 16-way Q1 2007) blades. This platform will also support Sun's Ultrasparc T1 (8 cores, 32 threads) and the upcoming UltraSparc T2 (8 cores, 64 threads) processors.
PBF
Mar 26, 05:52 PM
does anyone else thing launchpad is the worst idea yet?
Maybe not the worst, but definitely the most useless.
Spotlight does a so much better job.
Maybe not the worst, but definitely the most useless.
Spotlight does a so much better job.
dsnort
Aug 7, 04:41 PM
As a recent switcher to Mac, I have had a lot of experience with M$'s System Restore function. It is NOT a "go back and find that data I deleted" application. It IS a "can we please go back to a time when this computer wasn't totally ********* up" application.
nightcap965
Apr 25, 02:27 PM
Lawsuits are filed against Apple every week. That's why they have their own legal department and engage powerful firms as outside counsel. Any idiot can file suit. Nothing to see here, move along.
Personally, if anyone were to gain unauthorized access to either my computers or my iPhone, I've got far more serious problems than someone knowing my day-to-day travels. Hacker's Law: Once I have physical access to your computer, it is no longer your computer. Anyone who doesn't treat his smartphone with the same care and attention he gives his wallet will soon have neither.
Personally, if anyone were to gain unauthorized access to either my computers or my iPhone, I've got far more serious problems than someone knowing my day-to-day travels. Hacker's Law: Once I have physical access to your computer, it is no longer your computer. Anyone who doesn't treat his smartphone with the same care and attention he gives his wallet will soon have neither.
CaoCao
Mar 4, 01:46 PM
This is true because you say it's true?
Nope, you just want to make sure that we can't have access to the same protections for our families that you do. How silly of me to want that.
Not at all. Gay people raise kids just as well as straight people- that's been proven. And we do have families. There is no risk of destroying society. The question is valid. Answer it.
A bit of delay in my response because I had to look it up, but thanks for letting us have this right for 7 years now..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg/400px-Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg.png
Red = Sodomy Laws struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2003
And yet I doubt Macaroony sees opposite-sex attractions as immoral or placing oneself in grave danger. I know what your religious beliefs tell you, and it is your right to follow those as explicitly as you are legally able. But why does that have to impact the rest of the world when you know many of them share different beliefs and have different experiences?
Personally, I think people who believe in gods are weak-minded fools. But I would never support a law that mandated atheism or banned religious gatherings. Because these religious things, while they are not in line with my worldview, do not impact my way of life directly, and allow people to live how they think they need to, not how I think they need to.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and venture a guess that you don't have a non-biased fact source for a retarded statement like that. :rolleyes:
CaoCao, could you please elaborate as to how gays could cause the collapse of society? I keep hearing that but I don't understand the sentiment behind it. And please, do not skirt around the answer, I always try to be as clear as day with mine.
The only explanation I can come up with as to why you would see being gay and giving gays the same civil rights as the collapse of society is that it differs so much from your worldview, it causes your world to collapse to the point where you feel nothing but uncomfortable to live in such a society. In other words; if gays are treated equal under every law under the sun, your society would collapse.
I often hear that same-sex marriage devalues marriage and threatens those that are already married. I wonder why and how. I doubt that your straight neighbor's happy marriage affects you at all unless you're so jealous, you want their marriage to be annulled - a happy same-sex couple must be killing you inside. I have said it here and in another thread before, marriage is nothing but a contract between two members of two families and the state to secure their fortune and legacy. Every attorney will tell you the same.
I have to say, it's very exhausting coming up with a defense convincing enough for those that don't seem to follow the world by logic. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer because if law is like that all the time, I'd rather give up on it and live in exile.
Logic is my source. Society needs people, no people means no society. If there were no more babies society would eventually collapse.
Source?
:rolleyes:
Nope, you just want to make sure that we can't have access to the same protections for our families that you do. How silly of me to want that.
Not at all. Gay people raise kids just as well as straight people- that's been proven. And we do have families. There is no risk of destroying society. The question is valid. Answer it.
A bit of delay in my response because I had to look it up, but thanks for letting us have this right for 7 years now..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg/400px-Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg.png
Red = Sodomy Laws struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2003
And yet I doubt Macaroony sees opposite-sex attractions as immoral or placing oneself in grave danger. I know what your religious beliefs tell you, and it is your right to follow those as explicitly as you are legally able. But why does that have to impact the rest of the world when you know many of them share different beliefs and have different experiences?
Personally, I think people who believe in gods are weak-minded fools. But I would never support a law that mandated atheism or banned religious gatherings. Because these religious things, while they are not in line with my worldview, do not impact my way of life directly, and allow people to live how they think they need to, not how I think they need to.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and venture a guess that you don't have a non-biased fact source for a retarded statement like that. :rolleyes:
CaoCao, could you please elaborate as to how gays could cause the collapse of society? I keep hearing that but I don't understand the sentiment behind it. And please, do not skirt around the answer, I always try to be as clear as day with mine.
The only explanation I can come up with as to why you would see being gay and giving gays the same civil rights as the collapse of society is that it differs so much from your worldview, it causes your world to collapse to the point where you feel nothing but uncomfortable to live in such a society. In other words; if gays are treated equal under every law under the sun, your society would collapse.
I often hear that same-sex marriage devalues marriage and threatens those that are already married. I wonder why and how. I doubt that your straight neighbor's happy marriage affects you at all unless you're so jealous, you want their marriage to be annulled - a happy same-sex couple must be killing you inside. I have said it here and in another thread before, marriage is nothing but a contract between two members of two families and the state to secure their fortune and legacy. Every attorney will tell you the same.
I have to say, it's very exhausting coming up with a defense convincing enough for those that don't seem to follow the world by logic. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer because if law is like that all the time, I'd rather give up on it and live in exile.
Logic is my source. Society needs people, no people means no society. If there were no more babies society would eventually collapse.
Source?
:rolleyes:
freeny
Jul 20, 08:18 AM
I wonder what they're going to call them, Quad sounds cool but "Octa or Octo" just sounds a bit silly.
MacPro8?
The Mactopus??
Ive already trademarked "OctoCore" and "CoreOcto";)
Just keep saying it to yourself. After about the 12th time it just starts rolling off your tongue...
MacPro8?
The Mactopus??
Ive already trademarked "OctoCore" and "CoreOcto";)
Just keep saying it to yourself. After about the 12th time it just starts rolling off your tongue...
Indo
Aug 26, 11:43 PM
actually when i was in india i read an article saying the center was shut down because the employees were demanding higher wages or something like that.
epitaphic
Sep 13, 12:14 PM
I'd be happy to divert a whole core just to frickin WindowServer. :D
going out on a limb here and assuming you have a heavily cluttered desktop
going out on a limb here and assuming you have a heavily cluttered desktop
fabian9
Apr 11, 12:46 PM
My 3Gs contract ends in June and Apple will be pushing it's luck for me to go half a year without me being tempted to jump platforms instead of waiting for the iPhone 5.
Can you not reduce your monthly contract cost at the end of the contract? After 18 months, you have essentially paid off the phone, at least that's how it works in the UK. Of course you have to ask for it!
Besides... with it being delayed until September, maybe we'll get more than we think with the iPhone 5 update? iOS5 should keep us busy over the summer anyway with new toys for our current iPhones. :)
How do you know iOS 5 is being released this summer? They might just show it off at WWDC and release it alongside iPhone 5 later in the year...
iPhone 1 - 2G
iPhone 2 - adds 3G
iPhone 3 - adds 3GS
I don't understand - you can't "add" 3GS, because 3GS is not a data network. 2G and 3G is� the S in the iPhone 3Gs simply stood for "speed", because it was faster than the iPhone 3G.
Can you not reduce your monthly contract cost at the end of the contract? After 18 months, you have essentially paid off the phone, at least that's how it works in the UK. Of course you have to ask for it!
Besides... with it being delayed until September, maybe we'll get more than we think with the iPhone 5 update? iOS5 should keep us busy over the summer anyway with new toys for our current iPhones. :)
How do you know iOS 5 is being released this summer? They might just show it off at WWDC and release it alongside iPhone 5 later in the year...
iPhone 1 - 2G
iPhone 2 - adds 3G
iPhone 3 - adds 3GS
I don't understand - you can't "add" 3GS, because 3GS is not a data network. 2G and 3G is� the S in the iPhone 3Gs simply stood for "speed", because it was faster than the iPhone 3G.
HecubusPro
Sep 19, 09:20 AM
It's not going to happen today. No worries. We have Photokina ahead of us.
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:39 PM
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
guzhogi
Jul 14, 07:16 PM
Power supplies produce a lot of heat. It makes great sense according to simply the most basic laws of thermodynamics.
I'm no physicist, but even I know that warmer air rises so if the power supply was at the bottom, all that heat would go up the entire case (not counting whatever fans are in there) and make it harder to cool maybe. But as I said, I'm no physicist & I don't know how all this all works. It would be cool (pun not intended) if it were possible to create a vacuum inside, that woould help solve heating issues since (if I remember my high school physics) temperature is just how much energy matter has. If there's no matter in the case other than the components, then it should be pretty cold in there.
I'm no physicist, but even I know that warmer air rises so if the power supply was at the bottom, all that heat would go up the entire case (not counting whatever fans are in there) and make it harder to cool maybe. But as I said, I'm no physicist & I don't know how all this all works. It would be cool (pun not intended) if it were possible to create a vacuum inside, that woould help solve heating issues since (if I remember my high school physics) temperature is just how much energy matter has. If there's no matter in the case other than the components, then it should be pretty cold in there.
goobot
Apr 25, 01:42 PM
I dont understand how anyone would get the info from your phone.
Macinposh
Aug 17, 02:55 PM
I have a new 3.0 Intel- just letting you know they are not as close as Rob's test under real world performance. Adobe camera raw really screamed on my G5 and is noticibly slower and a bit buggy on my new Mac Pro. Start up is alot slower, etc, etc. He only tested MP aware processes which isn't the whole picture.
Have you used cs2s or canon�s raw converters? How do they work?
What is the general feeling of yours how the new machine works in photog business?
2 x 2 drive stripe raids.
So you have 4hdds in total,with 2 of each in raid 0 or what?
Do you have the os on one pair and scratch on the other pair?
Ordering the new rig in couple of weeks,so i am buggin you now.
Have you used cs2s or canon�s raw converters? How do they work?
What is the general feeling of yours how the new machine works in photog business?
2 x 2 drive stripe raids.
So you have 4hdds in total,with 2 of each in raid 0 or what?
Do you have the os on one pair and scratch on the other pair?
Ordering the new rig in couple of weeks,so i am buggin you now.
mcrain
Mar 22, 08:26 AM
Are you suggesting that Obama has gotten comparable treatment from the media as compared to Bush? The double standard is hilariously transparent... Obama justified, Bush not. Obama builds strong coalition, Bush doesn't. Obama trying to save people, Bush going after the oil. Obama savior, Bush satan.
The hypocrisy coming from the left in the media on this issue is palpable... all the talk about Obama's great coalition and how its a justifiable war.
Wait a second. Wait a second. You are trying to compare the media's portrayal of GWB over about SEVEN years, TWO wars, and HOW MANY lies to Libya and less then ONE WEEK. The Lybia thing has been going on for about a day or so. In the FIRST days of the Afghanistan war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? In the FIRST days of the Iraq war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? Democrats were falling all over themselves to support the President and the need to get those WMDs, which is why after almost 6 years, it was a defining issue of the presidential campaign. The candidates 5 years later were all explaining why they supported one war then, but not now after all the lies were exposed, or how they were against it all along. Not to mention Afghanistan after 7 years. There were a few, unlike now, where there are a lot.
This is THE FIRST WEEK of this thing, and NBC nightly news had their entire story about: criticism from congress; inability of white house to deal with that problem, partly because in Brazil; late involvement; involvement here but not in Somalia, Congo, etc..., risk that Ghaddafi would survive this and remain in power; lack of real Arab support and weak coalition; and fact that opposition is disorganized, poorly armed and leaderless, and probably won't be able to win without military support on the ground.
That's pretty hard reporting, and I'm very happy Congress is being critical. Almost everything Fivepoint, the GOP and the Democrats who are speaking out have said is a valid concern. They should have done this during week ONE of Afghanistan, and Iraq. I know I don't want another one of those.
(edit) Yesterday, NPR was talking about Candidate Obama vs. President Obama, and pointed out Candidate Obama's statements about ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR. They discussed, at length, prior presidents assumption of power, Obama's use of it and how guest couldn't imagine a new president opposed to a power like this giving it up. So, maybe you should watch some NBC, ABC, CBS and listen to some NPR. Mind you, in FPs defense, I spent 16 hours in the car since this all started, so I've probably heard every story...
If you actually want change, vote for Ron Paul, vote for fiscal responsibility, vote for small government and non intervention. Vote for the destruction bailouts, stimulus, subsidies, and all other forms of crony-capitalism. I can't imagine him being nominated to run for president by the GOP. Did you see that "ghostwritten" pamphlet put out by his campaign? I'm sure he never approved of it, but against the 1st black president? With a son who tripped all over the Civil Rights Act? I hope he mounts a third party campaign. With Palin as VP, or better yet, Palin as a fourth party candidate.
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition: I know, I don't get it either. But, again this is the first week. The only ones "touting" are the white house, and it's already falling on deaf ears and criticism. Already!
The hypocrisy coming from the left in the media on this issue is palpable... all the talk about Obama's great coalition and how its a justifiable war.
Wait a second. Wait a second. You are trying to compare the media's portrayal of GWB over about SEVEN years, TWO wars, and HOW MANY lies to Libya and less then ONE WEEK. The Lybia thing has been going on for about a day or so. In the FIRST days of the Afghanistan war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? In the FIRST days of the Iraq war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? Democrats were falling all over themselves to support the President and the need to get those WMDs, which is why after almost 6 years, it was a defining issue of the presidential campaign. The candidates 5 years later were all explaining why they supported one war then, but not now after all the lies were exposed, or how they were against it all along. Not to mention Afghanistan after 7 years. There were a few, unlike now, where there are a lot.
This is THE FIRST WEEK of this thing, and NBC nightly news had their entire story about: criticism from congress; inability of white house to deal with that problem, partly because in Brazil; late involvement; involvement here but not in Somalia, Congo, etc..., risk that Ghaddafi would survive this and remain in power; lack of real Arab support and weak coalition; and fact that opposition is disorganized, poorly armed and leaderless, and probably won't be able to win without military support on the ground.
That's pretty hard reporting, and I'm very happy Congress is being critical. Almost everything Fivepoint, the GOP and the Democrats who are speaking out have said is a valid concern. They should have done this during week ONE of Afghanistan, and Iraq. I know I don't want another one of those.
(edit) Yesterday, NPR was talking about Candidate Obama vs. President Obama, and pointed out Candidate Obama's statements about ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR. They discussed, at length, prior presidents assumption of power, Obama's use of it and how guest couldn't imagine a new president opposed to a power like this giving it up. So, maybe you should watch some NBC, ABC, CBS and listen to some NPR. Mind you, in FPs defense, I spent 16 hours in the car since this all started, so I've probably heard every story...
If you actually want change, vote for Ron Paul, vote for fiscal responsibility, vote for small government and non intervention. Vote for the destruction bailouts, stimulus, subsidies, and all other forms of crony-capitalism. I can't imagine him being nominated to run for president by the GOP. Did you see that "ghostwritten" pamphlet put out by his campaign? I'm sure he never approved of it, but against the 1st black president? With a son who tripped all over the Civil Rights Act? I hope he mounts a third party campaign. With Palin as VP, or better yet, Palin as a fourth party candidate.
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition: I know, I don't get it either. But, again this is the first week. The only ones "touting" are the white house, and it's already falling on deaf ears and criticism. Already!
NoSmokingBandit
Aug 22, 08:57 AM
The psp doesnt have good enough controls to play a game that requires tons of precision. Making it portable just wasnt a good choice, leave that for NFS and Burnout.
sotorious
Apr 11, 01:49 PM
Is that source creditable. I was thinking of making the jump ship to an iphone try it out for a year, but the thought of waiting till june to get a phone was a killer in it self. Now waiting till October is def a no go. I already have my phone for a year and that is way to long just for looking at the same phone that whole time.
Dagless
Aug 19, 08:21 AM
Do we know if all cars have fully modelled interiors or if thats just for the luxury cars?
robogobo
Apr 8, 05:01 AM
Maybe they ate too much magical unicorn dust and it clouded their judgement. :rolleyes:
Omg unicorn dust that is so funny! Where do you get this awesome material? Hilarious!
Omg unicorn dust that is so funny! Where do you get this awesome material? Hilarious!
No comments:
Post a Comment