Most news reports in the West make Russia into the big bad meanie that is beating up on the defenseless people of Georgia. There is some truth in that, but there is also truth in the statement that Georgia was attacking people who have long given their loyalty to Russia.
Don't you just hate it when issues are not black and white?
Apparently John McCain woke up one day and decided that there was no way to win but to start slinging mud at his opponent.
Obama is popular. We know. But, what exactly does making fun of his popularity have to do with helping America? Maybe if you make him look bad you could win, John. But at what cost? You will have won by practicing the worst sort of politics.
Quoting people who think he is good looking, making him look foreign through clips overseas, and comparing him to Paris Hilton seems like the worst kind of politics. This is the sort of thing that George Bush was doing to you. Do you remember that?
What we need is a real debate about the issues facing our country - an honest debate. We do not need to focus on who is more popular, or who is younger (that is what "not ready" means, John), or who has the most money for attack ads. We do not care.
Let's actually discuss how quickly filling our tires with air will save us money versus drilling off-shore, and what exactly those savings will be. Let's discuss your ''never give a time table'' versus the Obama plan to get us out in sixteen months. We should chat about what each will be doing to bring relief to the lower and middle class in America, and address the financial market problems.
There are plenty of things to talk about without having to appeal to the lowest common denominator. So, please stop, John, or you really will become just a Dubya clone.
Here is a thought for you Leahy and Company:
Look at the people you are trying to protect with whatever law you are trying to get passed. Are they making money? Are they making LOTS of money? Then, by all means, pass a law to protect them so they can give you LOTS of their LOTS of money.
Something needs to be done to remove corporate America from having complete control of our government. Perhaps we just need to fire everyone in D.C. and start over, because I do not see this being fixed any decade soon.
Isn't deception what got us into this Iraq mess to begin with? Just because the Bush Administration and McCain do not like the fact that al-Maliki supports Obama's plan does not mean they can cover it up. Do they know how to do anything other than maniupate the truth?
We need an honest discussion from McCain and Obama about the fact that the Iraq Government would like us to withdraw our troops within 16 months. No denials or cover-ups, just an honest assessment on why they support or do not support the concept, and if they do not, why they believe they know better than the people in Iraq.
An outstanding assessment of the stupidity of our financial system. If you are not concerned about all of the implications of a federal bail-out of Fannie and Freddie, then you are not paying attention.
The only bright spot is that the United States has the largest military in the world. So, if all of the countries loaning us money for our ridiculous national deficit decided to call their loan, we could just nuke them. Oh, yeah, and then we would have to start building our own crap again.
Who gets to decide what is funny and what is not? Have we, as a country, completely lost our sense of humor, or do we only allow certain subjects to be funny? Obama's chief strategist calls this ''poorly executed'', and yet judging by the reaction, you could make an argument that it was perfectly executed.
The magazine cover was making a very strong political statement, and trying to convey the very message that Obama and his group have been saying. By having a negative reaction to it, the Obama campaign is giving this image the exact wrong type of power. Even if they hated it, you never want to come out and say that.
Come on, Obama. It's the New Yorker. They are on your side!
The Supreme Court wants us all to have a hand gun in the house to protect ourselves from someone else with a hand gun breaking in. Brilliant. Thanks for making that an even greater possibility, Scalia!
Of the 90 million acres of drilling available, only 20 million are being used. Why? Because the oil industry would rather have land that is easier to drill than what would be involved in the 70 million they already have leases on. It is not in their political interest to lower the price of their products, but it is definitely in their interest to get new product for as little money as possible.
Even if there was a legitimate reason to give more drilling opportunities, the fact is that it will not change the price of petrol. (The cost of a barrel of oil is only one of many factors that weigh into what we pay per gallon to fill our vehicles.) Even if it did lower the price of petrol dramatically, it would not do it for more than a decade. (It takes more than a decade to explore and release new oil reserves.) Even if it lowered the price of petrol dramatically in a short period of time, ultimately that is the wrong choice for our planet. (We may not like it, but the planet is cheering about the high petrol prices since we are finally paying attention to our energy use.)
Bush Senior bans off-shore oil drilling, and then Bush Junior blames the high gas prices on the Democrats not allowing off-shore oil drilling. Makes perfect sense when put into perspective. After all, entering Iraq to stop their WMD manufacturing was also a work of genius.
Would someone please give this man a blow-job so we can finally impeach him?
The word 'victory' that McCain uses infuriates me. There will never be 'victory' in Iraq, and we all need to come to accept that, including McCain. For the first time in our history, the United States of America started a war, and it is, arguably, the biggest mistake we have ever made. Ignoring the thousands of innocent lives being killed as a result of our mistake, no matter what happens, we do not deserve to label it 'victory'.
While I disagree with McCain's words, I agree that we need to do whatever we can to make the situation right. Call this Kindergarten 101 for Americans, but when you make a mess, you have to stay until it is completely cleaned up.
We are angry about the lives and money lost, and that is understandable. That is why we need to punish the criminals responsible for this situation. That would mean finding Osama Bin Laden (please!), but it also means investigating the Bush Administration. Yes, we are required to fix the situation, but that includes punishing any illegal activity.
I am very happy you are the Republican nominee because it is a sign your party is moving toward the center. However, occasionally I can not help but think you are a little bit loony.
For example, the Supreme Court determined that the Bush Administration's detention practices, holding prisoners indefinitely without charges, is a violation of our constitution. This is a surprise to no one, is their third similar ruling, and the only question is why this practice ever was allowed to proceed.
In what can only be seen as partisan pandering, you were quoted as saying ''The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.'' I have to assume that you are merely trying to pump up the Right-wing nut jobs because the statement is as nutty as any I have heard. This ruling is somehow worse than legalizing slavery? Worse than locking up people in World War 2 due simply to the color of their skin? You must be joking.
Your justification for such a statement is that these people should not enjoy the same liberties as Americans. So, it is your judgment that only Americans should be allowed freedom and the right to protest their detainment? Everyone else in the world can be locked up? Please explain to us why Americans are the only ones to deserve such liberty. Last I checked, I thought we were trying to spread American values throughout the world. With statements like that, we can pretty much assume the job is done.
I know you do not believe these words, and ultimately you really want to take the same position as Obama. Please do so before it is too late. The Republicans are going to vote for you no matter what. Please stop being a 'conservative' and start being an American again. We like you better that way.
What is with political candidates and not conceding the race when they lose? It is one thing to keep talking about the issues, but it is another to defy logic and refuse to concede.
Yes, I know, Ron Paul defied logic by ever entering the race, and his goal was not to win but to bring awareness to his Libertarian goals. He very much succeeded, and I think McCain is an example of the Republican party moving more toward a conservative financial sense. (Although, I would say that Obama's platform, even with universal health care, is ultimately going to get our country much closer to a balanced budget given the military goals of McCain.)
Still, the bottom line is that when you clearly have no chance of winning, you need to concede. I am a fan of Ron Paul, but when it is over, it is over. And, yes, I am looking at you Senator 'I can not possibly lose' Clinton.
Seven years later we finally are getting the conclusion that we knew from day one. What the Bush Administration has been doing in Cuba is illegal. The fact McCain voted for this particular piece of legislation that was deemed unconstitutional is also concerning given his previous record of being against Gitmo.
In any case, note that both Obama and McCain have pledged to shut down the operation when they become President. So, Mr. Bush, you might as well start the closing ceremonies now.
It is nice to know that not only has Obama won, but the effort of Hillary to have delegates switch to her will never happen. Everyone flocked to Obama as soon as it was clear he would have the majority of delegates.
Now the next scary stage begins. Will Obama be forced to take Hillary as his running mate? Clearly he does not want to. (Who would?) She is a liability, and a woman who clearly would not settle for being the quiet VP.
You could argue that this is a bigger test for Obama and his team than the primaries: Can they can unite the party without putting Hillary on the ticket? We will find out.
The premise here is that you need to be familiar with the news to get the jokes on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. There is a degree of truth in this, but only a degree. You can have a fairly superficial knowledge of what is happening in the world from the previous day and get most of the humor in either show.
That said, I certainly agree with the general statement that people watching these shows are far more interested in the news than the old fogies give them credit for.
Sure, you might be able to safely land a robot 423 million miles away on the surface of Mars, but if you decide to bring politics in to the workplace a few miles from your home, you will be looking for a new job.
The question I have is why the folks in the White House have not been kicked out for doing the same thing.
If you do not believe Hillary Clinton will do anything to be elected President, including bringing down her own party, then you are not paying attention.
Fact: Hillary and her campaign issued a statement that they believe the votes from Florida and Michigan should not count. It was only after they realized they were going to lose to Obama that they changed their mind on the subject.
Fact: The Clinton's know that taking this fight all the way to the convention would destroy the chances for the Dems to be elected President. But, if she can not have the prize, then neither should Obama.
Fact: Everything Hillary Clinton has started during this primary (Wright issue, racism against Obama, Muslim ties, etc) are now items that McCain can use during the general election.
The only saving grace in this whole mess is that Senator McCain is not a bad candidate. So, if we are stuck with McCain as President, then so be it.
It is better than having President Hillary Clinton.
Sometimes updating a Blog can get a little old, so I took a couple months off. My apologies to the three of you that visit here occasionally.
It is time to get back on track with our old favorite, Dubya:
'Faced with an unfriendly Congress, the Bush administration has found another, quieter way to make it more difficult for consumers to sue businesses over faulty products. It's rewriting the bureaucratic rulebook.'
Despite the power company's best efforts to kill a bill that forced them to get ten percent of their energy from renewable resources (wow, ten percent -- really?), they were able to achieve it eight years ahead of schedule and now are working on twenty.
Why is it that corporations fight anything progressive? If you make an honest effort to achieve a goal, no one is going to think worse of you.
There are so many inaccurate statements about electric automobiles out there that I felt a need to write an article that responds to all of these. If I am missing any, or you disagree with any of these, please let me know.
It is hard for me to believe that columnists are just now tumbling to the fact that Apple has some growing pains. We have enormously high expectations for our darling in Cupertino, and their halo has soiled a bit recently.
Don't fret. While you might not have been able to activate their iPhone 3G on the first day, and the MobileMe platform may not be ready for prime-time, and their latest OS X product might have taken a few steps backwards, the bottom line is that they are still the products of choice.
Many would disagree, but Apple has never made great software. However, their design and vision is by far the best in the industry (many confuse that for 'software'). And the good news here for fruit lovers is that Apple's design and vision are still outstanding. Eventually their software will return to the second-rate status it has always been, and these hiccups can be ignored, once again.
If you have not tried NetFlix streaming, you are not necessarily missing much. Yet.
The quality of the movies tends to be barely better than NTSC (standard definition TV) video quality. While they have 10,000 movies (compared to Apple's 1,000), they tend to be moldy titles from ages ago.
So, why does it matter that the Xbox 360 can now play these low quality moldy titles? Specifically, it does not matter. However, NetFlix is starting to reach a market penetration of potential streaming customers that could make it very promising to major studios.
Ignoring Disney, most major studios would love to make their movies available to just about anyone but Apple. They know the power that Apple gained with their entrapment of the music industry. So, with NetFlix now having a viable 'instant' delivery mechanism for movies, it seems highly likely that NetFlix will start to have higher quality and new titles available in the coming months.
Most days (at least for the last few years) Apple is the darling of the universe. Today, despite spending months preparing for iPhone 3G D-Day, the inconceivable has happened. Apple was not ready.
Who had the bright idea of using iTunes to activate a cell phone, anyway? Mr. Jobs, we need to have a word with you.
The politics of this story regarding McCain's battery contest are not particularly interesting (personally, I think anything that might bring electric cars to market faster is a plus, even if it is a political stunt). But, the history behind the electric car is very interesting reading to me. In particular, I was not aware that the original electric cars were nearly as capable as the ones we have available today (ignoring the Tesla, of course).
Even with the questionable battery sources we have today, auto manufacturers can easily bring environmentally friendly electric cars to market. The big stumbling block right now is learning how to design electric cars with modern amenities. Within five years, electric cars will start to invade nearly every block in America.
To celebrate Bill Gates' retirement, Matt at Gizmodo raised a very good question. What are the things that Microsoft has done right for the world? While I think Matt's question is important, I think his list focuses on very small accomplishments.
The two major ones I can think of:
1. The money that has gone to Bill Gates is being used to save the world. You could argue this has more to do with his wife, Melinda, but Bill was brilliant for marrying her. So, whether you like the Microsoft monopoly or not, it is easy to argue that Bill Gates has done far more to help the world than perhaps any human being before him.
2. Microsoft dramatically changed the pricing of computers. By moving the operating system as a separate cost from the hardware (coupled with the cloning industry), Microsoft showed that other companies were charging way too much for their hardware plus software. Even if we focus on comparison software cost, Microsoft not only dramatically lowered the prices (Word Perfect versus Word, for example), they also removed copy protection schemes to make it easy to own (which ultimately allowed them to gain a monopoly on numerous markets).
It is hard to believe that one of the worst processors of the day has managed to continue on for thirty years now. Having all of our systems based on the 6502 or the Z80 would have been a step up from the 8086, but, sometimes technology does not follow a logical course.
Happy Birthday, 8086. Why you have had such a long life is beyond us.
This idea was idiotic from the start. Microsoft's market is software, and this notion that they need to capture the advertising world is nonsense. Google is not going to force Microsoft out of business -- Microsoft will force Microsoft out of business by taking their focus off of their core business. And, right now, given Apple's gains on their market, it seems clear that Microsoft needs to focus it's efforts back at the core.
First, yes that image is of a real electric car from 1947. The point is to show that the first electric cars were built over sixty years ago. It does not take start of the art technology to build one, although better battery technology certainly helps the range dramatically.
Why the focus on electric cars two days in a row? They are a very simple solution to a significant percentage of the CO2 put into the air each day. We all know, depending on where you live, that the electricity needed to recharge electric vehicles could put CO2 into the air. However, even if 100% of your electricity comes from coal, and all of your charging results in increased power output, an electric still puts out less than half the CO2.
However, there are studies that show that everyone in America could replace their commuter vehicles with electrics and, if charged properly, would not necessarily increase energy production in the United States. (That is because there is excess energy during the evening, which is when the vast majority of people will be charging their vehicles.)
We also need to keep in mind the significant movement toward renewable energy for our electricity needs. As coal plants start moving toward wind, solar, hydro and nuclear, then electricity become even more squeaky clean.
It does not solve the trucking industry or the airline industry, but there are solutions there that we can write about another day.
Ignoring the fact the electric motors are more efficient and will pump out less CO2 no matter how the electricity was generated, they also tend to give far better performance. Admittedly, it would be silly to compare a 10hp electric to a Porsche, but compared to the all-electric Tesla Roadster, the Porsche's in the same price range look slow. And this is against a vehicle that is the first of it's kind.
I suspect we are still a few years away before electric vehicles start going mainstream, but it is pretty exciting to see that start to happen.
Nifty.. We are flying these boring old aeroplanes with Star Trek phasers on them. You got this backwards, Boeing. I really wanted to read this while browsing Gizmodo from Titan.
I am not certain Apple has ever really understood the corporate community. Apple fans have been talking for decades about Apple's entry into corporate America, and yet it never happens. The iPhone is currently another example of that failure.
Do not get me wrong, the iPhone is a remarkable device. It is without question the best 'smart phone' available for average consumers. If I actually enjoyed carrying a cell phone (I do not), I would want to carry the iPhone.
However, Exchange connectivity was just step one in a long list of steps to convince businesses that the iPhone is the device for them. I am not saying there will not be businesses that will use it, but anyone who thinks this is going to kill off the BlackBerry simply does not understand.
I would not mind seeing a version of the iPhone made specifically for corporations. So, Apple -- press the print button on this web page:
1. You need a version of the iPhone with a tactile keyboard. I know this will be very difficult for Steve to swallow, but it is necessary.
2. A replaceable battery is also needed for business use. Business users can be out of the office for weeks at a time, and they need to be able to swap batteries.
3. Ability to turn off features of the iPhone from a central business location, including iTunes connectivity. Some (most?) businesses will not allow employees to download movies and songs to the device. They will want Safari, but not 'entertainment'.
4. Need the ability to control every aspect of all iPhones in the field, including uploading and removing features and software.
5. Secured connectivity for all communications. This is why government, attorneys, health care and other industries live by the BlackBerry. They know everything they do on the phone (at least on the data side) is encrypted. Apple needs a similar option.
Fix all of these, and I guarantee you will start to make progress in the business community. Skip most or all of these, and you might get as much as 10% market share in the business world. Maybe. But, probably not.
This discussion of corporations using the word 'security' as an excuse for 'control' reminds me of the discussions about software prices in the late 80's and early 90's. Software vendors would say the reason software was so expensive was due to piracy. Yet, here we are with bazillions of people using Microsoft Windows, and Windows Vista costs $400. The 'annual' upgrade to OS X costs $130. The profit on this software is ridiculous, yet the software manufacturers have only ever raised prices.
The bottom line is that companies are going to do what is best for their bottom line. If they can lock down a system so they can force you to stick with them and buy more of their products, then that is exactly what they are going to do.
File this under the ''why can't we do this yet?'' category:
Why not broadcast speed limits (and other important information) instead of using signs? It seems that every time I am concerned about my speed, I can not find a speed limit sign. But, having an electronic system that picks up a signal (RFID, bluetooth, etc) and has a constant reading of the speed limit seems like a no-brainer.
There is a tendency to group 'health safety' with general 'side-effects'. For example, there have been some studies that have shown that having a cell phone next to your bed can have an effect on your sleeping pattern. This is not a safety issue, of course, this is just an example of why you should not have a cell phone in your bedroom.
So far, there has been no conclusive evidence that RF radiation is dangerous. It is also reasonable to assume that after this many years we should have some strong evidence of the problem. Instead, it would be nice if studies focused more on the side-effects of RF radiation so we have a good rule book on how these devices might be unknowingly disturbing us.
Who would have guessed that Windows XP was worth making a campaign to save? In half a year Microsoft is (supposedly) going to close support on XP to facilitate the move to Vista. Frankly, that seems highly unlikely given that over ninety percent of Windows users are still using XP. However, if you are concerned, it could not hurt to sign this petition.
Don't read this article, unless you are an engineer. I post this only to mention something that occurred to me the other day:
When was the last time you heard about how awful Intel chips are? It was only a few years ago that it seemed like everyone was complaining about Intel making awful products. Today? Not a word. The only Intel news is geeky stuff like this article.
This change did not happen because suddenly Intel products are better. They were just as good (compared to the rest of the industry) a few years ago. It also is not a result of them taking the lead back from AMD, since AMD really only had that top spot for about a year.
I suspect the reason for all of the bad Intel mojo had more to do with Macintosh fans who were hanging out in the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field a bit too long. Just three years ago, we were hearing about how Intel chips are awful and inefficient, whereas PPC processors were the greatest thing ever.
Now that Apple made the switch to Intel, and suddenly their software runs faster, that argument dried up. There is nothing left to say that is bad about Intel.