Here's the best look at OS X Public Beta (from Ars Technica's Mac Wizard John Siracusa.) Listen up Apple. This guy knows what he is talking about. (Long article, with some nice screen shots if you're wondering what the new Mac world is going to look like.)
Techniques of Capitalism 101: Apple is being disingenuous when insisting that you should pronounce the X in OS X as "ten"; they actually want you saying OS Sex. And what's with Microsoft's Windows ME? Is that a name or a request? It's all subliminable.
What's with that "subliminable?" You trying to get me to vote for Bush? And I should apologize for calling Dubayou an f-ing idiot. He didn't come off sounding all that stupid last night.
do we really want "not all that stupid" for president?
No, but I feel in a lot of ways he may have the tenaciousness to make a good world leader, and he certainly has the connections that his aristocratic background will buy. All that said, I don't like him so I'm voting for the other guy. And anyway, as a housepainter from the ghetto, with no medical coverage, no retirement program, and no portfolio, I'm not looking to a president for the answers to my future well being, I see all that in the bottom of my budweiser can. But since this is the first close race for president since Kennedy/Nixon (?), and our vote really and truly might make a difference, I thinks its important that we all choose between these two (and I stress, two) guys. While I've got you here, Dave, what do you think of my assertion that there are only two people to choose from in this election.
im not sure where your assertion was made but if i were voting iwould pull the trigger for nader. hes not perfect but id like to see what someone truly outside the loop could do. i dont think there is much difference between the two major candidates. bush could be dangerous with a majority in the two houses of congress but the power of the presidency is often overrated. he has veto power, can call out the military, make appointments to the courts and has lots of media coverage to shape public opinion but the real power is in the congress and supreme court. the power to appoint judges is troubling if bush were elected but the senate still controls the confirmation process. as far as foreign policy is concerned, i doubt there is any discernable difference except the republicans like to pronounce vladimir putins name pewtin vs the dems pooteen. either way i dont expect there would be much impact on my life.
I can't remember now where the assertion is either, I think maybe on NOLA page but no matter, what I'm saying is any vote not for Gore is a vote for Bush, which is a concept which comes up every election and I have ignored myself, voting at least once for a minor candidate. But with this election so close I think if you are going to bother to vote then the only question you have to ask yourself is do you want George Jr. in office. If the answer to that is no, or probably not, then you really should vote for Gore, even though the thought of electing him is not that exciting either.
Like you say, neither choice is likely to impact your life in such a way that you'll forever after be bonking yourself on the head and saying, damn, should have voted for the other guy, but there's a lot of supreme court appointments might come up during this next term, and besides, Bush is a major league .......
bushie is a pooch. hes not going to run anything. hes toting the party line gladhandling and doing what hes told. do i think he would make a good leader? no, but i wouldnt expect much effort from him at all. he would put the careless into caretaker president. gores near pathological embellishing is troubling to me but obviously our views should coincide more. he is a chronic panderer and ultimately a politician not a statesman. and like i said visavis the supreme court and federal judges, the president can only select an option, the senate has the power to confirm or deny. the whole process is too politicized. there should be a better way to select them. ill have to think about it. also with regards to a vote for nader is actually a vote for bush, i just think thats not persuasive enough. why are we limited to two parties? do they embody all types of thinking about governing? also, there are 100 million people that arent voting. if you could persuade them to vote you are generating your own constituency. thats not fleshed out very well but my energy reserves are low. but arent i concerned that bush will open up alaskan preserves for oil exploitation?
100 million not voting? Hell yes, let's turn those votes, woo a constituency, abolish tobacco, handguns, and fossil fuel burning engines. Start a new country. But its true that the two party system is a hoax. All the money and hoopla and it really doesn't matter who we pick insofar as how the country will run. Nader's cool, I guess, the thing is, even as a protest vote I don't think a vote for him will mean much, and I think it unlikely he will get more than 7% of the vote, if that. Perot's 20% was encouraging in that it at least made a ripple of a statement. I think it said we Americans are fed up with the spin doctored election process, but even then the only way he made it so far into the process was because he had 50 or 60 million of his own money to blow. And he was so wacky you just had to love him a little. I voted for him that year, and Dole in '92. I guess I mostly vote AGAINST certain personalities, and Clinton always scared me, but look at what a bang up job he did. Bush doesn't scare me, he's just that drunken, arrogant frat boy I never liked. But I'm sure he has some nice qualities. Based only on last night's VP debate, I like both the running mates. A few years after I dropped out of U.Texas the student body wrote in the candidate Hank the Hallucination at a five to one margin over the quintessential frat boy running for student body president, which by the way was a position only recently reinstated following an election during my years there where we voted to abolish student government. Ahh, those proud days, now those were elections, excuse me, I think I'm tearing up a little.
|
- jim 10-03-2000 4:31 pm
Techniques of Capitalism 101: Apple is being disingenuous when insisting that you should pronounce the X in OS X as "ten"; they actually want you saying OS Sex. And what's with Microsoft's Windows ME? Is that a name or a request? It's all subliminable.
- alex 10-04-2000 3:34 pm
What's with that "subliminable?" You trying to get me to vote for Bush? And I should apologize for calling Dubayou an f-ing idiot. He didn't come off sounding all that stupid last night.
- jimlouis 10-05-2000 3:06 am
do we really want "not all that stupid" for president?
- dave 10-05-2000 6:44 pm
No, but I feel in a lot of ways he may have the tenaciousness to make a good world leader, and he certainly has the connections that his aristocratic background will buy. All that said, I don't like him so I'm voting for the other guy. And anyway, as a housepainter from the ghetto, with no medical coverage, no retirement program, and no portfolio, I'm not looking to a president for the answers to my future well being, I see all that in the bottom of my budweiser can. But since this is the first close race for president since Kennedy/Nixon (?), and our vote really and truly might make a difference, I thinks its important that we all choose between these two (and I stress, two) guys. While I've got you here, Dave, what do you think of my assertion that there are only two people to choose from in this election.
- jimlouis 10-06-2000 2:13 am
im not sure where your assertion was made but if i were voting iwould pull the trigger for nader. hes not perfect but id like to see what someone truly outside the loop could do. i dont think there is much difference between the two major candidates. bush could be dangerous with a majority in the two houses of congress but the power of the presidency is often overrated. he has veto power, can call out the military, make appointments to the courts and has lots of media coverage to shape public opinion but the real power is in the congress and supreme court. the power to appoint judges is troubling if bush were elected but the senate still controls the confirmation process. as far as foreign policy is concerned, i doubt there is any discernable difference except the republicans like to pronounce vladimir putins name pewtin vs the dems pooteen. either way i dont expect there would be much impact on my life.
- dave 10-06-2000 11:13 pm
I can't remember now where the assertion is either, I think maybe on NOLA page but no matter, what I'm saying is any vote not for Gore is a vote for Bush, which is a concept which comes up every election and I have ignored myself, voting at least once for a minor candidate. But with this election so close I think if you are going to bother to vote then the only question you have to ask yourself is do you want George Jr. in office. If the answer to that is no, or probably not, then you really should vote for Gore, even though the thought of electing him is not that exciting either. Like you say, neither choice is likely to impact your life in such a way that you'll forever after be bonking yourself on the head and saying, damn, should have voted for the other guy, but there's a lot of supreme court appointments might come up during this next term, and besides, Bush is a major league .......
- jimlouis 10-06-2000 11:41 pm
bushie is a pooch. hes not going to run anything. hes toting the party line gladhandling and doing what hes told. do i think he would make a good leader? no, but i wouldnt expect much effort from him at all. he would put the careless into caretaker president. gores near pathological embellishing is troubling to me but obviously our views should coincide more. he is a chronic panderer and ultimately a politician not a statesman. and like i said visavis the supreme court and federal judges, the president can only select an option, the senate has the power to confirm or deny. the whole process is too politicized. there should be a better way to select them. ill have to think about it. also with regards to a vote for nader is actually a vote for bush, i just think thats not persuasive enough. why are we limited to two parties? do they embody all types of thinking about governing? also, there are 100 million people that arent voting. if you could persuade them to vote you are generating your own constituency. thats not fleshed out very well but my energy reserves are low. but arent i concerned that bush will open up alaskan preserves for oil exploitation?
- dave 10-07-2000 12:27 am
100 million not voting? Hell yes, let's turn those votes, woo a constituency, abolish tobacco, handguns, and fossil fuel burning engines. Start a new country. But its true that the two party system is a hoax. All the money and hoopla and it really doesn't matter who we pick insofar as how the country will run. Nader's cool, I guess, the thing is, even as a protest vote I don't think a vote for him will mean much, and I think it unlikely he will get more than 7% of the vote, if that. Perot's 20% was encouraging in that it at least made a ripple of a statement. I think it said we Americans are fed up with the spin doctored election process, but even then the only way he made it so far into the process was because he had 50 or 60 million of his own money to blow. And he was so wacky you just had to love him a little. I voted for him that year, and Dole in '92. I guess I mostly vote AGAINST certain personalities, and Clinton always scared me, but look at what a bang up job he did. Bush doesn't scare me, he's just that drunken, arrogant frat boy I never liked. But I'm sure he has some nice qualities. Based only on last night's VP debate, I like both the running mates. A few years after I dropped out of U.Texas the student body wrote in the candidate Hank the Hallucination at a five to one margin over the quintessential frat boy running for student body president, which by the way was a position only recently reinstated following an election during my years there where we voted to abolish student government. Ahh, those proud days, now those were elections, excuse me, I think I'm tearing up a little.
- jimlouis 10-07-2000 4:04 am