DISQUS

"...now she’s just another brainless liberal "

'NOW'? When was she anything else?

He's a sycophant (look it up), and a pretty sad one at that. I must remind myself not to attack sycophants, though, as they tend to stick (desperately) together. It must really terrify this guy at night - knowing that once Rose is yesterday's news, he'll be less than a memory.

BTW, has Alex ever broken down and just BLOWN Rose in one of these things? Clearly he would if told to.

Yes, I agree, Clint. Surprised and shocked, but he can't exactly afford to be offended (or miffed), and he KNOWS it. He's calculating enough to know that, if he truly acts offended, that clip will go 'round the world in a heartbeat. As it is, he's getting plenty of heat over this. He needs to take care not to reach for the gasoline right now.

Fred:

I agree, Rose does not seem particularly "miffed". I think what we are seeing, though, is in-diggnation.

Apple needs too offer content via Netflix. Their rentals and purchases are too limited and expensive, and Netflix reaches a huge audience, and needs to move to more devices. It would be a great fit for both. Apple SHOULD have done this already.

Dick Tracy, your watch is ready.

OK, the analysis looks good, and I agree with it. Bottom line, though, is that Apple is going up soon. Where is your projected entry point? If you don't have one, the stock will go on its run without you.

Also, FWIW: I think the S&P chart is as important as the Apple chart. What's holding Apple back is the rest of the market. That's key. The general market looks about ready to run, and that's what will free up Apple.

Maybe if Ballemr hadn't spent $300 million on that masturbatory "I'm a PC" campaign these people would still have jobs. Hey - I got a cost savings for ya - fire BALLMER.

Stewart knows he has to frame this very carefully for his Bush-bashing audience. Nevertheless, he knows BS when he sees it. He also knows he's going to have to find a way to mock Obama, as all comics will. Bush just won't be there for the easy scores anymore. And THAT's change.

Well said, Scoble!

Lots of good points brought up here.

At the end of the day, it seems that in the crush to capture enormous audiences via tech means, one thing has been forgotten: You truly cannot please everybody.

Yahoo's formula for finding news is irrevocably going to take it mainstream, if this has not already happened. The front pages of Yahoo, and Buzz, might as well be The New York Times.

Digg and Reddit, for that matter, are interchangeable. The front page posts are definitely a different, fresher flavor than Yahoo or Buzz. But on the other hand, they are more often than not sophomoric. And utterly predictable. (What's the "Bush is a moron" or "Cheney/Rove is evil" post on Digg today? Where's today's Star Wars reference? Where's the "stupidest ting ever" that someone did?"

No, there's room for something better, and new, that avoids the traps these two approaches have fallen into. It STILL won't be for everyone, but who cares? The Readers' Digest isn't for everyone, either, but it's done damn well for itself.

Sorry, from the headline I thought maybe this was another post about Jarvis.

It's Google (or more specifically, Blogger) screwing with you, FS. Happened to me, too, and I'm not on meds. Yet.

Theme for the next film: Corruption. (Of Batman and Gordon, of course - everyone else is already corrupt.) You heard it here first.

This reminds me of the crusade against the 'monopoly' of Microsoft. It was carried out because of complaints just like yours, and came to - oops - nothing.

What was MS' real crime? They were big and wealthy. And Google? Same crime. History repeats itself. You're not doomed to repeat it because of ignorance, but because of outright denial.

If Google did the very WORST of what you're accusing it of, what laws is it breaking, exactly? None. Absolutely none. But your complaint is that Google is violating an ETHICAL standard. And what IS that standard, exactly? Why, they are trying to gain a competitive advantage, through a strategic partnership? Oh, horrors. Let's break up every corporation that ever tried that, and see if we have any corporations left.

What really happens if Google AND its main competitor see this 'nightmare' scenario through? It creates an opening for a Flash competitor - like Silverlight, if it can be easily read by ALL search engines.

This is a GOOD thing.

Your real problem here is not a desire for more competition, because clearly you do not understand how marketplace competition works. Nor do you have any real faith in it. Your problem is that Google, like MS before it, is BIG. Therefore, you want to be certain you can browbeat it into behaving according to your preconceptions, rather than letting the marketplace do its job - as it clearly did in the case of Microsoft.

What's sad is that Google probably will have to take the mob into account here, realizing what MS went through. They'll learn to improve their pandering, and make nice sounds for people like yourself to hear. In doing so, they'll learn the sort of duplicity and corporate double-speak their founders swore they'd never indulge in. Not IN SPITE of people like you, but because of them.

Is Google evil? If so, why are you using them, when so many alternatives abound? If an evil search engine is also the most popular one, who is REALLY the evil party?

Let me get this straight. Dobson shouldn't be inserting himself into "partisan politics". But YOU should.

That's really all I need to know. Thanks but no, thanks.

People bought PCs because they HAD TO. For most, it wasn't an option. They had to buy what their business owned, what their competition owned, what their affiliates owned, etc. They didn't have a choice. It was the fringes (artists, musicians, and other iconoclasts) who bought Macs or Amigas.

No one HAS to buy an iPhone. It's a networked age. Software written for iPhones can be ported to other platforms if need be.

You're talking Apples (so to speak) and Oranges here. Apple will NEVER have a phone monopoly the way MS had a desktop monopoly. The only way they will dominate the market is via a superior product. If the iPhone stops being superior, there will always be another player looking to take its place.

Remember when the Razr was top dog? Remember when Nokia was? Yeah, it is STILL like that.

"Do you think there should be some sort of certification or standard created for blogging?"

Of course not. If a blogger can't conduct himself well, he will pay for it in the marketplace. Certification? By who?? That's absurd.

I know it's a joke.

But...

Dave, when you're right, you're right.

Just FYI, I have Safari, Firefox, and Opera installed on all my machines. I use only two of these 99% of the time. Your IP records will show which one I am using now. You'll just have to guess about the other one.

1) Is Apple charging for this software?

2) Does the installation of this software preclude the installation or use of other, competing, browsers?

3) Does the installation make Safari the 'default' browser?

SInce the answer to all these questions is "no" this is very much a tempest in a teapot.

The main thrust of the argument is that Apple is misleading it's customers, and doing something that is "clearly wrong". That is false. Here's why:

1) Apple cannot ASSUME that a machine on which iTunes is installed also has a working browser installed. It also cannot assume that a third-party browser such as Firefox will continue to be up-to-date and standards-compliant. Of course, I myself have no doubt of this. But that doe not mean Apple, or I, can ASSUME this to be the case, because neither Apple nor I have any control over what you do, or over the future direction or support of Firefox.

2) iTunes will from time to time need a working browser on the same computer for certain functions. (iTunes on my Mac has opened up a Safari window now and again.) That means that Safari, while probably not integral for iTunes operations, is at least ancillary to it. iTunes needs to make certain assumptions about how that browser works, and it cannot make such assumptions unless it makes that broswer itself.

3) As far as "misleading" the publi is concerned, there is such a thing as "too much information". While software mavens may live and die for these things, Joe User (remember him?) just wants it to work. Apple knows better than to make Joe User sit through a lecture HE DOES NOT WANT regarding why he really ought to allow Safari to be installed. Apple merely offers the option, calling it an 'upgrade' rather than a new install because, from Apple's POV, adding Safari can be argued to be an 'upgrade' of iTunes. This is especially true if Apple intends to build in iTunes-centric features into the browser at a later date.

You should have given his issue some real thought before this needlessly inflammatory post. Apple is not doing anything to crowd out Firefox installations. They are merely installing a competing browser.

What are you REALLY concerned about here?

Wow. This post is so bad, it's hard to know where to start.

"But the attack on Rev. Wright reveals something beyond ignorance of basic dynamics of Christian community."

Let's start off with this assumption, for which you provide absolutely no actual evidence. In fact, many of Wright's critics (who are, after all, largely conservative) are active church goers. I dare say many of them (myself included) know as much (if not more) about "Christian community" as you do.

What the statement does is "make" you an expert, by your own definition. Therefore, we are to buy your argument as a means of curing our "ignorance". Sorry, that's doesn't work. It does, however, suggest either arrogance or insecurity on your part. (Unlike you, I won't presume to know which.)

"Anyone who attends church on a regular basis knows how frequently congregants disagree with their ministers. To sit in a pew is not necessarily assent to a message preached on a particular day. Being a church member is not some sort of mindless cult, where individuals believe every word preached. "

Misleading and wrong. The fact is, a minister DOES have to work within certain cultural dynamics his congregation will accept. Few ministers truly follow Jesus' example in that they will not challenge their congregations to the extent that they would reject him/her. A depressing amount of what is taught from the pulpit is political - designed to reinforce the minister's position within his flock. This has been true since Day One of Christianity, and an issue that Paul frequently tried to address. (The fact that Paul himself was frequently ostracized by the very churches he tried to instruct is testament to this.)

What Wright was doing, for years, was playing to his congregation's worst instincts. There are too many false notes to cite here, especially as it's clear that the poster is interested only in defending Wright, but statements like "God Damn America" and "America brought 9/11 on itself" are purely political, NOT spiritual, in nature.

"Typical of the form used by black preachers is Frederick Douglass' address, "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" first delivered on July 5, 1852."

Two big problems here: Wright's flock aren't (and never were) slaves - and Douglas is NOT the standard for fidelity to God's will. He's merely a convenient tool for your immediate purposes. But if we are going to talk of slavery - what IS the Bible's advice to slaves? Does the phrase 'go the extra mile' ring a bell? Or did Paul tell the churches in his charge to make cursing governments a priority? Strange - governments must have been clean as a whistle during those early days, because all I see in scripture is a call to hold our own selves to account.

If you really must reference a black man who advanced civil rights, look to the teachings and actions of Martin Luther King or Ghandi. Both these men would have sternly rebuked a man such as Wright.

As far as you yourself are concerned - well, I cannot imagine these men would have much use for you at all. It is unfortunate that your doctorate from Duke never taught you the distinction between ministering to a congregation and condescending to a captive audience. Unfortunately, you are more the rule than the exception in this world. Certainly there's no need (or incentive) for you to change on my account, nor do I believe my words will make any difference.

We're not worthy!!!!!!