Tiptup

Above I'm whining about laws that I think give Microsoft more of a hold over the market than they should have. It's not as if humanity is inherently incapable of having other companies making other operating systems that can run our hardware and software as well. I get a very strong feeling that there's some way in which their patent protections go too far somehow. Imagine if AMD's technique for reverse engineering an Intel processor had been declared illegal, the market for computer processors would not be as good. From what I can tell, I think the free market would welcome a company doing something similar with Windows, but maybe I'm worng about that and just whining . . . I don't think so. :)

Hmm, also, whining is often a good thing for customers to do if they want a better product. Producers are out to make things that customers want after all and should be concerned with pleasing them somewhere. Therefore, I don't think whining is totally out of place, with respect to Windows, so long as it is not unreasonable and has some redeeming value (entertainment at the very least).

Hehe, imagine if episode one had been made in 1979 with the effects budget of the original Star Wars (all the dialogue, plotline, and acting the same). It would have been an expensive kid's movie at best and a laughable waste of time at worst. :)

negative1 said:

there is NO WAY that changing an OS, is a simple matter of using

the same codebase, there's millions of lines of code, debugging,

and new hardware to worry about..

OSs are changed all the time in big ways. Comparing the differences between 2000, Vista, and XP, Microsoft could still have supported all versions. For instance, there was absolutely no damn reason why XP could not have had the same 3D hardware support that Vista got. That was shameless.

Seriously?!

This option of yours is one that must ignore the fact of history. The PT could not have been made in 1979.

The PT would have to have been made in the last ten years, and, in that case, people would have probably been impressed by a use of special effects they had never seen before (assuming nobody had made something like Star Wars by that point), but they still would have thought the movies were stupid, dumbed-down flicks with bad acting, bad dialogue, and very little emotional attachment.

The fact that Microsoft keeps changing the basic support of their OSs each year is dirty. If they had any competition with OSs that were capable of running programs with the same source code, the situation would be very different. Instead we'd get an OS that was updated each year but didn't lose support so quickly, and was given more interface improvements over the course of it's life.

Instead, Windows 2000, XP, Vista, are all very similar in their source codes. The major differences are external and shouldn't require us to upgrade or risk "support" and availability of the versions we like.

MeBeJedi said:

No it is not. "trickle-down economics" runs on the premise that when rich people pay less taxes then they in turn invest the gains into other businesses or companies who thus hire people to work and giving many jobs and you products to buy. The wealth of the rich guy was invested and subsequently paid to a guy who put in a days work he took the money home to feed his family. Redistributing wealth? Yeah, but honorably and in everyone favor. That is my scenerio.

 

It is still redistribution, because by your very own scenario, the money goes to the rich and "trickles down" to the poor (the blue collar worker). The name, itself, indicates the "flow" of the wealth. LOL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle_down_economics

However, all the economic reports indicate this has not happened. The biggest reason why people were able to buy as much as they did in recent years was due to increased use of credit, rather than real increases in wages. And look where that's gotten us now.

Regardless, the middle class is disappearing because "trickle-down" doesn't work. The whole point of this mindset was so that the rich Republicans could keep as much money as they could, and most of that was stored in off-shore accounts.

In fact, Republicans are so enamored by all things off-shore, that they've even sent jobs overseas. That way, they don't have to pay actual Americans all that extra money they've been receiving under Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Hell, even Halliburton, based in Texas, partically run by Cheney, and made rich by the Middle East war..........has opened a new headquarters IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

(That being said, here's some more irony: the current economy has been bringing jobs back to US soil. Since the dollar has lost so much value compared to other currencies, it's actually become cheaper for foreign companies to produce their goods in the US. Attaboy, Bush. LOL)

Is this seriously the same MeBejedi that I remember? You always struck me as having a sound mind in the past, but now, with this political stuff of yours, it's as if you're not even trying to honestly and seriously discuss issues. In my opinion that's way below your behavior in the past, but maybe I've misjudged you.

First: Names for an economic theory do not define what that theory is ALL about. (LOL.) While "trickle-down" economics does imply a "flow," that term defines "flow" in conjunction with real work and real production of wealth for our society as a whole. Simply taking money from one person and giving it to another yields no gain in wealth for anyone, but in fact wastes our economy's money and manpower in the form of a government bureaucracy.

Second: "Trickle Down Economics" was a term coined by an ignorant opponent of Reagan's economic policies. Its definition is only a simplified caricature of them.

Third: You are incredibly misinformed about the recent economic policies of George W. Bush. He followed the later policies of Clinton more than he followed anything Reagan ever did.

Fourth: High taxes on people and businesses, oppressive regulations, even more borrowing on the part of our government, and a bad monetary policy is what has so "shrunk" the middle class in recent years. The miniscule tax cuts and the lack of Obama's direct redistribution of wealth on the part of our government has had nothind to do with the recent setbacks for average people. The fact that you are even trying to claim otherwise is absolutely laughable. You seek to correct everybody in this thread and yet you make absurd claims like that? LOL. :)

Fifth: The one thing you're actually right about is the way Republicans don't care about jobs and wealth flowing overseas. But believe me, that's not this country's biggest problem and the solutions I hear from Democrats will only worsen things by hurting our economy as a whole.

Sixth: A lowered value for the dollar is not good for our economy on the whole. Increased investment in the U.S. is generally good, but not at the cost of everyone becoming poorer by having our rates of incomes redistributed to all of the rich and poor people who get in debt. This is something you should be a lot more clear in stating (and certainly shouldn't disagree with, if you do).

MeBeJedi said:

 

This "country" does not support welfare for the rich. Allowing them to keep money they legitimately earn is fine, but that's not welfare.

What do you think subsidies are? You do realize we are paying farmers to NOT grow crops?

This "country" and the American people (Republicans and Democrats) are apposed to subsidies and welfare like that. It is only the Republican and Democrat politicians of this "country" that support bullshit like that.

Janskreet was talking in terms of what average Americans support when he said "country." (That's why I put the term in quotes.) Is the simple context of a statement too hard for you to follow, MeBeJedi? LOL.

MeBeJedi said:

 

Democrats have continually tried to crush the ability of people to get ahead and build wealth there.

 

LOL. You do realize that the current financial and housing crisis - the biggest since the Great Depression - is happening under a Republican administration?

LOL. You do realize that every action our government took to FORCE this shitty housing and credit crisis on our economy would have all been actually and strongly apposed by Reagan?


Seriously, use your brain for crying out loud (it's in your skull for a reason)! I'm sorry for being so forceful here, but are you really this fucking stupid, MeBejedi? I actually thought you were smarter than this! Please, I beg that you start proving your current trend wrong! I have to admit, your newfound ignorance and haughty attitude are making me a little sad and disappointed.

::sigh::

Have you heard nothing about what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been doing the last few years? Did you know that they were both "government sponsored entities"?! Have you heard nothing about the way socialists threatened lawsuits against banks that refused to engage in bad mortgages? Did you know that even Clinton blamed the housing crisis on the actions his own party took?! Do you know nothing about how both Clinton and Bush (the younger) have allowed a bad monetary policy to create both the "tech" credit bubble and the subsequent housing credit bubble? Do you even have any clue what a bad monetary policy is?!

For someone who likes to go around shooting his mouth off and pretend like he's the one to educate everyone else, you are incredibly, foolishly ignorant. Perhaps you should try researching the world before you go around thinking you can tell other people how it works. You'd sound less stupid and you'd come off as less of an offensive dickwad.

MeBeJedi said:

 

I hope Barack Obama tries to bring us back to the sound fiscal policies of Ronald Reagan.

 

Oh yes, more borrow and spend. Check your history. Reagan and both Bushes were all about deficit spending - spending money that we don't even have. Do you like being in debt to countries like China, Japan and the Middle East? The only president under whom we had a deficit surplus was Clinton!

Oh, and "small government" GREW under Reagan and the Bushes, rather than shrank.

Man, you guys are all about making the big statements without checking facts.

No, I'm not going to check my history because my history is highly correct and valid. You're the one that needs to check your history because you clearly have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

What I was talking about were Reagan's policies of low taxation, low regulation, and a strong monetary policy. Both elder Bush and Clinton essentially kept those policies of Reagan alive (for the most part) up until the end of the 90's and our country's economy grew like crazy over those fifteen years (as a clear, measured result). With both the government out of people's ways and a stable money supply, our country was able to solidly invest in itself and we all benefitted from that. It was not until Clinton allowed Greenspan to ruin the dollar (for the sake of the fucking stock market) that our economy finally began to go downhill again. To make things even worse in recent years, Bush not only allowed the EXACT same thing with the Dollar, but we had awful Democrat regulations forcing bad mortgages on our banking system too!

You need study history to stop being such an ignorant loud mouth. If you knew ANYTHING about Reagan, you'd know that he was strongly apposed to big government spending and borrowing. Unfortunately that issue wasn't nearly a big enough priority for him (in comparison to his other good policies) and he allowed drunken Democrats in the legislature to spend like crazy. (In case you're ignorant of how our government works, it is the legislative branch that most decides how much our government spends on what and not the President, duh.) In Reagan's defense though, his allowance of Democrat spending was a tool he used to secure the funding that won us the Fucking Cold War (I know, a very small thing, right?), and defense spending was easily the smaller part of overall spending during his years in office. But, yeah, if you're like me and you support small government, yes, he could have perhaps done better in hindsight, but that one small fact is nothing close to Reagan being "all about deficit spending" as you so stupidly said. LOL.

Elder Bush was also apposed to big spending and borrowing, but he, again, had to work with Democrats at a time of war. Clinton, compared to most Demcorats, was thankfully against out-of-control spending and the initial Republican takeover of the legislature in 1995 helped rain in spending even more for a few years, but our government still grew overall and we still outspent tax income (there was no surplus under Clinton). Then, under the younger Bush and both Republican and Democrat legislatures of his years, "small government" took a took a turn for the worse again. None of them were apposed to spending and borrowing at all and, as such, I absolutely refused to support them on that issue. But, Barack Obama has all but promised to increase spending and borrowing even more than what Bush and has done, so if you don't like Bush's spending I'm confused as to why you'd like Barack's spending proposals. :)

The fact that you apparently don't know one drop of this actual history is a very shameful thing in my mind. It's all basic history that anyone can find if they simply look for it and yet you apparently don't even have a clue!

Yikes, and you say that I'm making "big statements" without checking the facts? Wow.

Oh well, at least I can still say you're still a colorful person, MeBeJedi. Hopefully I can return to thinking you're intelligent someday as well. :)

MeBeJedi said:

 

        but I don't see a single, substantial reason as to why that would be.)

    

    Winning an election comes to mind...

"Winning an election" is why I wouldn't see evidence? . . . Hmm, I don't get the logic there.

 

No, "winning an election" is the REASON, not the CAUSE.

Uh . . . "No"?! Reasons aren't causes? LOL, what?! :)

Hmm, and, so, you believe you can legitmately attribute "reasons" to people without evidence of those supposed reasons? We're all just supposed to take your mysterious word and therefore believe that you can read the hearts and minds of evil Republicans?! LOL! That is truly hilarious. :)

MeBeJedi said:

 

Yes, a few, rare, low-level Republicans do shitty things when nobody's looking. But, does MeBeJedi believe that every last low-level Democrat is a perfect little Sunday school student by comparison? Don't make me laugh (just a warning).

 

Ironically, Elizabeth Dole (R), wife of Bob Dole, publicly aired TV ads that accused Karen Hagen (D) of being a Godless American. Guess what....Hagen was a sunday school TEACHER!

 

"It was bitter, negative, and costly race, with both parties investing heavily. In the days leading up the decision day, Dole was criticized for an attack ad questioning Hagan's Christian faith, though the challenger is an elder in a Presbyterian church and Sunday school teacher." http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/11/04/elizabeth-dole-beaten-by-little-known-democratic-challenger-in-north-carolina.html

So, your facetious post beautifully points out your ignorance of current events. Thanks for making me laugh! LOL!

 

(Of course, the even bigger irony is that Republicans, who complain ferociously when their religion is attacked, have no problems attacking the religion of others - even those who believe in God.)

LOL.

Doh, I warned you not to make me laugh, MeBeJedi! :)

I seriously can't believe that you're such a brainless drone that you'd actually believe Democrats have done nothing dirty to help them win any recent elections or win current debates. What a skewed, upside-down world you must live in. :)

MeBeJedi said:

 

Politics is messy and has always been messy. A person who is trying to be fair-minded will realize this.

 

Obama did. It's a big reason why he won. :)

Uhh . . . Obama realized that poliics is messy? What does that have to do with the point I was trying to make about our discussion? . . . .


Eh, well, since you're bringing it up, I guess I'll talk about it: Sure, I'll definitely admit that Obama was a fairly classy guy in this election. Obama's temperment generally seems like one that is patient and willing to listen to people and that's certainly a great thing for this country to have in a President (he made McCain look like an idiot in this regard). Of course, the friends and allies he's chosen to have in the past are easily questionable, and his supported policies suck nasty, dirty cock, but I'll give you the fact that he seems like a guy who at least tries to be wise and careful. I'm glad that led him to run a very clean campaign (for his part). :)

Hmm, he was a very smart guy and great author of sensational-style fiction. He could make technical topics very entertaining through his neat stories (though he did make them a little simplified sometimes). This is sad.

Nanner Split said:

This may very well be the single greatest post ever posted on the interbutt.

Hehe, interbutt.

I probably went overboard there with Negative One, but I seriously wanted to point out to him how facile and insulting his logic was. People deserve more respect than that. I don't think he understood what my message was at all, though. :-\

MeBeJedi said:

I just don't see one ounce of evidence that anyone in the mainstream is knowingly trying to deceive anyone for political gain. (I could be wrong, but I don't see a single, substantial reason as to why that would be.)

 

Winning an election comes to mind...

"Winning an election" is why I wouldn't see evidence? . . . Hmm, I don't get the logic there.

MeBeJedi said:

 

Obama and his supporters respond with offense! Guy needs to grow some skin if he is going to be president. It is only his middle name!

 

It has nothing to do with whether or not Obama can "shake it off". it simply illustrates the low levels that Republicans will stoop to in order to win a presidential campaign. Obama's not going to change his name, but Republicans should consider changing their practices if they want to win future elections. Even Ed Rollins, an ardent McCain backer, has said the Republicans have a loooooong history of such political practices. Several states have had phone calls and fliers targeted to Democrats telling them that they are supposed to vote on Nov. 5, instead of Nov. 4. Imagine that - wanting to disenfranchise huge numbers of Americans from even voting.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/04/obama-supporters-targeted-in-bogus-messages/

 

And as to the party, itself, doing this:

 

As we conclude, I thought it was interesting, in your report, Republican officials, as you said, challenging 6,000 registered voters, among them a former Montana state rep., Kevin Furey, a first lieutenant in the Army Reserve, on the challenge list because he’s currently in New Jersey planning to deploy to Iraq. His quote: “It’s ironic, at the same time I’m about to return to Iraq to help build a democracy, that my own right to vote is being challenged at home for partisan purposes. These challenges are a blatant and offensive attempt to suppress the rights of voters.”

 

if you want folks to stop talking about the Republican tactics, then maybe someone needs to tell the Republicans to stop using such tactics. Seems the better idea, don'cha think?

Yes, a few, rare, low-level Republicans do shitty things when nobody's looking. But, does MeBeJedi believe that every last low-level Democrat is a perfect little Sunday school student by comparison? Don't make me laugh (just a warning).

Politics is messy and has always been messy. A person who is trying to be fair-minded will realize this.

Janskeet said:

I love it how our country is so against wellfare for the poor (good forbid we help anybody in need) but when it comes for welfare for the rich, hey, we're all for it!! They deserve to be put on a pedastal cause "they create jobs".

This "country" does not support welfare for the rich. Allowing them to keep money they legitimately earn is fine, but that's not welfare.

Whenever I think your ability to be stupid has been exhausted, Janskreet, you somehow manage to sink your mind even lower. For the sake of not looking like an asshole, perhaps you should stop trying to think about politics altogether. You obviously have no fucking clue what you're ever talking about and you run away, like a coward, from every intellectual challenge you receive. In my opinion that's just not working for you. :)


Oh, and weren't you the little asshole who was recently complaining about the United States controlling most of the worlds wealth, Janskreet? Only a hypocritical piece of shit would then immediately switch to complain about American companies employing foreign individuals. The best way to help the rest of the world is to give it jobs and work with it. Now, as a conservative, I am apposed to the United States giving away jobs to bad countries when the United States should get support by comparison, but if you're an idiot that thinks all countries and cultures are equal in every way, you have no fucking right to complain about the outsourcing of jobs.

Michigan is one of the worst run states in the union. Democrats have continually tried to crush the ability of people to get ahead and build wealth there. Apart from the fact that Michael Moore's movies are, in the end, complete lies, the best way to help an economy that is losing jobs is to let new businesses grow in place of the old. Traditional Democrats don't like new businesses and a growing economy, however, and prefer to keep everyone down so they can hand out welfare to those who do no work at all. That's a far bigger crime than GM trying to keep their business competive by employing foreign labor. If you can't realize such a simple fact, then you are a brainless fool that isn't worth talking to. You seemed like a nice person otherwise (in Star Wars discussions and such), but if you can't engage in even simple discussions about politics, you're hopeless.


For the sake of the United States, I hope Barack Obama tries to bring us back to the sound fiscal policies of Ronald Reagan. Under Bush we have moved away from those principles and that's the main reason why our economy is currently doing so poorly. I don't care what party is in office so long as we get back to doing the right things. I just have a fear that Barack is going to make things worse though (on the basis of what he says he wants to do).

sean wookie said:

I hope that bigoted proposal 8 in California fails.

Which "bigoted" proposal and why do you hope it fails? :)

Jay said:

"HD cams" typically refers to digital video cameras. As I said after the sentence you quoted, film has a higher resolution than the HD standard (assuming we're talking about 35mm).

I guess that makes sense. And, yeah, I was referring to 35mm.

Hmm, for me the most striking difference between "HD cams" and traditional film cameras would be the way the image is captured and the resulting differences in the look of everything. (That probably has to do with some electrically manipulated surface inside "digitial" cameras that I've not looked into.) The look of digital images often has a slight, plastic look to everything that is odd.

In George Lucas' mind, a classic can be rewritten and still considered a classic.

Janskeet said:

Keith Olberman had a great segment on today stating how if Barak Obama had all the freudian slips McCain has had, nobody would still consider him a legitimate candidate.

Keith Olberman is consistently one of the most unbalanced and ridiculous people I am aware of in our nation's mainstream news media. How he can be considered a legitimate newsperson is beyond me. In this particular instance, he's obviously ignoring all of the "slips" that Obama has made.

Jay said:

You're naiive.

There are plenty of idiots who think Obama is a Muslim terrorist trying to infiltrate the White House simply because he's dark-skinned and has a foreign-sounding name, so speakers emphasize that middle name strongly and repeatedly at their froth-mouthed rallies because they want to illicit an irrational response from the fearful, angry red sheep. Take a speechmaking/communications course and then watch these people and how they address the crowds. Listen to their words and how they attack the man; it's rarely based on his policies. The focus is on Obama being a friend of terrorists, a big question mark, a socialist, a Marxist, an unpatriotic man who is against America and its ideals. It's right in your face whether you choose to see it or not.

McCain has run one of the lowest, most desperate campaigns in the history of presidential elections by adopting the same tactics of misinformation and fear used by Bush, and with any luck, he'll be rewarded properly once all the votes are tallied.

In my mind I'm not being naive, but as accurate as I can be. To that end, I have already been considering the fact that this country is filled with fools that allow themselves to believe silly nonsense. I just don't see one ounce of evidence that anyone in the mainstream is knowingly trying to deceive anyone for political gain. (I could be wrong, but I don't see a single, substantial reason as to why that would be.)

First, as far as I have seen, most Republican leaders and conservative leaders have been avoiding and discouraging people from attacking Obama over his middle name (not clearly, of course, but it's not as if they're out to defend Obama either). The mainstream groups of people who are mentioning "Hussein" (at rallies or in arguments that support McCain) are ones that believe it's a winning approach because they actually think it's relevant. I believe that's unfair, stupid, and often nasty on their part, but as far as I can tell those people are sincere and aren't trying to lie to anyone.

What I am certain you have been seeing from the mainstream supporters of John McCain (and attributing dark, conspiratorial intentions to) is genuine, out-in-the-open distrust and dislike. They blow the issue of Obama's name way out of proportion for the sake of other concerns that are legitimate by comparison. For instance, from a purely objective standpoint, Obama's name betrays a heritage and upbringing that might contain values that are foreign to a lot of Americans and many, in light of the fact that they are apposed to him, will naturally twist that for the sake of politics. As an obvious result, in their minds, small fears become certain threats and mysterious pasts become the possibility of dark plans to "enslave" America. There's nothing more to it than this, really. For the most part these people are rational human beings, but they have parts of themselves which go crazy from time to time (which we all do).

Otherwise, the true kooks of our society are too insignificant and too disconnected. There's nothing to be gained by manipulating such a statistically irrelevant portion of the undecided electorate when they already come to their crazy conclusions without politicians pushing them there like cattle. In other words, those who are totally into the "Hussein" issue are paranoid people in the first place that will generally find sources of information that match their fears all on their own. Most of them are already in line with "right-wingers" or "conservatives" (assuming they're not so crazy and fearful that they won't even vote at all). The few, remaining, "Hussein" kooks in our society that would have otherwise been "undecided" are an incredibly tiny portion and not worth worrying about.


A truthful concern must be based upon evidence and I think you're showing me that not very concerned with evidence when you don't want to be. While McCain has definitely run one of the most dumbed-down campaigns that I can remember (partly because he's so dumb himself), it has not been "one of the lowest, most desperate campaigns in the history of presidential elections" as you say. That statement is one that is very ignorant of American history and rather unfair to John McCain (who has generally given Obama a lot of respect when not voicing genuine concerns regarding "judgement" as he would call it). However, because you appose John McCain, it becomes clear as to why you'd claim something so far-fetched: you actively try to see the worst of intentions and desires in the guy apposed to your guy. Likewise, I think we can conclude that you're seeing evil lies coming from diabolical people (when there's no evidence of that), because you want to distrust and malign people you disagree with. All people make this kind of mistake all the time and you shouldn't be so quick to distrust people who are, in reality, being motivated by similar fears and dislikes.


Anyways, the scariest lies in society are not the ones that come from and affect the fringe of the arguments in our minds or the people on the fringe of society. They are the ones that people speak openly as primary concerns and the ones that motivate large groups of people to support horrible injustices. Lies supporting irrational, class warfare and other behaviors that hurt the innocent come to my mind first. I don't see any fear generated by Obama's name rising to that level of threat anytime soon. At most it's a piece of nonsense that complicates clear thinking and I mostly appose it on that basis.

I'm not sure why Obama hasn't more clearly fought to dispell the nonsense surrounding his name more soundly. Generally, one thing that's better about him than McCain is his slightly greater willingness to openly talk about issues and take things on directly. However, strangely, when it comes to his name and his upbringing, he goes out of his way to hide them both. He's obviously afraid that people will be swayed negatively by an open discussion of these things and that really bugs me. It shows that when he doesn't have talking points being fed to him, he's a man that is just as intellectually clumsy and fearful as McCain if not even more so.

Oh, about the spending topic, I don't know what C3PX would say, but I'm guessing he doesn't like all of the spending our country is diverting for political elections. I don't think he has a problem with one political candidate legitimately accumulating more support than another.

MeBeJedi said:

You go right on ahead and plead ignorance, but the Republcans are trying to smear Obama in any way possible,

People smear George W. Bush in lots of illegitimate ways as well. But that doesn't mean that everyone who attacks Bush is an idiot. It's just the nasty way politics works. The use of Obama's middle name doesn't mean there's an official Republican strategy, some dark conspiracy, or a specific intent to mislead people by specifically mentioning his middle name. The few people I've heard talk about Obama's name have doen so because they believe it is a legitimate issue (I believe they're being illogical and silly, but that's their belief). You have no proof of anything other than misspeach, stupidity, and nastiness.

And the "Osama" thing is the most ridiculous part of your conspiracy theory. It's so far-fetched that its not worth even talking about any further. Nobody would use that as a deliberate strategy to affect dumb "joe-six-packs." Might as well believe that Obama's parents were the key planners of your conspiracy if that's the case (they gave him his name). Heh, and that Ted Kennedy was the willing point man (for the most memorable audio clip).

Jay said:

The films weren't shot with HD cams; they were shot on Super35.

Hmm, I consider Super35 HD, since it has a highly defined image that is even above the 1080 pixel standard (and the lower, 780 standard is also called HD). Do people define it as not being "high definition" because they wish to reserve that term for digital mediums?

MeBeJedi said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwpfdbbrsvM

 

Here's a simple Youtube search for "Obama Hussein". Notice how most of the videos are targeted against him. Interesting that they use the name "Hussein", even though "Barack Obama" (or simply one or the other) would be more than enough info to make it clear who they are referring to.

 

But no...."Hussein" keeps popping up, as if it's a clue to something nefarious...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YaRpx3LphI&feature=related

Kennedy's is much better, instead of just half a syllable (like Romney) he practically calls him the full "Osama Bin Laden."


But, uh, yes, your main point about the nefarious, underhanded tricks of people like Romney is now well proven. ;)

otherwise, I don't like the attacking Obama on his middle name thing, but I understand why some political types might do that. Politics is messy. If Obama is bad on the issues in their mind, of course they'll be suspicious of things involving such an odd name.

LordVader said:

I'm sure the movie was shot in HD

Hmm, you just might be right about that. ;)


For me, Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies would be fun to have on Blu-ray, but they're not so wonderful that I'm really looking forward to them. (The books could have been translated to film in far, far better ways.) With all the money they're bound to make, however, I'm sure that they've been planning to release them on Blu-ray for a while now, the question is what timetable they've decided on. For that I have no clue.

I haven't heard anyone call Obama by the name Osama except for Ted Kennedy. :)

negative1 said:

 by the way, i've started a original trilogy restoration board, where there is no bashing,

cursing, etc........ just discussion only, it's just starting, but it's got a different vibe going on..

No bashing? Did negative one ban himself from posting altogether? How selfless that would be! :)

ferris209 said:

Guys, I didn't begin this thread to have a pissing match about previous versions of Windows, I simply wanted to have some discussion about the upcoming Windows 7. Windows ME was a dog IMHO, but if it works for C3PX, who the hell cares, he's happy! My only complaint on this thread is that Windows 7 should be an SP of Vista, outside of that I don't give one iota of a damn about XP vs. ME or ME vs. 98 or 3.1 vs. 1.0!! Let's talk about Windows 7!!!

That Windows "peek" feature is worth waiting for. If they incorporate that into Vista's second service pack I'll get Vista, but otherwise I might just be waiting. Since they're saying that Windows 7 requires so many programmers, I'm guessing Vista runs too differently for it to be turned into Windows 7 in every sense. Peek should be easy though. I want to peek.

Janskeet said:

. . . we need reform in washington and only Obama has the determination to make it happen.
. . . he is the best chance we got.

Poor, poor Janskreet. :)

As I try to say, George Lucas had a lot of good, talented people helping him with Star Wars and the OT as a whole (Ralph McQuarrie comes to mind). Part of his problem is the way he's tried to overshadow their work and glorify himself by comparison. The other part is how he has tried to dismiss and destroy what others have done.

That said, Lucas was more talented in his younger years, just not as much as people say. There was a mix of many factors. Star Wars was a success of luck more than anything.