iApache
Oct 25, 09:53 PM
^ Thank you very much!
michaellinehan
Nov 12, 03:23 PM
"...clearly showing his preference for an open system unfettered by reviewers deciding what may and may not be included on the iPhone platform."
I think if you asked most of the population, the vast majority would find it 100% reasonable and appropriate that any retail company, in any business sector, decides what they will or won't sell in their store - be it WalMart, The Gap, Starbucks, or your local corner grocery store. Apples retail store is just that... a retail store --- and the norms of business retail don't go away, to be replaced by a magical la-la land where people get to do whatever they want.
I think if you asked most of the population, the vast majority would find it 100% reasonable and appropriate that any retail company, in any business sector, decides what they will or won't sell in their store - be it WalMart, The Gap, Starbucks, or your local corner grocery store. Apples retail store is just that... a retail store --- and the norms of business retail don't go away, to be replaced by a magical la-la land where people get to do whatever they want.
stcanard
Jul 23, 12:38 AM
i think i would rather read a paperback
wouldnt the screen strain the eyes?
I used to think that, but then I started using my old (now deceased) Kyocera 7135 smartphone to read books. Smaller screen than the iPod, not as high resolution. At one point I read Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire in a single weekend on it, with absolutely no feelings of eye strain. It's not an issue any more.
I found when reading on a smart phone I actually preferred it over a paperback -- easier to hold open (so I could sip my coffee), no worries about losing the page, backlight meant that I could read on the bus in the morning on the way to work, or other places where lighting wasn't always convenient.
Additionally I found I read more, because I always had several books with me, and they were always handy -- standing in a supermarket lineup, I could pull it out and read 2 or 3 pages while waiting.
These days I've even experimented with using j2me to read books on my T610. Not as comfy as the Kyocera, but again no issues with eye strain.
If the T610 is readable, the iPod will be no problem...
wouldnt the screen strain the eyes?
I used to think that, but then I started using my old (now deceased) Kyocera 7135 smartphone to read books. Smaller screen than the iPod, not as high resolution. At one point I read Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire in a single weekend on it, with absolutely no feelings of eye strain. It's not an issue any more.
I found when reading on a smart phone I actually preferred it over a paperback -- easier to hold open (so I could sip my coffee), no worries about losing the page, backlight meant that I could read on the bus in the morning on the way to work, or other places where lighting wasn't always convenient.
Additionally I found I read more, because I always had several books with me, and they were always handy -- standing in a supermarket lineup, I could pull it out and read 2 or 3 pages while waiting.
These days I've even experimented with using j2me to read books on my T610. Not as comfy as the Kyocera, but again no issues with eye strain.
If the T610 is readable, the iPod will be no problem...
Lau
Sep 4, 08:00 AM
This is rather cool. I've put my iPod on eBay, to finish on Sunday 10th, because I'm thinking of getting a Nano, but as it happens it's rather good timing, both to get a good price for it, and for me getting a Nano. First time ever it's worked out like this — a rumour for something I'm getting, so I can be excited about Tuesday. :D
And if I don't like the new ones, there's always refurbs. :)
And if I don't like the new ones, there's always refurbs. :)
SactoGuy18
Sep 12, 05:30 PM
Great update for these. The aluminum is much more durable on iPods. My wife's mini was great!......now we'll have to get one of these :)
When I saw the official pictures the new iPod Nano does look like a reduced-size iPod Mini. :)
But here's the question though: when we see protective cases for the new Nano? :confused:
When I saw the official pictures the new iPod Nano does look like a reduced-size iPod Mini. :)
But here's the question though: when we see protective cases for the new Nano? :confused:
furi0usbee
Nov 24, 01:23 PM
Her Majesty... off Abbey Road. The entire song is up as the iTunes clips are longer than the track. So if you want, hijack the audio and get a FREE song.... or do it in about a million other ways. I wonder what the sales for Her Majesty are????
kwajo.com
Sep 6, 10:13 AM
And you will still have people saying that isn't enough....
it isn't, I have 4GB now and I still get tons of pageouts by the end of the work day :p
it isn't, I have 4GB now and I still get tons of pageouts by the end of the work day :p
SilentPanda
Aug 24, 05:43 PM
Yeah, my A1078 battery from my 15" PB with serial 3K509 clearly lies in the problematic range (3K425 - 3K601) but is not being accepted by the web application... I'm gonna call Apple support tomorrow instead cause it looks like a buggy web app to me.
I was already on the phone with Apple and they said the page is bogged down and to give it some time to cool off. My battery was in the range, Apple told me it was, and the app still doesn't work. Save some time and try again tomorrow or later tonight when people should be asleep.
I was already on the phone with Apple and they said the page is bogged down and to give it some time to cool off. My battery was in the range, Apple told me it was, and the app still doesn't work. Save some time and try again tomorrow or later tonight when people should be asleep.
dstrauss
Mar 28, 01:16 PM
Great, another store that carries iPad 2 but won't ever have any in stock. LOL.
Unfortunately I think 80% of iPad 2 supply is going to scalpers and resellers, the moment Apple stores get them in stock they sell out and craigslist is then flooded with heavily marked up iPads. It's kind of ridiculous.
On a related note, isn't it a bit weird Apple hasn't announced any sales figures yet? They're usually quick to brag when devices hit a million sales in a short amount of time.
The ONLY way to stop this would be an in-store activiation requirement - no more "New in Box - Unopened" sales and then they'd also have to deal with the warranty switch-over.
Unfortunately I think 80% of iPad 2 supply is going to scalpers and resellers, the moment Apple stores get them in stock they sell out and craigslist is then flooded with heavily marked up iPads. It's kind of ridiculous.
On a related note, isn't it a bit weird Apple hasn't announced any sales figures yet? They're usually quick to brag when devices hit a million sales in a short amount of time.
The ONLY way to stop this would be an in-store activiation requirement - no more "New in Box - Unopened" sales and then they'd also have to deal with the warranty switch-over.
Gibson424
Sep 12, 04:42 PM
not sure if anyone else has touched on this, but did anyone notice that music videos are gone?
jdylan
Mar 14, 12:22 AM
and P.S. - Apple, your laptop line is already to expensive. :eek: Don't release a consumer product that only rich companies can buy. :(
Wow, I'm a rich company? And all this time I was thinking I'm a poor art school graduate! Gee, I wonder if I qualify for corporate welfare? I mean, I've bought MBP's and PowerBooks since they first came out...
Wow, I'm a rich company? And all this time I was thinking I'm a poor art school graduate! Gee, I wonder if I qualify for corporate welfare? I mean, I've bought MBP's and PowerBooks since they first came out...
shecky
Jan 11, 12:02 PM
If this is the theme this year then it looks like wireless is the main product announcements..
agreed, but thats why i am very very interested in the typeface. the thin (notably thin) typeface suggests something beyond just the obvious "wireless stuff" connotations of the wording. if that phrase was set in the normal Myriad Pro weight thats one thing, to me this says more than just that.
but then again i am a designer and clearly have a fetishistic relationship with typography. so i may be wishfully thinking. :)
agreed, but thats why i am very very interested in the typeface. the thin (notably thin) typeface suggests something beyond just the obvious "wireless stuff" connotations of the wording. if that phrase was set in the normal Myriad Pro weight thats one thing, to me this says more than just that.
but then again i am a designer and clearly have a fetishistic relationship with typography. so i may be wishfully thinking. :)
JAT
May 5, 10:15 AM
well considering the CFO of verizon said the unlimited data plans were not a long term solution, yeah it's pretty feasible to think that they won't keep it around forever.
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19512_7-20037878-233.html#ixzz1LUNQ3O00
So...are you on VZW? Do you actually have a care in this matter, or is it just another way to rant on others?
AT&T still has people on $30 unlimited because they are grandfathered in. So will VZW, if they actually change the plans.
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19512_7-20037878-233.html#ixzz1LUNQ3O00
So...are you on VZW? Do you actually have a care in this matter, or is it just another way to rant on others?
AT&T still has people on $30 unlimited because they are grandfathered in. So will VZW, if they actually change the plans.
sidewinder
Nov 13, 12:29 PM
I'm seriously amazed that ANYONE is defending Apple here.
w00master
Have you not understood a single post discussing the merits of Apple approving apps? The simple fact is that it is a good idea. Apple's execution is somewhat flawed and could certainly be improved.
S-
w00master
Have you not understood a single post discussing the merits of Apple approving apps? The simple fact is that it is a good idea. Apple's execution is somewhat flawed and could certainly be improved.
S-
bmb012
May 5, 01:03 AM
I don't get the "3D" screen thing???? My regular 1080p TV can play a 3d Movie just fine. The 3D software shared here on MacRumors didn't have any special screen... what the heck would Apple do to make it a 3D screen?
I say "false".
Have you not heard of Nintendo's 3DS...??
Here's why it's really false. The parallax barrier would have to either be vertical or horizontal. Unless there's tech that works both ways, and even if there was, switching orientations would make everything all blurry.
Oh, and putting your fingers on the 3d would mess with it. Smudges show up far worse on a 3D screen, and iPad doesn't have buttons like the 3DS, so it would either be tilt or 3D, not both (kinda like the 3DS is AR or 3D, not both, but there's enough control schemes there that don't mess with the 3D.
I say "false".
Have you not heard of Nintendo's 3DS...??
Here's why it's really false. The parallax barrier would have to either be vertical or horizontal. Unless there's tech that works both ways, and even if there was, switching orientations would make everything all blurry.
Oh, and putting your fingers on the 3d would mess with it. Smudges show up far worse on a 3D screen, and iPad doesn't have buttons like the 3DS, so it would either be tilt or 3D, not both (kinda like the 3DS is AR or 3D, not both, but there's enough control schemes there that don't mess with the 3D.
mrochester
Apr 17, 02:01 AM
How. Many. Full. Stops. Do. They. Want. To. Cram. Into. One. Advert? Have they ever heard of the comma? It's this really useful little squiggle that can be used to separate items in a list.
BRLawyer
Mar 11, 04:02 PM
I just bought a Macbook Pro literally 5 minutes ago. I've been waiting for months and I finally gave up. After the order was completed, I thought I'd check macrumors just for laughs and the first thing I saw was, "new macbook pros tomorrow?" :(
Relax and enjoy your machine...at most, it's gonna be a speed bump and some new ports, nothing else...not to mention that so far, only hoaxes have published around. I figure Apple is gonna take a while to launch the new MBPs this time...
Relax and enjoy your machine...at most, it's gonna be a speed bump and some new ports, nothing else...not to mention that so far, only hoaxes have published around. I figure Apple is gonna take a while to launch the new MBPs this time...
boss.king
May 4, 11:35 PM
Not interested in this. It's not really any more convenient to do this OTA. Just plug your phone in for 10 mins and install it in the evening. I could maybe see this working over Wi-Fi but for a lot of places this would destroy peoples data caps.
kpbpsw
Nov 4, 06:07 PM
We need to get developers to use open standards and flash is not!
Besides flash being a processor hog (bad code especially on the Mac) it is bad for search engines, it is bad for web standards, it is bad for design.
At one time it was the only way to get rich media and non-refresh dynamic content on the web. Now there are much better lower overhead, open, web standards based ways of doing this. Flash should go away!
Apple taking a stand against flash is good. All the internet needs now is a open standard video codec!
What we all need to do is educate / demand that web developers / sited eliminate flash and use open standards.
Personally I do not use sites that require flash for operability - one of my favorite hotel chains "upgraded" their site to a flash based reservation system - it looks great but is slow and un-reliable, - so I stopped staying there and emailed them telling them they lost a customer due to their bad flash based reservation system!
I disagree that people don't care about flash players. Plenty of sites out there use flash extensively and do not offer a non-flash version. Adding adobe flash capability to the iphone would make it that much better in my opinion. Just because apple doesn't want it, doesn't mean it's not useful. I for one believe that apple "sometimes" listens to it's users, and if enough people complain, apple will react. Think apps for the iphone (remember apple's stand, it's an ipod, not a computer), cut/paste and push service. Background apps seem to be the next barrier to be broken, why not flash?
As far as adobe and MS "holding back" web progression, the whole point of flash is that it is a tool that makes highly interactive media sites easier to accomplish.
Besides flash being a processor hog (bad code especially on the Mac) it is bad for search engines, it is bad for web standards, it is bad for design.
At one time it was the only way to get rich media and non-refresh dynamic content on the web. Now there are much better lower overhead, open, web standards based ways of doing this. Flash should go away!
Apple taking a stand against flash is good. All the internet needs now is a open standard video codec!
What we all need to do is educate / demand that web developers / sited eliminate flash and use open standards.
Personally I do not use sites that require flash for operability - one of my favorite hotel chains "upgraded" their site to a flash based reservation system - it looks great but is slow and un-reliable, - so I stopped staying there and emailed them telling them they lost a customer due to their bad flash based reservation system!
I disagree that people don't care about flash players. Plenty of sites out there use flash extensively and do not offer a non-flash version. Adding adobe flash capability to the iphone would make it that much better in my opinion. Just because apple doesn't want it, doesn't mean it's not useful. I for one believe that apple "sometimes" listens to it's users, and if enough people complain, apple will react. Think apps for the iphone (remember apple's stand, it's an ipod, not a computer), cut/paste and push service. Background apps seem to be the next barrier to be broken, why not flash?
As far as adobe and MS "holding back" web progression, the whole point of flash is that it is a tool that makes highly interactive media sites easier to accomplish.
MrCrowbar
Oct 28, 07:03 PM
so if u have 3 screws, that means it was serviced
my 2 macbook for business came out of the box with 3 screws so would that indicate that they serviced that macbooks before they were shipped to me
LOL. YOu fell fgor it. Awesome :D
my 2 macbook for business came out of the box with 3 screws so would that indicate that they serviced that macbooks before they were shipped to me
LOL. YOu fell fgor it. Awesome :D
fivepoint
Mar 10, 06:22 PM
While Democrats and Republicans bicker back and forth about whether to 'cut' 6 billion or 60 billion, there are a few lone voices in the legislature that actually realize the problem, and are actually willing to talk about it. Rand Paul is one of these voices and he gave a great speech yesterday which I think addresses the problems far more clearly than you'll get from any Elephant or Donkey on the hill. Take a moment and read it through. Many of you don't realize just how bad the problem is, but it's not necessarily your fault. There aren't many leaders out there that are willing to be so blunt and honest about the situation and to openly admit that neither side is trying hard enough to fix it.
Listen Democrats, listen Republicans... It's NOT Enough! 6 billion isn't enough, 60 billion isn't enough, heck, even 600 billion isn't enough. We've got to cut entitlements, we've got to cut military, nothing is sacred. We must work harder, we must cut more, we must reconsider the scope of government and put ourselves back on a path towards fiscal sanity.
Watch It:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMqcLQzD-aA
Read It:
We are discussing and debating two different alternatives, one from the other side of the aisle and one from our side, about what we should do about the budget deficit.
We have projected a $1.65 trillion deficit in the next year.
I think both alternatives are inadequate and do not significantly alter or change our course. On the Democrat side, we have a proposal to cut about $5 billion to $6 billion for the rest of the year. To put that in perspective, we borrow $4 billion a day.
So the other side is offering up cuts equal to one day’s borrowing.
I think it’s insignificant and it will not alter the coming and looming debt crisis that we face.
Now, on our side of the aisle, I think we have done more, the cuts are more significant, but they also pale in comparison to the problem.
If we were to adopt the president’s approach, we would have $1.65 trillion deficit in one year. If we were to adopt our approach, we’re going to have a $1.55 trillion deficit in one year. I think both approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that’s coming.
Now, it’s interesting when we talk about cuts, everybody seems to be giddy around here, saying this is the first time we have talked about cuts.
Well, it is better and it sounds good, but guess what? We’re not even really cutting spending. What we’re talking about is cutting the rate of increase of spending. The base line of spending is going to go up 7.3 % according to the CBO.
We’re talking about reducing that increase to 6.7% increase. We’re talking about cutting the rate of increase of government. The problem is it’s not enough.
Our deficit is growing by leaps and bounds. Our national debt is $14 trillion. Our national debt is now equal to our entire economy. Our gross domestic product equals our national debt.
The president, I think, is tone deaf on this.
We had an election, and in the election, the people said we’re concerned about out-of-control spending, we’re concerned about massive deficits, we’re concerned about passing this debt on to our kids and our grandkids.
The president recently proposed a 10-year budget, a 10-year plan for spending. He proposes that we spend $46 trillion. That means they aren’t getting it.
You have – in Washington, official Washington is not getting what the people are saying, and they’re not getting how profound the problems are.
Spending $46 trillion?
The president’s plan will add $13 trillion to the debt, and the Republicans say ‘oh, well ours is a lot better.’ Theirs will add $12 trillion to the debt.
I think it’s out of control, and neither plan will do anything to significantly alter things.
We’re spending $10 billion a day.
In order to reform things, in order to change things around here, we will have to come to grips with the idea of what should government be doing, what are the constitutional functions of government, what were the enumerated powers of the Constitution, what powers did the Constitution give to the federal government, and then examine what we’re actually doing. What are we spending money on that’s not constitutional or shouldn’t be done here or should be left to the states and the people respectively?
Once upon a time, our side believed that education was a function of the states and the localities. It’s not mentioned in the Constitution that the federal government should have anything to do with education.
Does that mean we’re opposed to education? No, we just think it should be done at a state and a local level.
Ronald Reagan was a champion of eliminating the Department of Education. It was part of the Republican Party platform for 20 years. But then we got in charge after the year 2000, and we doubled the size of the Department of Education.
If you are serious about balancing the budget, if you are serious about the debt, you have to look at taking departments like the Department of Education and sending it back to the states and the localities.
You have to look at programs that are growing by leaps and bounds like Medicaid and food stamps, cap them, block-grant them and send them back to the states. The states can manage these things better. The more close they are to the people, the better managed they will be.
The other compromise that needs to occur – and this is something our side needs to compromise on.
Our side has blindly said that the military should get anything it wants, and it’s a blank check.
What do you want? Here it is. We have increased military spending by 120% since 2001. We have doubled military spending.
Now, I’m for a strong national defense. I believe that it is a constitutional function of the federal government to provide for our national defense. I think it is the pre-eminent power, the pre-eminent enumerated power, the thing we should be doing here. But even that being said, we cannot every eight years double the Defense Department, double the military spending.
It’s also ultimately the compromise.
Within the space after few years, everyone here will come to an agreement, not because we want to but because we’re forced to by the events and by the drama of the debt crisis. It will come. It’s come to other nations.
When it comes to us, the compromise that both sides of the aisle will have to work out is, the other side of the aisle will have to admit we cannot have enormous domestic spending, and our side of the aisle will have to admit that we can’t give a blank check to the military.
We will also have to look at entitlements. Everyone’s afraid to say how we reform entitlements, but there are two inescapable facts with entitlements: We’re living longer, and there is a lot of people that were born after World War II that are getting ready to retire. These are inescapable demographic facts. We have to address them. If we simply do nothing, if we do not address the entitlements, within a decade, entitlements will account for the entire budget and interest. There will be no money left for anything.
So right now, the argument is about all these other programs. There will be no money left for any of these programs if we do nothing.
It’s going to take both sides of the aisle grappling with this and admitting that the rules and eligibility will have to change for Social Security, and likely for Medicare.
If you do it now, you can do it gradually. If you start now, you can gradually let the age rise for Medicare and Social Security for those 55 and under. If you do it gradually. I think young people have already acknowledged this is going to happen.
You ask young people anywhere across America, ‘do you think you’re going to have Social Security when you retire? Do you think you’re going to get it at 67?’
Most young people acknowledge that it’s broken, it’s broken so badly that the only way we fix it and the only way it can continue is we have to look at the eligibility.
But so many people have said ‘oh, we can’t talk about entitlement. You will be unelected, you will be unelectable if you talk about entitlement reform.’
The president still makes this mistake. He will not lead us. He will not talk and give a leadership role to entitlement reform. Someone must do it. We must stand up and be bold because the longer these problems fester, the longer we allow them to accumulate, the bigger the problems become. The more dramatic the answers must be.
If you look at Greece and these other nations that have faced debt crises, their problem came to a head all of a sudden and they changed the age on Social Security like that.
If we want to do it gradually and let people plan for their future, you need to start now before we enter into a crisis. My problem with the discussion and the debate at this point is that I don’t think either side recognizes the enormity of the problem or the imminence of the problem.
Even people who would be considered to be those of the mainstream – the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says 50% of chance that there will be some kind of monetary problems, significant monetary problems, even to the point of crisis in the next few years.
Many people have said Japan is locked in crisis, that crisis is coming because of the debt that they’ve accumulated.
When that comes to America, do we want to have government by crisis?
Already we can’t even pass a budget. We can’t pass appropriations bills. Our bills do not even go to the committees anymore. They just come to the floor and we put a patchwork quilt on them and there’s a chance this ends up being two more weeks. It is not the way you should run government.
If you want to have a significant plan for changing things, send things through the committee. If you want to have a realistic way of running government, have appropriations bills.
If you want to be someone who believes in good, responsible government, for goodness sakes, pass a budget. We didn’t pass a budget last year.
This chart shows how big the problem is. I wish I had a magnifying glass because that’s the only way you could see the other side’s proposal: $6 billion in cuts. It’s one day’s borrowing. It’s not even one day’s spending that they’re talking about. It’s insignificant, it’s inconsequential, and it will do nothing to delay or alter the looming debt crisis.
Look at the other proposal from our side.
It’s bigger – you can actually see it without a magnifying glass – but look how it is dwarfed by one year’s problem.
I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said, $500 billion is not enough and they’re right.
$500 billion is a third of one year’s problem.
Up here that’s way too bold, but it’s not even enough.
But we have to counterbalance and understand the alternatives here.
If we do nothing, all of the programs that people are so fond of, extolling and saying will be gone.
So I implore the American public and those here to look at this problem and say to Congress, we’re not doing enough; you must cut more.
Listen Democrats, listen Republicans... It's NOT Enough! 6 billion isn't enough, 60 billion isn't enough, heck, even 600 billion isn't enough. We've got to cut entitlements, we've got to cut military, nothing is sacred. We must work harder, we must cut more, we must reconsider the scope of government and put ourselves back on a path towards fiscal sanity.
Watch It:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMqcLQzD-aA
Read It:
We are discussing and debating two different alternatives, one from the other side of the aisle and one from our side, about what we should do about the budget deficit.
We have projected a $1.65 trillion deficit in the next year.
I think both alternatives are inadequate and do not significantly alter or change our course. On the Democrat side, we have a proposal to cut about $5 billion to $6 billion for the rest of the year. To put that in perspective, we borrow $4 billion a day.
So the other side is offering up cuts equal to one day’s borrowing.
I think it’s insignificant and it will not alter the coming and looming debt crisis that we face.
Now, on our side of the aisle, I think we have done more, the cuts are more significant, but they also pale in comparison to the problem.
If we were to adopt the president’s approach, we would have $1.65 trillion deficit in one year. If we were to adopt our approach, we’re going to have a $1.55 trillion deficit in one year. I think both approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that’s coming.
Now, it’s interesting when we talk about cuts, everybody seems to be giddy around here, saying this is the first time we have talked about cuts.
Well, it is better and it sounds good, but guess what? We’re not even really cutting spending. What we’re talking about is cutting the rate of increase of spending. The base line of spending is going to go up 7.3 % according to the CBO.
We’re talking about reducing that increase to 6.7% increase. We’re talking about cutting the rate of increase of government. The problem is it’s not enough.
Our deficit is growing by leaps and bounds. Our national debt is $14 trillion. Our national debt is now equal to our entire economy. Our gross domestic product equals our national debt.
The president, I think, is tone deaf on this.
We had an election, and in the election, the people said we’re concerned about out-of-control spending, we’re concerned about massive deficits, we’re concerned about passing this debt on to our kids and our grandkids.
The president recently proposed a 10-year budget, a 10-year plan for spending. He proposes that we spend $46 trillion. That means they aren’t getting it.
You have – in Washington, official Washington is not getting what the people are saying, and they’re not getting how profound the problems are.
Spending $46 trillion?
The president’s plan will add $13 trillion to the debt, and the Republicans say ‘oh, well ours is a lot better.’ Theirs will add $12 trillion to the debt.
I think it’s out of control, and neither plan will do anything to significantly alter things.
We’re spending $10 billion a day.
In order to reform things, in order to change things around here, we will have to come to grips with the idea of what should government be doing, what are the constitutional functions of government, what were the enumerated powers of the Constitution, what powers did the Constitution give to the federal government, and then examine what we’re actually doing. What are we spending money on that’s not constitutional or shouldn’t be done here or should be left to the states and the people respectively?
Once upon a time, our side believed that education was a function of the states and the localities. It’s not mentioned in the Constitution that the federal government should have anything to do with education.
Does that mean we’re opposed to education? No, we just think it should be done at a state and a local level.
Ronald Reagan was a champion of eliminating the Department of Education. It was part of the Republican Party platform for 20 years. But then we got in charge after the year 2000, and we doubled the size of the Department of Education.
If you are serious about balancing the budget, if you are serious about the debt, you have to look at taking departments like the Department of Education and sending it back to the states and the localities.
You have to look at programs that are growing by leaps and bounds like Medicaid and food stamps, cap them, block-grant them and send them back to the states. The states can manage these things better. The more close they are to the people, the better managed they will be.
The other compromise that needs to occur – and this is something our side needs to compromise on.
Our side has blindly said that the military should get anything it wants, and it’s a blank check.
What do you want? Here it is. We have increased military spending by 120% since 2001. We have doubled military spending.
Now, I’m for a strong national defense. I believe that it is a constitutional function of the federal government to provide for our national defense. I think it is the pre-eminent power, the pre-eminent enumerated power, the thing we should be doing here. But even that being said, we cannot every eight years double the Defense Department, double the military spending.
It’s also ultimately the compromise.
Within the space after few years, everyone here will come to an agreement, not because we want to but because we’re forced to by the events and by the drama of the debt crisis. It will come. It’s come to other nations.
When it comes to us, the compromise that both sides of the aisle will have to work out is, the other side of the aisle will have to admit we cannot have enormous domestic spending, and our side of the aisle will have to admit that we can’t give a blank check to the military.
We will also have to look at entitlements. Everyone’s afraid to say how we reform entitlements, but there are two inescapable facts with entitlements: We’re living longer, and there is a lot of people that were born after World War II that are getting ready to retire. These are inescapable demographic facts. We have to address them. If we simply do nothing, if we do not address the entitlements, within a decade, entitlements will account for the entire budget and interest. There will be no money left for anything.
So right now, the argument is about all these other programs. There will be no money left for any of these programs if we do nothing.
It’s going to take both sides of the aisle grappling with this and admitting that the rules and eligibility will have to change for Social Security, and likely for Medicare.
If you do it now, you can do it gradually. If you start now, you can gradually let the age rise for Medicare and Social Security for those 55 and under. If you do it gradually. I think young people have already acknowledged this is going to happen.
You ask young people anywhere across America, ‘do you think you’re going to have Social Security when you retire? Do you think you’re going to get it at 67?’
Most young people acknowledge that it’s broken, it’s broken so badly that the only way we fix it and the only way it can continue is we have to look at the eligibility.
But so many people have said ‘oh, we can’t talk about entitlement. You will be unelected, you will be unelectable if you talk about entitlement reform.’
The president still makes this mistake. He will not lead us. He will not talk and give a leadership role to entitlement reform. Someone must do it. We must stand up and be bold because the longer these problems fester, the longer we allow them to accumulate, the bigger the problems become. The more dramatic the answers must be.
If you look at Greece and these other nations that have faced debt crises, their problem came to a head all of a sudden and they changed the age on Social Security like that.
If we want to do it gradually and let people plan for their future, you need to start now before we enter into a crisis. My problem with the discussion and the debate at this point is that I don’t think either side recognizes the enormity of the problem or the imminence of the problem.
Even people who would be considered to be those of the mainstream – the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says 50% of chance that there will be some kind of monetary problems, significant monetary problems, even to the point of crisis in the next few years.
Many people have said Japan is locked in crisis, that crisis is coming because of the debt that they’ve accumulated.
When that comes to America, do we want to have government by crisis?
Already we can’t even pass a budget. We can’t pass appropriations bills. Our bills do not even go to the committees anymore. They just come to the floor and we put a patchwork quilt on them and there’s a chance this ends up being two more weeks. It is not the way you should run government.
If you want to have a significant plan for changing things, send things through the committee. If you want to have a realistic way of running government, have appropriations bills.
If you want to be someone who believes in good, responsible government, for goodness sakes, pass a budget. We didn’t pass a budget last year.
This chart shows how big the problem is. I wish I had a magnifying glass because that’s the only way you could see the other side’s proposal: $6 billion in cuts. It’s one day’s borrowing. It’s not even one day’s spending that they’re talking about. It’s insignificant, it’s inconsequential, and it will do nothing to delay or alter the looming debt crisis.
Look at the other proposal from our side.
It’s bigger – you can actually see it without a magnifying glass – but look how it is dwarfed by one year’s problem.
I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said, $500 billion is not enough and they’re right.
$500 billion is a third of one year’s problem.
Up here that’s way too bold, but it’s not even enough.
But we have to counterbalance and understand the alternatives here.
If we do nothing, all of the programs that people are so fond of, extolling and saying will be gone.
So I implore the American public and those here to look at this problem and say to Congress, we’re not doing enough; you must cut more.
MattSepeta
Mar 29, 03:42 PM
Yes I do. Just as I wouldn't stand idle if an individual near me were being mugged/robbed/attacked/raped, I do not feel my country should stand idle if innocent lives are at risk and it is in our power to save them.
I assume you enlisted then?
:rolleyes:
I have no problem with an individual wanting to help out someone who needs help. I DO have a problem with wanting your neighbor's son/daughter to do it FOR you, just because you feel it is the right thing to do. If you really, truly thought it was worth it, we should be reading about you on the news (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/15/american-hunting-osama-bin-laden-gun-detained-northern-pakistan/).
Otherwise, you are just another guy with some political leanings that has no problem sending our troops this way and that.
INB4 "blah blah blah iraq GWB blah blah blah"
-Against that one too, guys :rolleyes:
I assume you enlisted then?
:rolleyes:
I have no problem with an individual wanting to help out someone who needs help. I DO have a problem with wanting your neighbor's son/daughter to do it FOR you, just because you feel it is the right thing to do. If you really, truly thought it was worth it, we should be reading about you on the news (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/15/american-hunting-osama-bin-laden-gun-detained-northern-pakistan/).
Otherwise, you are just another guy with some political leanings that has no problem sending our troops this way and that.
INB4 "blah blah blah iraq GWB blah blah blah"
-Against that one too, guys :rolleyes:
Imhotep397
Jun 29, 01:13 PM
This is a play to get more of the millions and millions of people using iPhones and iPods and now iPads with Windoze to make the desktop switch. It's cool and should work well for that demographic if they can drop the price a bit. The big positive is that Apple has developed this technology to the point where their implementation on the desktop will be more intuitive and smooth operating than any of the Windoze solutions available.
I only wish if they did do something like this they wold incorporated pressure sensitivity as it would make it more useful for designers and open doors for other uses. I don't know whether Peratech has developed anything quite as sensitive as Wacom's technology, but they certainly seem to have developed something that could be useful for a lot of people. If QTC lives up to half of the hype the parent company should definitely be on Apple's acquisition radar.
Peratech (http://www.peratech.com/qtcapplications.php)
I only wish if they did do something like this they wold incorporated pressure sensitivity as it would make it more useful for designers and open doors for other uses. I don't know whether Peratech has developed anything quite as sensitive as Wacom's technology, but they certainly seem to have developed something that could be useful for a lot of people. If QTC lives up to half of the hype the parent company should definitely be on Apple's acquisition radar.
Peratech (http://www.peratech.com/qtcapplications.php)
swingerofbirch
Aug 7, 10:49 PM
I'm curious to know whether these Top Secret features have been excluded from the developer preview as well........
Would they purposefully give developers a beta with striped down features?
And if the point of not publicly releasing them is that they dont want Microsoft to copy the features but they DO include those features in the developer preview, I have to imagine that Microsoft will see those features as I assume it is an official Apple developer and would receive these materials!
Would they purposefully give developers a beta with striped down features?
And if the point of not publicly releasing them is that they dont want Microsoft to copy the features but they DO include those features in the developer preview, I have to imagine that Microsoft will see those features as I assume it is an official Apple developer and would receive these materials!
No comments:
Post a Comment