Big Bill Haywood's Open Thread

Is there a man (or woman) among us with pluck enough to wear this hero of the workingman's pants?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

So my HDD crapped out on me. Can't tell if

(#288951)

the problem is the file system (I can still get on the drive, but Windows won't boot, claims the registry's corrupted, claims boot.ini is missing), or the physical drive, but...

 

...I think I'm just going to buy a new drive and install a new OS. Any shopping advice? I don't need terabytes of space or tremendous speed or raid arrays...reliability & low noise would be at the top of my list. 500-750 GB or so. I do a little gaming, so that's about the most horsepower I'd need. Any brands to stay away from?

 

Also thinking of finally getting Windows 7. Upgrade or full? OEM or retail? 32 bit or 64? I believe I have a 64bit CPU, does the GPU have to be 64 bit as well?

 

Hank if I buy stuff through your website, do you win fabulous prizes?

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

OK

(#288998)
HankP's picture

First question, how old is the machine? I use 5 years as a rule of thumb for the lifetime of a machine, so if yours is > 3 years old you may want to think about getting a new one rather than putting money and effort into your existing one.

 

Secondly, how are you getting on the drive if windows won't boot? Are you using a linux boot disk? Because you may want to run a disk repair first to see if that will fix it. Even if you plan on replacing the drive it will make it easier to get your data and settings off the old one.

 

Drive reliability is a crap shoot. A few years ago WD had reliability problems, then they seemed to fix it and Seagate had problems, etc. In general most modern hard drives are very reliable. Do a backup frequently and it shouldn't affect you too badly if it does die.

 

The difference between OEM and retail versions is in the licensing - the OEM version is only supposed to be installed on a single machine, and the license can't be transferred. The retail version doesn't have that limitation. Both versions will ask to be re-activated if there's a certain amount of hardware changed, but that's more of an annoyance than a roadblock.

 

If you want Win7 64 bit you have to have a 64 bit CPU. Win7 32 bit will run on either a 64 or 32 bit CPU. Most CPUs have supported 64 bit for several years now, this is only an issue if you have an older machine. But if you do have an older machine, you may not want to run Win7 as it does require more horsepower for a decent experience than XP did. The major difference with a 64 bit OS is that it supports more than 4 Gb RAM, which may or may not be important to you. The GPU is almost certainly 64 bits or greater, it has no effect on the operating system. But if it's older or an off brand you may have difficulties getting a Win 7 64 bit driver for it.

 

So let me know how old the machine is, the make and model if you have it, and any other questions you may have.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Alrighty. I bought everything in spring 2009...

(#289000)

Processor is an AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600, dual-core jobber. Gigabyte motherboard with an AM2/AM2+ upgradeable socket, 4 GB RAM. SATA drives, think one is a Seagate, Radeon 4830 GPU. Built it myself.

 

I'm not really ready to upgrade yet, maybe in another year or two. I like to get several years of use out of machines, hell with Moore's Law. It's probably too late to upgrade the CPU...have they moved on to new sockets yet?

 

I'm thinking OEM sounds fine. Philosophical problem about whether I have the "same" machine if I gradually replace all the parts & motherboard, but my version of XP Professional came OEM with the previous motherboard/CPU I had several years before, and I was able to get it to install on a new motherboard. Maybe OEM's the way to go? Saving money's good.

 

I'm using my "slipstreamed" DVD with WinXP to boot up and look at the drives. I was able to run chkdsk /r to repair some errors (it did find drive errors, I ran it twice), but bootcfg would NOT run. Windows almost boots up on a regular boot cycle, but then it goes BSOD saying a registry entry is corrupted. So...no boot.ini, corrupted startup registry...no idea if a physical disc sector went bad or it's a system corruption.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

If you're getting an error

(#289010)
HankP's picture

that resembles this:

 

Windows XP could not start because the following file is missing or corrupt: \WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\CONFIG\SYSTEM

 

then you can try the recovery steps listed here.

 

Otherwise you can try to recreate the boot sector using the instructions listed here, specifically steps 6 or 7.

 

if that doesn't work, your disk may be too damaged to boot.

 

The issue with the OEM version is the license terms, it's not like it has some special code that won't let it install. The only problem you'll have is if you try to activate it too many times in too short a period of time, then you'll have to call MS to manually reactivate it - which is exactly the same as the retail version.

 

If you want to buy a drive I'd recommend Amazon as far as site revenues are concerned, Newegg's commission plan manager (commission junction) is hit or miss.

 

Your CPU will support any 32 or 64 bit OS, you shouldn't have any problems with that.  Same with your GPU.

 

What you want to do is install the new HD using the connector your current HD is connected to, then after installing the OS plug in the bad drive into a different SATA port. That will make it show up as drive D: or E:, then you can copy all the data you want off it.

 

Any of these drives should do the job for you.

 

Let me know if you run into any problems.

 

 

EDIT: Windows versions - Home is the basic Win7, Pro adds some networking and file sharing features (mostly useful for corporate users but also useful for knowledgeable home users) and Ultimate includes all features from all version, so networking, file sharing and media features.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Thanks Hank. I'll give an update on Sunday. -nt-

(#289032)

.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

HDD Advice from a Nobody

(#288988)

I'm just some guy on the Internet, so grain of salt.

 

I've always been happy with the Western Digital HDDs I've bought and used.  I've been burned by one Seagate.

 

A 64 bit OS shouldn't care that your GPU is 32 bit. All that stuff is managed by Direct X, anyhow. If you want to confirm my WAG, visit your GPU manufacturer's site and look for Win 7 (64 bit) drivers for your specific GPU model.

 

Here's a 32 v 64 bit primer from Lifehacker. You may want to use this as an opportunity to add more RAM. Your 64 bit OS and CPU will appreciate it.

 

Visit Newegg for reviews and specs, then come back here to buy via HankP's link.

Exactly what I was asking for,

(#288990)

i.e. recent experience with hardware.

 

The lifehacker article makes it sound like going 64 bit is a no-brainer. I think I'll bite the bullet...I'm running 4 GB RAM if memory serves (ha ha), which'll probably be good enough for awhile.

 

Any reason not to buy OEM Windows 7 Professional? Retail box is quite a bit more. What the hell is Windows 7 Ultimate and why would I want it?

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

OEM vs Box

(#288992)

OEM = Some restrictions on hardware upgrades, iirc. Like, RAM and HDD and GPU swaps are fine, but no new motherboards. And no support from MS. No such restrictions with retail. Plus you get a box and a crappy user guide.

 

I chose retail Professional when I gave up on linux for everyday use a while back.

 

Pro v. Ultimate

 

Home Premium has been more than adequate for me.

 

This laptop came preinstalled with with HP and I debated installing my retail copy of Professional over the top of it. I've only really missed "Backup to Network" (not available in HP; available in Pro and Ultimate) (I use a free 3rd party app, instead, as a workaround.). Ultimate looks like it adds a couple things for developers.

 

Are you making the leap from XP to Win 7? If so, it'll take a little getting used to. Not much (Start list is funky; Control panel is not quite like you're used to; file management moves slightly away from the "Drve>Folder>File" metaphor to "libraries" that contain similar items without respect to where they are stored, although you can still manage files the old fashioned way).

 

I bought a Win7 laptop for my daughter,

(#288995)

and even though my wife and I both have Macs, I found it to be surprisingly usable and stable.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

Heading out to clients now

(#288958)
HankP's picture

I'll get back to you on this later today.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Romney's electoral chances

(#288908)

I found this helpful (assuming it's true):

 

Romney will pick up Indiana and is likely to pick up North Carolina (if he loses NC, he'll also have lost VA by a bigger margin, so it's moot). This brings him to 206, he needs 64 more.

 

 

Set A are the big three: Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. (60 EVs)

Set B are the smaller swing states: Nevada, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire. (25 EVs).

 

If he wins all of Set A, that brings Romney to 266, and he only needs one of Set B to reach 270.

 

 

If he loses Virginia, he needs 3 of set B. Possible.

If he loses Ohio, he needs all 4 of Set B. Not impossible, but very hard.

 

But if he loses Florida...winning all of Set B won't get him to 270. And if he thinks he can snag Wisconsin to win a no-Florida scenario, he sure isn't showing it.

Romney loses FL

(#288909)
stinerman's picture

Over Medicare.  At least he damn well oughta.  Even the conservatives here know that simply looking at the Medicare plans, the Democrats are the most likely to keep Medicare as-is for the old farts.

 

I can see Romney getting OH and VA.  I can't see him getting NH or IA.  He can get NV and CO because of the Mormon contingent in those states (yes, I said it).

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

A bundle of stats

(#288881)

I have, of course, grabbed most of these stats from Calculated Risk.

 

So, the bad news is that ISM's manufacturing indices are still in the range of barely negative--Good job, Europe!--and even so the ISM employment index is barely positive, but other stats for August seem to indicate that we're coming out of the annual summer slowdown:

 

First-time unemployment claims have hovered around 370k, which is still about 20-50k higher than is good for really robust job growth, but still indicates a healthier labor market than we saw for this spring, when the numbers leapt and job growth slowed substantially.

 

ISM non-manufacturing index is still expansionary, and both the overall index and employment index expanded to 53.7 and 53.8, respectively. New orders decreased, but is still in expansionary territory.

 

Year over year, light vehicle sales for August were up seventeen percent over last year. We also had a modest monthly increase.

 

But most important is that housing prices have well and truly bottomed.  Case Shiller's index for house prices has turned positive year over year for the first time, meaning that the GDP drag from the housing sector is well and truly over.  (It also has me kicking myself for not performing better on my six interviews last year, since I think I've missed the chance to grab a really cheap house.)

 

Now yes, catchy, I know that although all of these numbers indicate growth, they indicate anemic growth.  But given the near-impossibility of fiscal stimulus and the fact that the Crazy People are putting hella political pressure on the Fed, it's about the best that we can do given Europe's ongoing slow motion meltdown.  An anemic recovery will, I predict, lead to an anemic Obama victory. 

 

 

That's fair - I quit predicting a Romney win over the summer

(#288884)

If I had been right, Romney should've been ahead in the polls already. 

 

Romney clinched the GOP nomination sometime in March. 

 

There was very weak job growth immediately afterward:

April = +68k

May = +77k

June = +80k

 

Those #s aren't even keeping pace with population growth, yet Romney was never ahead in the polls over that period, which suggests he may not be a strong enough candidate to take advantage of even very sluggish periods.

 

Romney could still pull it off, especially with help from the European crisis, Republican governors in swing states, and better use of his massive war chest. 

 

But I'm not predicting a Romney win anymore. Nate Silver has Obama at over 76% reelection chances today, which seems high. But Intrade's 59% seems about right.

Amusement park reform in...

(#288794)
Bird Dog's picture

...North Korea. Now we know why he criticized it. He wanted to show his new wife a good time at the Pleasure Ground.

In other news, Kim 3.0 is introducing the family farm back into his communist paradise.

Those measures, according to the reports, reduce the size of cooperative farm units from between 10 and 25 farmers to between four and six. The decrease is critical because it allows one or two households, not entire communities, to plan and tend to their own farms. Farmers still must hit production quotas, but they can keep 30 percent of their crops, up from less than 10 percent. They can sell the rest to the government at market prices, not state-fixed prices, and they can keep (and sell privately) anything exceeding the quota.

 

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

What a capitalist!

(#288876)
stinerman's picture

This can only be good for John McCain.

 

Seriously though, this is a decent development considering what they have over there.

 

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

Life coaches for Haitians

(#288792)
Bird Dog's picture

If it works, instead of more for Haitians, how about more for Americans.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

I agree with Bird Dog

(#288877)
stinerman's picture

*squee* I still love writing that.

 

Two points though.

 

1) Yes, on a philosophical level, we owe the Haitian people zilch.  Same goes for the Saudis, Canadians, Mexicans, Japanese, Mongolians, and even the Israelis.

 

2) The amount we spend on foreign aid is just about the rounding error in the budget.

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

Well, Americans struggling

(#288793)

..with the poverty of ideas offered by republicans this election cycle, would do well to take note of what is happening at the DNC.

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

I believe...

(#288795)
Bird Dog's picture

...your feelings are sincere.

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

How to Compare the Two Conventions?

(#288739)

Like comparing the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Nationals.  If the Nationals were both whiter and unreasonably bitter.   

 

Stagecraft, message control.  No comparison.  The baggy two-handed set shot of last week have been replaced by something far more fluid.  

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

Or

(#288746)
HankP's picture

I blame it all on the Internet

It's amazing

(#288730)
HankP's picture

you can actually run a convention that gets the delegates all excited without lying to them repeatedly. Who'd a thunk it?

I blame it all on the Internet

Michelle Obama's speech.

(#288732)

World class, eloquent, moving, polished and powerful. A devastating portrait of Romney without mentioning his name, a powerful evocation of all of our (ok most of our) parents & grandparents locked in a struggle to banish poverty and fear from our lives. Hm, maybe she should run for office.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

I guess it was different if you watched the whole thing

(#288741)

But the clip I saw looked mawkish and amateurish. Something about the children and mom in chief and being on the ragged edge of, sob, tears.

No, it worked.

(#288754)

I think you'd agree if you watched the entire speech.

 

Re: the content, it hung together, humanized the president, indirectly but effectively criticized Romney, and tied together to the right degree Obama's family values and his political priorities.

 

The presentation was also excellent. It came across as polished rather than rehearsed and it felt very sincere - a report from a mother and genuine partner, who was involved in Obama's presidency precisely b/c his politics and values are intertwined.

Or maybe not. I never found out where nyoos hangs his hat,

(#288759)

but I don't think the emotive, confessional style of politics plays well in western European countries, particularly the UK. For Americans, of course, there's very little difference between announcing your candidacy for office, having a come-to-jesus moment at a tent revival, or taking the podium to "share" for the first time at an AA meeting. 

 

We're kind of mawkish.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

But she worked up to that

(#288789)
HankP's picture

which was one of the strong parts of her delivery, she paced it very well. If the entire speech had been emotional, it wouldn't have worked. So I do think you have to see the whole thing to judge her delivery.

I blame it all on the Internet

he's swiss IIRC

(#288762)

And maybe there's a cultural difference thing goin on...

Swiss/Irish- a rare breed of mongrel.

(#288936)

I watched more of the speech nd it, as I suspected, works better in the whole. The tearing up because you're Mom in Chief and the kids are just so important bit does still make me want to puke. Largely because it seemed fake or forced to me. But as you say, it's probably a cultural thing. 

"Being president doesn't change who you are;

(#288751)

it reveals who you are." 

 

I don't know how it'll play in clips, but as a whole it was one of the better campaign speeches I've ever seen.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Reportedly written by her as well

(#288758)

It was pretty good speech writing:

 

"If farmers and blacksmiths could win independence from an empire, if immigrants could leave behind everything they knew for a better life on our shores, if women could be dragged to jail for seeking the vote, if a generation could defeat a depression, and define greatness for all time, if a young preacher could lift us to the mountaintop with his righteous dream, and if proud Americans can be who they are and boldly stand at the altar with who they love then surely, surely we can give everyone in this country a fair chance at that great American Dream. Because in the end, more than anything else, that is the story of this country – the story of unwavering hope grounded in unyielding struggle."

Is that right?

(#288761)

I said to my wife as we were watching that I bet Michelle wrote at least part of the speech, because it was describing Barack in a way that sounded more personal than focus-group tested and approved. 

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

Yeah, the Dems started strong

(#288733)
HankP's picture

I saw Deval Patrick (very strong), Martin O'Malley (ok), Julian Castro (good) and Michelle Obama (very strong). Pretty strong slate of speakers for the first night.

I blame it all on the Internet

Very strong start

(#288765)

I agree with your assessment there.  Both Gov. Patrick and the first lady absolutely knocked it out of the park.  I also thought Ted Strickland was very strong, despite the reactions of a couple folks here-- but then again Strickland was the governor here, and a personal favorite of mine, so maybe I am biased.  I might downgrade Castro to just ok... was he really good, or did he depend on his cute little daughter save him from a mediocre speech?

Good speech, flawed delivery, I would say.

(#288767)

In fact I think it was a very good speech, but I think the disconcerting smile gave it an unneeded used car salesman vibe. He needs to work with a good (or better) TV stylist. 

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

I found both the speech and delivery good

(#288770)

the smile came across to me as genuine and he seemed youthful and energetic.

 

The theme of investing in opportunity for future success was emphasized nicely, as were lines about how anyone truly pro-business will also be pro-education. 

 

He definitely seemed like a future candidate for national office to me.

Hm, would you classify yourself as a savvy negotiator?

(#288775)

How many times have you been seriously conned in your life? :)

 

But I agree he's got a future; not as polished as 2004 Obama, but he's got a lot to say & says it well.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Julian Castro was good.

(#288735)

He and his brother have kind of creepy smiles, but that was a good how-I-got-here story.

 

My Ted Strickland review is below.

 

Let's see. Barack Hussein Obama. Julian Castro. What the Democrats really need is a Stalin, a Mussolini, a Jefferson Davis.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, the next President of the United States, iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit's Genghis Khan Washington! **throw confetti**

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

And another thing

(#288747)
HankP's picture

the speakers tonight seemed to spend more time talking up Obama than the republicans spent talking up Romney.

I blame it all on the Internet

I'M GOVERNOR TED STRICKLAND OF OHIO

(#288725)

AND I SUFFER FROM VOICE IMMODULATION SYNDROME. THIS DEVASTATING CONDITION MAKES ME UNABLE TO CONTROL THE PITCH OR VOLUME OF MY VOICE. IT'S THANKS TO PRESIDENT OBAMA THAT I AM NOW ABLE TO AFFORD TREATMENT FOR THIS DEBILITATING ILLNESS AND PROVE THAT EVEN THE VOICE IMMODULATED CAN CONTRIBUTE TO A SOCIETY FILLED WITH PREJUDICED PEOPLE LIKE MITT ROMNEY. THANK YOU.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

HA!

(#288764)

I thought Strickland was great! He had some great lines attacking Romney. Message delivered, audience loved it.  As far as the single pitch/single volume thing, FDR was a single pitch/single volume guy in many speeches and he did all right.

So was Churchill. I think it's a matter of

(#288766)

picking the right pitch and volume, and Strickland's fake-yelly voice and figure skater's plastered on smile was way off for me. Actively distracting from what he was saying.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

It's difficult to do

(#288788)
HankP's picture

that was a very large crowd, but it was broadcast on TV as well. It's very difficult to strike the right volume so you'll be able to energize the crowd but not come across as shouty on TV - the crowd wants loud, but TV wants it to be more conversational level.

I blame it all on the Internet

Strickland was unwatchable

(#288757)

So was Cory Booker

An interesting article re: abortion and consciousness

(#288724)
stinerman's picture

It's pretty long but a great read for those of you who are open to scientifically determining at what point abortion actually becomes murder.

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

Definitely interesting, thanks for the link. But,

(#288785)

is consciousness really the key point as far as abortion goes? The 33 weeks or so that the author mentions strike me as much too late to be relevant as far as determining a bright line -- 27-32 weeks is only moderately premature, with ~90% survival rates, so consciousness would inevitably develop.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

Official Paul Ryan Marathon Calculator

(#288719)

http://www.paulryantimecalculator.com/

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Hey Cool!

(#288720)

I plugged in some times from my younger days and I now hold several world records!

The Big Apple

(#288668)
Bird Dog's picture

Of course, I'm talking about the size of this company.

 

Apple became the world’s most valuable-ever company two weeks ago. It is worth $624bn, more than all the listed companies in Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain together. The employer of 63,300 people – each valued at $10m – is more valuable than all the shares available to investors in the MSCI China index, the international benchmark.

I'm recently contributing to their success, buying a Nano and on the cusp of buying my mom one of those awesome iPads.

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

You should get an iPad because although much

(#288707)

of it's made in China, it's got American guts.

Samsung makes Apple's iPad processors?

(#288755)
mmghosh's picture

And is successfully sued by Apple for copying the UI? I'm sure there's some mad logic in there.

Worth 624 billion and only employs 63K?

(#288702)

If we'd just cut their tax rate, maybe they'd hire 500 more people.

Far too much, obviously

(#288706)
HankP's picture

if their rate was lower they might be successful.

I blame it all on the Internet

Huh

(#288671)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Is this the moment when Bill Gates has to surrender his nifty Evil Capitalist Overlord (TM) black robe and riding crop to the Apple CEO?

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Both AAPL and MSFT are both bad for different reasons

(#288723)
stinerman's picture

I'm not going to go full Stallman on you guys, but I'll be damned if I'm ever going to buy an operating system for a general purpose computing device that doesn't allow me to change it to suit my needs.

 

The move to "Walled Garden"-type devices should be more concerning to the average Joe than it has been thus far.

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

No, It Shouldn't

(#288734)

To the average Joe they are all Walled Gardens, even Linux, because he can't materially do a darned thing to depart from the options given to him by the platform.

 

Certainly Android is of no benefit to anybody in the real world. Most handsets cant even be upgraded. It's not so much a walled garden as a holodeck that projects the image of an open field, but you are really in a metal chamber.

 

MSFT and AAPL are both corporate creeps for sure, but at least Apple is competent delivering a solid user experience and a more stable (through time) development environment.

 

 

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

???

(#288740)
HankP's picture

handsets can't be upgraded? My Razr Maxx was updated to Andriod 4.0 a few weeks before I bought it and will be upgraded to 4.1 in early 2013. My wife's Samsung should be upgraded before the end of the year. And of course I could always root the phone if I wanted to.

 

Also, your characterization of Linux - and Windows, for that matter - are way off. You can change all kinds of stuff on both platforms, and rather easily.

I blame it all on the Internet

Ha!

(#288743)

When iOS 6 comes out, it will come out for all iOS devices back to the 3GS, a phone from 2009, on the same day.

 

With Android it's like a box of chocolates. Early 2013, end of the year, the check is in the mail, we are working with the operators, never, etc. What is your wife's Samsung running now?

 

Are you really going to go all Ryan on me and seriously pretend to argue that Android upgradeability does not totally suck? Why then is ICS (4.0) still running in only 16% of Android devices, nearly one year after it came out? This while perfectly good phones such as the Samsung Galaxy S, a phone a year newer than the iPhone 3GS, will never be supported for 4.0, which is an OS introduced out just one year after the phone was.

 

And of course, you, Hank the IT guy, can root the phone. And you can go on an Android forum to spend hours discussing how to fix whatever the rooting and subsequent non-official upgrade breaks. But regular people are not going to root the phone and go on such forums. And if they do they are liable to brick the things.

 

There is nothing you can do on Windows that you can't do in OS/X. Linux is another story if you are a Linux admin. Then you can do anything. But if you are just a user, you can't do anything special, you wouldn't know how.

 

I did spend some time looking at Mint by the way. Besides the bizarre fact that everything is themed in green, I don't see what it has over Ubuntu.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

I'm not an expert on Android

(#288745)
HankP's picture

I just know all our phones run 4.0 now and they should run 4.1 by early next year. From what I've read (I haven't done it yet) rooting isn't very difficult, it looks like a simple download of an image and a few support programs and a reboot. Oh, and jailbreaking is popular with iPhones as well. And it seems like an awful lot of "normal" people do both.

 

I'll tell you what you can do in windows that you can't do on a mac (without running a virtual machine) - you can run accounting and operational software for your business, pretty much for any kind of business you'd care to name. You can also run any top shelf game you'd like. You can also add hardware that will interface with just about any device in use anywhere. You can also choose the latest, most powerful hardware.

 

I've gone on (and on) about my issues with Microsoft and Windows. But there's no comparison in the breadth of what's available and can be done with windows compared to the competition.

I blame it all on the Internet

OSX Lion won't run a Filemaker 8 database,

(#288736)
mmghosh's picture

I learned this to my $500 cost today.  It won't even allow a runtime version.  And Apple and FileMaker are almost the same company. Just silly, quite frankly, and not something Apple started doing until recently.

 

Odd...

(#288737)

It is my understanding that this is due to the removal of Rosetta, the PowerPC compatibility layer Apple slapped on the OS when they moved to Intel in 2006.

 

I agree with you that Rosetta support should not have been dropped like that, as I doubt it was a huge burden to maintain. We'll see if this is a one-time thing or part of a trend on the part of Apple. Tim Cook is an operations guy (a glorified bean counter), and thus not to be trusted.

 

Anyway, the truly odd part is that FileMaker should have depended on Rosetta for so long. As you point out, it's practically an Apple app, so it should have been completely ported to Cocoa long ago.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

AFAIK its not a FileMaker issue,

(#288742)
mmghosh's picture

its Apple, although I'm still trying to work out why this happened at all. Lion is not backwards compatible with a bunch of Intel apps too, as documented by RoaringApps.  

 

Not keeping PowerPC compatibility is a real kick in the teeth for those of us small developers who kept faith with the MacOS through all their system iterations through the past couple of decades.  It can't possibly have been that significant a programming issue.

I looked at that list...

(#288744)

...and all the ones which don't run that I found were PowerPC, non-Cocoa apps.

 

That said, I agree that they killed Rosetta too early, because I don't think it was hard to maintain.

 

Still, if you've done Microsoft development, you've been left in the cold often as well. The sudden death of VB6 was a classic case of screwing the developer community. Now MS has killed Silverlight. A friend of mine based his entire product strategy on Silverlight two years ago. I warned him, and now I wouldn't even dare say "I told you so", he doesn't even mention the subject.

 

Objective-C / Cocoa, on the other hand, has been very, very fruitful to developers who've been following Jobs (as opposed to Apple) since the NextSTEP days. This is now an over 20 year old platform in nearly continuous development, and every iOS and OS/X device runs it.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

Are you better off than you were 3.5/4 yrs. ago?

(#288639)

It's not an easy question. Obviously the economy was hemorrhaging jobs at the time and that's not happening now, so many people are at least less worried about losing their job:

 

 

On the other hand, the average household income is signifiantly lower: -10% on average: 

 

It's unfair not to give Obama credit for blunting the Great Recession. But it's probably a good thing to try and hold presidents to the standard of leaving most households richer than they were four years ago. Obama has brought some benefits to the majority in the form of his stimulus and health care bills, both of which he is now running away from.

 

He has also sought to harm jobs and wages in the US by signing bipartisan "free" trade bills that serve to put low paid positions in direct competition with their Asian counterparts, which results in jobs shipped overseas and depressed wages and benefits at home.

 

In addition, not helping homeowners in the slightest while funding and maintaining the stably unstable, fraudulent financial system makes him vulnerable on these issues.

 

Obama has brought some benefits to the majority, but he didn't prioritize making things better off, and "How do you stop most people from becoming poorer in your second term" is a mostly fair question to ask of him.

 

Too bad it's the disingenuous GOP that's bringing it up.

There's no question we're better off

(#288653)
HankP's picture

the economy was in free fall, and we were in danger of a true Second Great Depression. Lagging indicators like unemployment and income hadn't shown the effect of the crash yet, but they did within a year. The Dow Jones has recovered, and while that doesn't mean much to younger people it means a lot to people in their 40s, 50s and 60s who have their retirement funds invested.

 

So that question is easy. Now, are we in the best of all possible worlds? No, and for a variety of reasons including Obama's poor policy choices and Republican obstruction. But it's been that way as long as I've lived and I expect it to continue. But I can pretty much guarantee that it will be worse under a Romney administration.

I blame it all on the Internet

I don't think it's that easy

(#288654)

I hear you that staving off a second great depression is commendable.

 

But employment is not only lagging, full employment at the current growth rate won't be upon us for 10 full years from the recession's start by current projections. Moreover, the new jobs that are replacing the old are on average for worse pay.

 

Income has not meaningfully grown for decades and seems unlikely to recover the ground lost during the recession. I haven't done the math, but even for folks in their 40s - 60s, the stock market recovering might not offset the average decline in income. Only 54% of Americans own any stock, so it is entirely possible that total wealth lost is more widespread than not (leave out housing for the moment).

 

The long and short is that the recovery is concentrated in those who are well off. Not only are the lower ranks not participating, wealth and income have been falling for the majority over Obama's first term.

 

This reflects the power imbalance between labor and capital that no one is addressing and Obama should be made to answer for (just not by Republicans who are disingenuously using it as a tool to make the imbalance worse).

 

What plan do Democrats have for returning good paying jobs to the US that have failed to materialize on Obama's watch? That strikes me as a fair question.

Yes, things are not good

(#288655)
HankP's picture

but I think it's a bit disingenuous to blame Obama for not reversing 30 year old trends in 4 years in office. I want a more liberal president too, but I'll take what I can get. I don't see a second FDR on the horizon.

 

The true answer is not easy, it's very difficult - elect better representatives, senators and governors. And fight back against conservative lies wherever you can, even if it makes people uncomfortable. And it will never end.

I blame it all on the Internet

Also, you can just discuss the nature of the recovery

(#288657)

rather than a 30 yr. trend. What is the Democrats' plan to help with the following 3 yr. trend? 

Your elites

(#288938)

have opened your economy to competition from low wage economies. You're bound to be uncompetitive along a growing range of professions so this is surely just a natural and expected consequence of that.

Nobody's blaming Obama for entire 30 yr. trends

(#288656)

But it's not a terrible idea not to lower expectations so much that you can't ask what Obama's plan is to, if not entirely reverse the losses, make some small portion of them up, or at least slow down their acceleration. Most people losing money for years during a recovery is a genuine problem.

 

There's really no need to remind me that expecting an FDR is unreasonable and that Republicans are worse. I'm just discussing whether Democrats should admit there's a point to the recent "are you better off" tack by Republicans.

 

I think it's potentially a decent topic of conversation, certainly better than what Obama is going to do about the deficit, whether he's going to face the "hard problems" and cut social security and medicare, whether he's been apologizing for America while abroad, etc.

 

Of course there's also the danger that allowing the validity of the question will help Republicans shift blame and confuse the population over who's more likely to be better for working Americans. But I'm just commenting on a backwater blog, not engaging in campaign strategies.

FDR had the full support of Congress for his first term,

(#288662)

and when the New Deal Coalition finally fell apart, he actually accomplished very little, and in fact responding to conservative pressure in 1936-37, he made the error of focusing on budgets rather than unemployment. Obama had a much more fragile coalition that relied (for the filibuster-proof Senate supermajority) on a number of conservative Democrats who could & did milk their swing-vote positions for all they were worth. Comparing the two Presidents is a pointless game if you don't also compare the two Congresses. And the conclusion should be, like I've said before, if you want a more liberal/progressive government, you must elect a more liberal/progressive Congress.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

"There's really no need to remind me that expecting an FDR

(#288674)

is unreasonable"

 

Kind of an odd response to that statement on your part. 

 

I agree the left was stronger then. I don't agree Obama's conservatism is all COngress's fault, but that's not really the discussion here.

The focus on complaining about Obama's conservatism

(#288675)

is misguided, IMO. Whether he's inherently conservative, or just feels obligated to cater to conservative interests makes little difference. The point is that nothing can get done in Washington without catering to conservative interests. If Dennis Kucinich were President, he'd have to make the same deals and curry the same favors, because that's what the country thinks it wants at the moment. 

 

More progressive policies require more than a more progressive President. Hm, that's a lot of mores.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

I only emphasize it b/c

(#288677)

so many Democrats won't admit that many of Obama's policies have been conservative, and won't discuss the tactic of pressuring the leader of the party to move leftward. 

It's a sad truth

(#288686)
HankP's picture

that you have to win the election first, and after that you put pressure on through actions by congress and the senate. If you've looked at any polls lately, you can see that it's very unlikely that the Dems will take back the house or increase their majority in the senate. So holding the line is probably the best one can hope for at this time.

I blame it all on the Internet

I'd say you have to be able to deliver votes,

(#288688)

not that you have to win first, then apply pressure. If progressive groups could help hand over Ohio, they'd have a lot more influence with the President (and Congress).

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

I'm worried that criticism/apathy from the left is likely

(#288680)

to undercut Dem chances in November more than anything else. Helping Romney win obviously won't lead to a progressive shift in policy.

 

To negotiate, you need a position of strength. Like, for example, being able to deliver Congressional seats in swing states. Can progressives do that today? Not so much.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Move leftward during THIS election?

(#288678)

not your finest contribution to election strategery catchy.

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

Obama's been handing out cookies

(#288691)

take the Latino or gay communities.   

 

The run-up to elections are actually one of the few opportunities to get something out of politicians, and certainly this has been true of the Obama admin., which has mostly focused on bad policy since HCR passed.

 

In terms of convincing members of a disenchanted base, it's not a great strategy to simply deny the problem of Obama's unfortunate "centrism". I have no idea their #, but I read folk on the internet often enough who don't buy the implausible assigning of @100% blame to Congress. 

Eat your cookie

(#288717)

and persuade your rainbow buds to vote Obama.

 

Also, this.

 

 

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

Appeeeeeeeeeeasement!!!

(#288633)

YNET News:

 

Washington reportedly sends Tehran indirect message saying it will not back Israeli strike on nuclear facilities as long as Iran refrains from attacking American facilities in Persian Gulf 

We won't attack them if they don't attack us?  What kind of cowardly apologetic kowtowing unmanliness is that? Seriously, I'd be halfway to voting for Obama just for this is if he hadn't immediately denied any such deal

Sounds like disinfo...

(#288640)

...and thus part of preparations for hostilities.

 

The source is likely Israel, as a way to pressure the US to come forward explicitly.

 

The fog always comes before the war.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

I agree it's unlikely

(#288684)
HankP's picture

the Obama admin has been putting out statements for months indicating that they think it's a bad idea and won't necessarily jump in if it happens.

 

Edit: And it looks like Israel is in climbdown mode.

I blame it all on the Internet

Not so sure...

(#288663)

...this isn't the bush administration. The relationship does not have the depth you might assume it does. Obama and Netanyahu deal with each other, but they don't care for each other.

 

Israel could decide to start the thing under the assumption that it will force the US to step in to finish the job.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.