Sunday, November 16, 2008

Operating system shuffle

I have a question... is anyone out there TRULY happy with the operating system they are using? I've used probably 50 different Linux (along with the various window/desktop managers) all versions of Windows and several versions of Mac.

They ALL have something in common.

They all suck.

ALL operating systems have inherent design flaws and problems because they are made from the vision of what the programmer finds acceptable.

This behavior doesn't work for the vast majority of us, and most Windows users just use it because they want their software they've purchased to continue to work. Most Mac users accept the horrible Apple design decisions because they think it makes them cool. (Hipster UI)

Linux users ignore the incessant annoyances of the system and the idiotic idealogy of the developers. (Like Mark Shuttleworth; who doesn't want to include proprietary software that makes the OS work because it's against his religion). And yes, I do think that Linux is a religion for some, far too many of you guys adopt completely anti-market and anti-capitalist view points that contradict the "it's about the competition".

For alot of these guys it's NOT about the competition but about FORCING their opinions onto other developers. Bill Gates is right about the GPL. It's viral and forces you to license your product the same way.

Do any of these new age collectivist view points HELP the end user? The first thing I had to do after installing Ubuntu was install the "restricted" files so that my computer was actually functional. And after clicking that I'm told that I'm installing: "ffmpeg-ugly","Mplayer-bad".

The best Linux versions are ones that forgo "free software", and provide the necessary proprietary solutions to make your hardware and software work.

No the answer to the obvious question. Why not use windows?

1) I got sick of the interface and design decisions there more so than Linux - Kde/Gnome.
2) I got sick of having to spend DAYS reinstalling the operating system when it fragged itself, or when some asshole virus writer fragged it.
3) I got sick of all the copyright bullshit. Yes I believe in copyrights, and developers SHOULD be paid fairly for their products. But just as the GNU-Collective is going off the deep end, SO TOO are alot of these developers who are re-working what fair-use means. Where is the happy middle ground? You know, if Apple approached the market like they had the opportunity to when they took BSD code to build their new OS, they had a chance to fundamentally change the idealogy in the marketplace by still selling a product but allowing the end user to use it the way THEY wanted to.

Saturday, September 6, 2008

Democrats for Obama

Just stumbled across this blog I'm quite impressed that some democrats are seeing beyond their party lines and the importance of not electing the radical Obama.  For a taste of his radical roots, read this article posted here, here, and here.

Really with friends like Obama has made over the years, how can we believe anything he states? 

I welcome these democrats because they will make sure that there is no recount bullshit.
Blogged with the Flock Browser

Friday, September 5, 2008

Obama lies and the press plays cover for free

I can honestly not believe just how biased the press is being this cycle. They are taking statement from the Obama campaign without a shred of questioning, but when it comes to the McCain campaign, they take it through the shredder, then throw it in the fireplace, than take the ashes and put them down the garbage disposal.

Here's the latest example from an AP story today:

"You're hearing an awfully lot about me - most of which is not true - but you're not hearing a lot about you," Obama said. "You haven't heard a word about how we're going to deal with any aspect of the economy that is affecting you and your pocketbook day-to-day. Haven't heard a word about it. I'm not exaggerating. Literally, two nights, they have not said a word about it."

This is completely BS. EVERY speaker addressed the need to drill for more oil, have more nuclear and clean coal, and strive towards energy independence this is an issue that has directly affected American pocketbooks.

Both McCain and Palin, stressed the need to make government smaller, and to lower taxes. Look at the years prior to the Bush tax cut and how much people were paying to the government... that's been dramatically reduced already! Obama wants to repeal that though.

And they don't want to drill, explore nuclear options OR Clean coal.

Here's AP's response though:

The Illinois senator told voters that the GOP convention speakers are spending all their time talking about politics, not about issues that matter to voters. He criticized the Republicans for not addressing the economic distress or housing foreclosures that have grown during the Bush administration.

Complete BS. They addressed the main components of economic distress. Energy and tax burden.

The foreclosures are no more Bush's fault than the tech boom bubble bust was Clinton's fault.

"The notion that many questions about her work in Alaska is somehow not relevant to her potentially being vice president of the United States doesn't make too much sense to me," Obama said.

Her work in Alaska is completely relevant. HER FAMILY affairs however are not. She was a Mayor, you were a corrupt community organizer that gave the power to vote democrat to dead people. of course, maybe you actually do see dead people, like you stated in your speech on memorial day.

"I assume she wants to be treated the same way guys are treated, which means their records are under scrutiny. I've been through this for 19 months. She's been through this for, what, four days so far?""

You've been under scrutiny? ARE YOU SERIOUS? You would've never been selected as the top ticket if you were subject to the same scrutinous microscope they've placed Sarah Palin under.

It's just more of the same from the Obama campaign. Slander, lie and copy McCain's positions on foriegn policy.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

The Dark Conservative Knight

I just watched the Dark Knight today, (I know what took so long?) and I have to say it is an absolutely fantastic movie.

BUT, I approached it from the perspective of absolutism and conservatism.  From these angles the movie is absolutely an allegory for the war on terror.  The joker is the ultimate terrorist.  The only thing lacking from his perspective is bowing to Allah five times a day.  Batman is the ultimate conservative, there are times that he must do whatever is necessary to stop evil.  Including torture, and spying.  But at the same time, Batman goes to degrees that make Bush look moderate in comparison,  consider the following.

Think about this,  Bush has "tortured" only one terrorist, and compared to what Batman did it couldn't even be considered torture.  (I don't think waterboarding is torture)

Bush only spies on people communicating with KNOWN terrorists.  Batman was spying on EVERYONE in the city.  Yet we know from the movie, had Batman not spied on them he wouldn't have found the Joker.  And the Joker WOULD HAVE killed everyone on board the ship in cold blood.

You see that's one of the other things that absolutely struck me..  This movie presents the evil within human nature in a way that I've never seen in a movie before.  And a fact of human nature and the world we live in is that some beliefs perpetuate hatred and evil.

The striking fact that the Joker's videos paralleled Al Qaeda's in shock factor and style was probably completely intentional by the director to drive home the callousness of this evil.  Think about what the Joker did to that batman dress up, compared to what Al Qaeda did to the poor souls they captured.  The Joker looks like a saint in comparison.  Yet, he truly is the closest thing Hollywood has given us since 2001 addressing the evil with the souls of some of us.
Blogged with the Flock Browser

Friday, August 8, 2008

Sustainable Development

You know a phrase I'm coming to hate?  (besides all the "green crap")

"Sustainable Development".

What does that even mean?  I'll tell you.  What's sustainable:

1) No population growth, and in fact the population should be decreased massively.  (the poorer the better in the progressive mind)

2) No transporting of ANY goods,  and if you can't grow it or create it locally, you should NOT have it.  See that wonderful computer you are reading this post on?  it's not sustainable moron.

3) No vacations in your car or airplanes.  I've heard some greens suggest all Airplane travel should be heretofore cancelled as it generates "too large of a carbon footprint".  From here on out you can only ride the bus to where you want to go, or take the train.  They are the ONLY "sustainable" forms of transportation.  (but only for people not for GOODS.)

4) You can't live further than 10 miles from work (which would exponentially raise the cost of homes around work places) because your car got repo'd by the "benevolent" government.  That's if you are even able to keep your current job, it may not be "sustainable" either.

5) You can no longer watch TV as long,  run your lights as long or do other things us modern people take for advantage.  They use too much power and are not sustainable.

Most annoying of all?

Being told about sustainability on a billion dollar broadcast of the opening ceremony of the 2008 olympics game from the highest polluting nation on the planet.

That's a carbon hypocritical footprint that is absolutely priceless.
Blogged with the Flock Browser

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Socialism and what the new parties represent

I thought considering my last post on the local Governor race it might be relevant to explain my views on the "two party" system that we've come to inherit in the states.

What can be said about this party that has been demonized by the GOP?  (Some of it deserved). 

Let's start our with the misrepresentation of the name of the party.  It is the DEMOCRAT party, NOT the DEMOCRATIC party.

Let's start with the history of the party and work our way forward to where the party is now, and where it is headed with the current leadership.

The origins:
The Democrat-Republican party (the original name before the issue of slavery split the party), were believers in classic liberalism.  The difference between classic liberalism and modern social liberalism could cover a 10 volume set.  Suffice to sum it up, the key difference comes down to the role of government in an individuals life.  The Classic liberal believes in absolute free will,  and self responsibility.  The Modern liberal has adopted Karl Marx as it's father, and believes that ONLY the government can help pull someone up by their bootstraps.

The facts:
The party that has classicly been on the side of opression and slavery, is now the party doling out the exact same thing through so called public welfare programs.  Welfare is a feel good program (marxist in origin) that enslaves someone to the government.  Whereas a productive member of society works and produces something to support themselves, the government pays large groups of people to sit on their fat asses and do nothing.  The democrats have enslaved people into poverty.

Fascist roots:
In order to make many of these feel good policies work (welfare, multiculturalism) they have to do so by displacing the rights and freedoms of other groups.  Does it feel good to kick the rich?  What if it was your boss being kicked by the man to support the poor unworking masses and in order to stay in business he's forced to make cuts?  It's happened in the past and it will happen in the future if Obama and his ilk have their ways with the ridiculous tax increases will not only punish the rich, it will punish working class americans who are fired due to cut backs in business, so that those businesses can STAY in Business!

Look at the way Pelosi expects her members to run lockstep with her views,  unless they are up for re-election in a district where offshore drilling is wanted... Look at what the Dems did to J. Lieberman who supported the Iraq war.  They ousted him, and he was forced to become an independent!

The Democrat party has consistently been moving more to the left and towards fascist/marxist idealogies.  They no longer believe in American exceptionalism, and it will not be long before "reagan" democrats realize this and leave the party.  (like Joe Lieberman).

I think this meltdown will happen in 2008 at the Denver convention. 
Blogged with the Flock Browser

Sunday, August 3, 2008

Washington's 10 candidates for Governor

Here's my opinion of the 10 candidates running for Governor in Washington state:
(listed per news tribune order.)

1) John Aiken
Party: Republican (is he serious?)

John is another RiNO that wants the government to take over energy systems (we need more privatization in this sector, competition will bring the price down for people) and invest BILLIONS in public housing (something that will garner NO RETURN)

The wierdest request of all? Placing Casino's at rest stops. WTF?

My opinion? This guy doesn't know what it means to be a small government republican.

2) Duff Badgley
Party: Green

Duff is a fascist who wants you (if you own a single occupancy vehicle in an urban area) to turn your vehicle over to the government. (he wants to outlaw them!)

He then wants to FORCE Boeing to manufacture clean energy projects (?) doesn't Boeing make planes not energy?

Then after doing all those wonderfully fascist things he will "assess" steep "carbon" taxes on corporations and individuals.

So end result:

Higher cost of living.

Fewer businesses located in Washington state, and Boeing leaving the state. Congratulations fascist you stopped global warming by moving people out of the state.

3) Will Baker
Party: Reform

Will simply wants to raise light on Gov. Chris Gregoire's illegal election practices. I agree with his cause, but he needs to go about it in a different way.

4) Chris Gregoire
Party: Democrat

She claims to want to "create jobs", but being a democrat that won't mean enticing businesses to come here, it will mean making the government even larger to "create" new jobs.
Health care doesn't need to be expanded it needs to be retracted (especially for citizens that are here illegally.) And the environment doesn't need even further regulations for protection.

Not to mention that if she doesn't CUT government, and INCREASE taxes massively, we'll have a 2.7 BILLION dollar deficit next year under her do-nothing leadership.

5) Christian Joubert
Party: Democrat

Christian is another fascist who wants to force what he thinks is a "healthy" way to live holistic lifestyles....

His first order of Business? Listen to the Marxist WHO, and FORCE every Washingtonian to undergo a test of "healthiness"

He also agrees with the idiot Obama that the minimum wage should be indexed with inflation. Two problems with this:

i) Indexing the two together will actually INCREASE the speed at which inflation increases. Increased dollars in the work force causes DECREASED value of goods.

ii) Unless they index inflation to the tax system (thereby not increasing your tax burden as your income increases) it'll only cause people to have LESS money not more.

6) Javier Lopez
Party: Republican

Like his statement on "confonting the fascist government", but his website is not loading thusly I cannot comment on any of his other positions.

7) Dino Rossi
Party: Republican

The obvious good ones, cutting spending, ending early release on prison inmates, improving monitoring of convicted sex offenders. The ones from his website is a laid out transportation project that includes ALL the funding to complete the projects. Where Gregoire wants to start charing a "Congestion" fee on 520 now, upwards of 7.00 per crossing, Rossi doesn't want to toll until the bridge is complete. And it will be a flat $1.50. Where Gregoire thinks Washingtonians drive to annoy politicians and with Nickels is acting to punish them, Rossi understands that we use our vehicles not merely for recreation but also for income and job creation.

8) Mohammad Said
Party: None listed

Apparently his slate of international concerns are more important than the slate of local state issues. This is a bit silly, as he's running for a local office and not a national office.

His viewpoints on Israel are also extremely anti-semtic and outright false. For example:

Said: "Our unfaltering support of Israel is the true instigator."
Me: Incorrect. The existence of the state of Israel is what has caused the continued attacks upon the state of Israel. Mahmoud wants to run all the jews into the Sea, does he think we should sit by and watch the next Hitler commit genocide?

Said: "The creation of a One State Solution"
Me: This is insane. Do you really think this is in the best interest of the jews in Israel who are surrounded by people who hate them?

Said: "will eliminate our problems with the Middle East."
Me: This is crazy as well. They will still hate us and the rest of the west because we don't follow Allah's will, and because we have freedom of will.

A question for Said and the rest of the people with this ridiculous stance.

*Do you think the muslim violence against non-muslims in Thailand is caused by the state of Israel, and the west's support of them?

*Do you think that Muslims killing christians in Nigeria is caused by the west's support of Israel?

*Do you think that Muslims killing tribal Africans in Sudan (not just Darfur, all of Sudan) is caused by the west's support of Israel?

*Do you think that the creation of Pakistan was necessary? Ghandi wanted the muslims, christians and hindu to all live under one state. The Muslims HATED this idea, until finally one of them shot Ghandi. The creation of Pakistan followed with christians near the border of the two countries, STILL HARRASSED to this day.

It is my belief that moderate Muslims can exist in the western world. Said doesn't believe this and suggests his readers tune into Al Jazeera for an "unbiased" view of world events. Al Jazeera is the network Bin Laden uses to spread his message to the world! Does Said think that we were attacked on 9/11 because of our support of Israel? Just pull back and they'll leave us alone?

Germany was the absolute state of capitulation to the extreme muslims, and has been the target of SEVERAL attempted attacks.

But this is the most ridiculous statement of all:

Said:"emphasizing that a state that is only consisting of Jews contradicts our Constitution."

ME: Firstly let me address the constitutional aspect of his statement. OUR CONSTITUTION is for the USA only. If we were to take to task every country that violates the constitution why don't we start with Egypt where they imprison former Muslims who convert to Christianity? Why not then take a stroll over to Saudi Arabia where they don't allow Christians to openly possess a bible, and don't even allow Christians to enter the Mecca area where Muslims worship the black rock. Or how about Lebanon, where the Lebanese Christians were killed as the thugs funded by Iran attacked Israel and took over the only other free country in the middle east.

Yes the only other.

before the Lebanese war in the 70's Lebanon ALONG WITH Israel were the only two countries in the middle east that allowed all religions to practice and worship openly and freely.

Muslims worship openly on the jews temple mount every day of the week... EVEN WHEN they throw stones at the Jews worshipping at the wailing wall. The Jews of Israel FULLY FUNDED a program to help the Palestinians. They built greenhouses for them to grow food. Do you know what the Palestinians did with those?

Converted them into weapons and drugs tunnels to transport materials from Egypt.

As for the "Palestinian" people? Complete and total misnomer. They are people that have CHOSEN to live there to help end Israel. Israel has offered them refuge, and the only condition is that they don't commit violence against people in Israel.

9) Christopher Tudor

I like his idea of banning lobbyists, but it's unclear what any of his other positions are even from his website.

10) James White
Party: None Listed

Wants to increase the size of government via providing greater public health care. (so our system can suck as much as other socialist countries?)

From his website he wants to increase renewable energy money (shouldn't the private sector be doing that?) My guess is this won't involve more hydro power which is the most efficient and best bang for buck system. Instead it will probably be ugly windmills that don't provide power all the time, or solar panels which would have to cover all of Eastern Washington to provide power for the state, but then we'd need something to provide power at night or when it did cloud over Eastern Washington which doubles the size and cost of infrastructure to have basically a redundant system to provide power when Solar can't.