crowley

Ignoring: @sog35, @TallestSkil, @apple][, @SpamSandwich, @marcNOK Love and hugs to everyone else.

About

Username
crowley
Joined
Visits
70
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
775
Badges
1
Posts
4,929
  • Which Apple W1-equipped headphones are right for you?

    jonmast said:
    cali said:
    eyekey said:
    i have no argument against the Airpods. 
    No controls is a deal breaker for me. I can't imagine how silly it must feel to say "Siri, Volume down", followed by "Siri, next track" in the subway or in the supermarket. I have absolutely no idea why Apple is so persistent on voice control. I will probably buy the X when (if) they come out and have decent sound quality.
    Can't you just say "volume up", "next track"?

    even better "lower", "up", "next", etc. 
    Apple watch anyone? All of the controls are conveniently located on your wrist.
    So a $300 remote control is required to use $160 headphones?

    Great solution for the mass market there.



    mac_128
  • The Democratic Party is on Fire...

  • The Democratic Party is on Fire...

    trumptman said:

    Well we already know who won leadership for the House and Senate and they both signal no change in direction. I'm sorry if you think my points too "singular" on a piece entitled "How Jokes Won the 2016 election." I'm entitled to my views on it and I justified my opinions. 

    I was noting it because in many areas of life, people have one or two big achievements and then coast on them using them to validate their actions for much longer than that. It isn't just Streep. If someone told me to listen to Michael Jordan in 2016 because he grabbed six rings in the 1990's I'd treat it as similar. She did have a period of time where she had a lot more success. Now she is something that moves along under the weight of past accomplishments. (We might arguing about whether Apple is doing the same right now for example.)

    As for whether it was throwing in a barb, I noted what it was about specifically. Here is the quote to make it even more specific. "Thank you, Hollywood Foreign Press. Just to pick up on what Hugh Laurie said, you and all of us in this room really belong to the most vilified segments of American society right now. Think about it: Hollywood, foreigners and the press."

    I mean do your get that statement? For Meryl Streep to suggest she is akin to a child dragged over the border by their parents when they are a year old who later discover they are unable to work or go to school through no fault of their own and are caught in the middle, iisn't just absurd, it is outright offensive. It has to be laughable. 

    As for whether public discourse is becoming courser, I disagree. HIstorically it was much worse. People would write under pseudonyms and so forth but all manner of allegations were made. Statemanlike is one of those words the elites use as a one lane road. Bill Clinton was certainly unstatemenlike when getting his hummers. Barack Obama was certainly unstatemanlike with all his comic junkets at those yearly press dinners or with nonsense like "Obama Out" and so forth.  When a Trump declares CNN to be fake news, it is unstatesmenlike. However if Obama or anyone else calls out Fox News, or specifically calls out Faux News, it is just fine. It is par for the course. All is well.

    Speaking of unstatesmenlike though, I would encourage you to review the 2011 White House Correspondence Dinner. It is referenced in your article and many think it is what made Trump decide to run. It features all the "victims" in the room together engaging in their smug style. The press, the stars and the (mostly) Democratic representatives all having a fun "aren't we great" and "we all know" moment. 

    Obviously my comments continue to address more than that particular article. They address the thread in general. President Obama even ends his final news conference with a veiled threat and of course it is "statesmanlike". He'll be watching, of course it will just be from the outside. He can continue to pat himself on the back and ensure himself he is the superior and the victim and the enforcer all at the same time. Meanwhile his party continues to burn itself down.
    Re. Minority House and Senate Leader - true, but it's rather a different scenario where the existing elected representatives elected their own leaders in small congregations (for which there are also precedents and traditions), and the party as a large elect the administrator of the national party.  As I said, it'll be interesting which way they go.  I think it's a shame Howard Dean dropped out, he had a particular platform that would have made a statement.

    Not sure why you're pointing out that you're entitled to your views, that was never in question.  I'm not threatening your right to free speech in any way, no one here is.

    Re. Meryl Streep, I don't think she is coasting on past qualities to validate her actions at all, not even a bit.  She was literally on stage to receive an award, right now, this year, and barely a year goes by where she isn't at least nominated for a major award.  Also, she made a speech, she wasn't seeking or demanding validation, just a speech that she had earned a platform to deliver, whether you like the content or not.  No one is saying you have to listen to Meryl Streep because she's Meryl Streep, but you might choose to listen to her because she's an intelligent and eloquent woman who made a thoughtful speech that wasn't attacking anyone, but was pleading for kindness, and earned a news spot for its content and for Trump's insecure reaction.

    She also didn't claim to be akin to child immigrants (she didn't mention children at all), she made a simple comparison based on the language of the campaign and how both the press and immigrants have been ritually demonised, rather unjustly in the wider case, by the incoming administration.  She's also a living, breathing human being just like child immigrants - oh how dare I make such an offensive comparison!  Rather false indignation, I feel.

    Re. discourse, sure, historically things may have been much worse, but I'm talking about modern history of the past few decades.  Life is better in just about every way than 200 years ago, but that doesn't mean that we should tolerate regression just because we haven't hit a historical low.

    The Correspondent's Dinner has a long history of levity and mutual mockery, I hardly think it can be entered into the equation of unstatesmanlike behaviour while on the job.


    singularity
  • The Democratic Party is on Fire...

    I think you've taken rather a singular viewpoint away from the article; it wasn't saying that humour was the only reason Trump won the election, and I doubt the author would even claim it was the main reason he won.  For sure, economics was a big factor, possibly the biggest, there were a litany of issues with Clinton as a candidate, and there is something of a coziness with East Coast democrats with Wall Street and big business that carries a sleaziness.  I don't think the DNC, either as a whole, or on the part of many individual Democrats, are as myopic as you think they are, this has been widely recognised, they know that they need to clean up.  How they do that is likely to be a source of much debate, and it will be interesting to see who wins the Chair.

    Out of interest, why are Meryl Streep's acting performance of the last decade relevant to the validity of her political opinions?  It's not (though worth noting that she's been Academy nominated six times in the period; I think she's doing pretty ok), but this is very much a Trumpian tactic of discredit, just throw in a barb to distract from the meat of the point.  

    I think its pretty clear that the public, mainstream language of political discourse is getting rougher, and "I was just joking/being sarcastic" is being used to excuse unstatesmanlike conduct, and the comedy/advert/propaganda/news cycle.  And you're right, the left is as guilty of that as the right, though I disagree with you about the nature of the smugness, I think that's just a partisan perception.
    singularity
  • AT&T pulls plug on 2G network, ending cellular data for Apple's 2007 iPhone

    Oh man... I always harbored the thought that, some day, I'd fire it up again -- still a beauty, in pristine condition -- and make a call or two with it, for fun. But I suppose not. :-/

    Unless I travel to a country where 2G's still operational (e.g., India).
    Isn't this just data? You should still be able to make a call I think?
    jbdragon