The Infamous Ipod

[KittenKoder]

I thought life long dem left the board.

People come ... people go ... the only reason they announce when they leave is because they crave the attention. When I leave for periods of time no one notices ...

 

[edthecynic]

President and First Lady Obama gave Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II a video iPod with inscription, songs uploaded and accessories, plus a rare musical songbook signed by Richard Rodgers.

Uploaded onto the iPod:

* Photos from the Queen's 2007 White House State Visit
* Photos from the Queen's 2007 Jamestown, Va., Visit
* Photos from the Queen's 2007 Richmond, Va., Visit
* Video from the Queen's 1957 Jamestown Visit
* Video from the Queen's 2007 Jamestown Visit
* Video from the Queen's 2007 Richmond Visit
* Photos from President Obama's Inauguration
* Audio of then-state senator Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and
* Audio of President Obama 2009 Inauguration Address

Britain's Press Association reports that the Royal couple gave the Obamas "a silver-framed, signed photograph of themselves."

What Does One Get a Queen? - Political Punch

I can see the Richard Rodgers songbook. I can see the photos from the Queen's previous visits.

But photos and audios of BO speeches?

You see ONLY what you CHOOSE to see.

 

[Munin]

With the far-left, it's not about choice, it's about control.

You shouldn't speak before you know what the results of his actions are, unless you have a cristall ball of course

so far I did not see anything that he did that was as bad as the mistakes of the previous president, if you see a bigger mistake then let us know (but have the proof of it as well: the proof that his policy didn't work).

uh, you dont?
making the deficit 4 times larger than Bush?
and he just said today he wants ANOTHER TRILLION

No, I disagree: that deficit is not permanent yet, because it doesn't count in the income that he might receive from the recovery (and when the recovery is sooner than expected he has more income and he has his loans back). Also this deficit is largely a result of the Bush administration: because of the bad economy he inherited he has a bigger deficit. To fix the economy he needs to increase the deficit for a short amount of time.

the deficit is calculated on the basis of the income of the government and the income of the government is a result of the economic situation. And this economic situation is a result of one of the worst american presidencies in US history (the Bush presidency), because Bush didn't contain the situation: he only acted when it was too late (after lehman brothers collapsed).

 

[KittenKoder]

You shouldn't speak before you know what the results of his actions are, unless you have a cristall ball of course

so far I did not see anything that he did that was as bad as the mistakes of the previous president, if you see a bigger mistake then let us know (but have the proof of it as well: the proof that his policy didn't work).

uh, you dont?
making the deficit 4 times larger than Bush?
and he just said today he wants ANOTHER TRILLION

No: that deficit is not permanent yet, because it doesn't count in the income that he might receive from the recovery (and when the recovery is sooner than expected). Also this deficit is largely a result of the Bush administration: because of the bad economy he inherited he has a bigger deficit. To fix the economy he needs to increase the deficit for a short amount of time.

the deficit is calculated on the basis of the income and the income is a result of the economic situation. And the economic situation is a result of the worst american presidency in US history (the Bush presidency), because Bush didn't contain the situation: he only acted when it was too late (after lehman brothers collapsed).

Seriously? (damn I am using that a lot today) ... spending money on projects that produce no income is wasting it, so it can be considered a serious deficit increase no matter how you spin it.

 

[editec]

What a dumb gift.

Were I POTUS, I'd have given her Panama.

What do you mean Panama is not ours to give?

Yeah...right!

 

[Munin]

uh, you dont?
making the deficit 4 times larger than Bush?
and he just said today he wants ANOTHER TRILLION

No: that deficit is not permanent yet, because it doesn't count in the income that he might receive from the recovery (and when the recovery is sooner than expected). Also this deficit is largely a result of the Bush administration: because of the bad economy he inherited he has a bigger deficit. To fix the economy he needs to increase the deficit for a short amount of time.

the deficit is calculated on the basis of the income and the income is a result of the economic situation. And the economic situation is a result of the worst american presidency in US history (the Bush presidency), because Bush didn't contain the situation: he only acted when it was too late (after lehman brothers collapsed).

Seriously? (damn I am using that a lot today) ... spending money on projects that produce no income is wasting it, so it can be considered a serious deficit increase no matter how you spin it.

deficit is about going below zero, not about spending. If Obama spends less than his income then he has no deficit. that is not a spin, that is a fact.

good investments produce income, even if the government doesn't earn it directly.

 

[KittenKoder]

No: that deficit is not permanent yet, because it doesn't count in the income that he might receive from the recovery (and when the recovery is sooner than expected). Also this deficit is largely a result of the Bush administration: because of the bad economy he inherited he has a bigger deficit. To fix the economy he needs to increase the deficit for a short amount of time.

the deficit is calculated on the basis of the income and the income is a result of the economic situation. And the economic situation is a result of the worst american presidency in US history (the Bush presidency), because Bush didn't contain the situation: he only acted when it was too late (after lehman brothers collapsed).

Seriously? (damn I am using that a lot today) ... spending money on projects that produce no income is wasting it, so it can be considered a serious deficit increase no matter how you spin it.

deficit is about going below zero, not about spending. If Obama spends less than his income then he has no deficit. that is not a spin, that is a fact.

good investments produce income, even if the government doesn't earn it directly.

Point to ONE good investment in the bills he has pushed?

 

[DiveCon]

Seriously? (damn I am using that a lot today) ... spending money on projects that produce no income is wasting it, so it can be considered a serious deficit increase no matter how you spin it.

deficit is about going below zero, not about spending. If Obama spends less than his income then he has no deficit. that is not a spin, that is a fact.

good investments produce income, even if the government doesn't earn it directly.

Point to ONE good investment in the bills he has pushed?

i hope he can, cause i sure cant
its all wasted as far as i can see

 

[Munin]

Seriously? (damn I am using that a lot today) ... spending money on projects that produce no income is wasting it, so it can be considered a serious deficit increase no matter how you spin it.

deficit is about going below zero, not about spending. If Obama spends less than his income then he has no deficit. that is not a spin, that is a fact.

good investments produce income, even if the government doesn't earn it directly.

Point to ONE good investment in the bills he has pushed?

The new internet network: U.S. Net access not all that speedy - USATODAY.com

it will allow you have an even better internet connection and better download speed (especially handy for files, ...) and it will allow internetcompanies like google (which owns youtube) to be even more successful.

 

[KittenKoder]

deficit is about going below zero, not about spending. If Obama spends less than his income then he has no deficit. that is not a spin, that is a fact.

good investments produce income, even if the government doesn't earn it directly.

Point to ONE good investment in the bills he has pushed?

The new internet network: U.S. Net access not all that speedy - USATODAY.com

it will allow you have an even better internet connection and better download speed (especially handy for files, ...) and it will allow internetcompanies like google (which owns youtube) to be even more successful.

Really? LOL ... is that all you have? It's really funny because ... well ... it's neither accurate nor a good investment. Online businesses don't make much money based on the speed of access for their users, most are store fronts which are rarely effected by speed (unless some moron with a degree wrote the site using some lame coder like Front-Page). On Qwest I am getting the second slowest speed, just don't need more than that ... it's 5 Mbps. They offer I think 50 Mbps for their highest are are improving that soon to 70 within the next year. Internet access is a privilege, not a requirement, and anyone who thinks or tries to make it a requirement is ignorant. People don't like technology if they are forced to use it so this is a moot point, and will not make more money for any companies. Even if they offered free high speed access to more people it wouldn't boost sales at all. The money for the net isn't in the site, the Dot Com bubble proved that, it's in store fronts and service sales. Try again.

 

[DiveCon]

Point to ONE good investment in the bills he has pushed?

The new internet network: U.S. Net access not all that speedy - USATODAY.com

it will allow you have an even better internet connection and better download speed (especially handy for files, ...) and it will allow internetcompanies like google (which owns youtube) to be even more successful.

Really? LOL ... is that all you have? It's really funny because ... well ... it's neither accurate nor a good investment. Online businesses don't make much money based on the speed of access for their users, most are store fronts which are rarely effected by speed (unless some moron with a degree wrote the site using some lame coder like Front-Page). On Qwest I am getting the second slowest speed, just don't need more than that ... it's 5 Mbps. They offer I think 50 Mbps for their highest are are improving that soon to 70 within the next year. Internet access is a privilege, not a requirement, and anyone who thinks or tries to make it a requirement is ignorant. People don't like technology if they are forced to use it so this is a moot point, and will not make more money for any companies. Even if they offered free high speed access to more people it wouldn't boost sales at all. The money for the net isn't in the site, the Dot Com bubble proved that, it's in store fronts and service sales. Try again.

and advertising

 

[Yurt]

Point to ONE good investment in the bills he has pushed?

The new internet network: U.S. Net access not all that speedy - USATODAY.com

it will allow you have an even better internet connection and better download speed (especially handy for files, ...) and it will allow internetcompanies like google (which owns youtube) to be even more successful.

Really? LOL ... is that all you have? It's really funny because ... well ... it's neither accurate nor a good investment. Online businesses don't make much money based on the speed of access for their users, most are store fronts which are rarely effected by speed (unless some moron with a degree wrote the site using some lame coder like Front-Page). On Qwest I am getting the second slowest speed, just don't need more than that ... it's 5 Mbps. They offer I think 50 Mbps for their highest are are improving that soon to 70 within the next year. Internet access is a privilege, not a requirement, and anyone who thinks or tries to make it a requirement is ignorant. People don't like technology if they are forced to use it so this is a moot point, and will not make more money for any companies. Even if they offered free high speed access to more people it wouldn't boost sales at all. The money for the net isn't in the site, the Dot Com bubble proved that, it's in store fronts and service sales. Try again.

50!! wow, i can only 20 here....

amazing, a little over decade ago we were on dial up

 

[KittenKoder]

The new internet network: U.S. Net access not all that speedy - USATODAY.com

it will allow you have an even better internet connection and better download speed (especially handy for files, ...) and it will allow internetcompanies like google (which owns youtube) to be even more successful.

Really? LOL ... is that all you have? It's really funny because ... well ... it's neither accurate nor a good investment. Online businesses don't make much money based on the speed of access for their users, most are store fronts which are rarely effected by speed (unless some moron with a degree wrote the site using some lame coder like Front-Page). On Qwest I am getting the second slowest speed, just don't need more than that ... it's 5 Mbps. They offer I think 50 Mbps for their highest are are improving that soon to 70 within the next year. Internet access is a privilege, not a requirement, and anyone who thinks or tries to make it a requirement is ignorant. People don't like technology if they are forced to use it so this is a moot point, and will not make more money for any companies. Even if they offered free high speed access to more people it wouldn't boost sales at all. The money for the net isn't in the site, the Dot Com bubble proved that, it's in store fronts and service sales. Try again.

and advertising

Good advertising won't be hurt by slow speeds ... the best advertisement campaigns have been small GIF's and a link, anything more tends to annoy consumers and they use script blockers (like I do) to block anything else. So speed isn't an issue with those either, but yeah.

 

[Munin]

Point to ONE good investment in the bills he has pushed?

The new internet network: U.S. Net access not all that speedy - USATODAY.com

it will allow you have an even better internet connection and better download speed (especially handy for files, ...) and it will allow internetcompanies like google (which owns youtube) to be even more successful.

Really? LOL ... is that all you have? It's really funny because ... well ... it's neither accurate nor a good investment. Online businesses don't make much money based on the speed of access for their users, most are store fronts which are rarely effected by speed (unless some moron with a degree wrote the site using some lame coder like Front-Page). On Qwest I am getting the second slowest speed, just don't need more than that ... it's 5 Mbps. They offer I think 50 Mbps for their highest are are improving that soon to 70 within the next year. Internet access is a privilege, not a requirement, and anyone who thinks or tries to make it a requirement is ignorant. People don't like technology if they are forced to use it so this is a moot point, and will not make more money for any companies. Even if they offered free high speed access to more people it wouldn't boost sales at all. The money for the net isn't in the site, the Dot Com bubble proved that, it's in store fronts and service sales. Try again.

Well you asked for 1 investment, I gave you 1 example that can improve the whole US economy and it is very accurate btw.

The internetspeedimprovement will increase profitablitity if not only because companies will lose less time downloading and sending stuff through the internet. I m not only talking about online businesses, ever wondered why youtube is profitable? There are many other applications for the internet network, ever heard of a "High Definition TV"? Internet gaming (the gaming industry is even bigger then the movie industry today)? Companies are using the internet of all sorts of other purposes, using programs to operate machines from a distance (you could even operate the machines of a factory from abroad by using the internet). Downloading movies, games, music, ... by paying for it, the downside is that illegal downloads will also have this speed advantage.

 

[KittenKoder]

The new internet network: U.S. Net access not all that speedy - USATODAY.com

it will allow you have an even better internet connection and better download speed (especially handy for files, ...) and it will allow internetcompanies like google (which owns youtube) to be even more successful.

Really? LOL ... is that all you have? It's really funny because ... well ... it's neither accurate nor a good investment. Online businesses don't make much money based on the speed of access for their users, most are store fronts which are rarely effected by speed (unless some moron with a degree wrote the site using some lame coder like Front-Page). On Qwest I am getting the second slowest speed, just don't need more than that ... it's 5 Mbps. They offer I think 50 Mbps for their highest are are improving that soon to 70 within the next year. Internet access is a privilege, not a requirement, and anyone who thinks or tries to make it a requirement is ignorant. People don't like technology if they are forced to use it so this is a moot point, and will not make more money for any companies. Even if they offered free high speed access to more people it wouldn't boost sales at all. The money for the net isn't in the site, the Dot Com bubble proved that, it's in store fronts and service sales. Try again.

Well you asked for 1 investment, I gave you 1 example that can improve the whole US economy.

The internetspeedimprovement will increase profitablitity if not only because companies will lose less time downloading and sending stuff through the internet. I m not only talking about online businesses, ever wondered why youtube is profitable? There are many other applications for the internet network, ever heard a "High Definition TV"? Internet gaming (the gaming industry is even bigger then the movie industry today)? Companies are using the internet of all sorts of other purposes, using programs to operate machines from a distance (you could even operate the machines of a factory from abroad by using the internet). Downloading movies, games, music, ... by paying for it, the downside is that illegal downloads will also have this speed advantage.

Um yeah ... I said investment not waste of money. You posted a waste of money, not an investment. Unless the government is going to start a federal internet service provider and offer speeds of more than 70 meg, then it isn't an investment ... there is no profit to be had and no one will benefit. I pointed to several reasons it's not, but you ignored them, but I shall indulge your idiotic points.

The gaming industry has been doing just fine with the current speeds offered. People play even the high end games using wi-fi sometimes without any lag or loss of speed, and wi-fi is always slower than it says (11 mbps typically runs at 5 mbps for example). So no, it won't help them one bit because you still have to buy their software, which is where they make the real money, and pay subscriptions to their servers, again more money, the speed of access for most games ... less than the lowest high speed connections already available. Oh ... and have you seen my latest website?

HDTV is a fad ... nothing more.

Downloading of movies, etc., is not effected by such a speed increase unless the server they are hosted on is also fast enough, that is the company which offers the download who is responsible. I complained about that once on here as a rant, where many sites that offer movies are lagging and can't even keep up with my measly 7 mbps (I made a mistake, forgot they upgraded me for free) so I have to buffer most of the vid in order to watch uninterrupted ... because the server is only uploading at about 3 mbps.

Oh, and as for the top speed, I also messed that one up, Qwest will be offering 2 gig in a couple months now ... and Comcast has 70 meg right now ... kind ruins the article you posted saying our average was what ... 1.9 mbps? The two top companies are offering 100 times that average.

So again ... how is this an investment? How is doubling 1.9 mbps going to actually help? Or even boosting it to 45 mbps (to be generous)? So you are saying that we are all going to have to take losses in our internet access speeds because the government wants to waste a ton of money on it? Bad for business.

 

[KittenKoder]

Also no, I asked for one investment from Obama ... that was the whole debate. He is wasting money on programs that will NOT improve our economy ... you haven't given one investment he has made with our money.

 

[Munin]

I disagree completely.

HD tv is not a fad, it is a very good product and it is highly profitable for companies who sell it. I know it because I have HD-TV, it is like watching the news with blu-ray quality.

higher internet speed is an economic advantage: "time is money", this is true.

This investment is as important as the investment to improve the roads and bridges, this is almost the same. with better roads people will be able to travel faster, which will is an economic advantage. Speed is an economic advantage, why do you take your car instead of walking? Because it saves you time. A faster internet will save you time and money.

the internet speed is about the US as a whole, not just the city that you live in. The same with the infrastructure works like new bridges and new roads.

your internet netwerk does determine your internet speed (among other factors), try the difference between wireless and cable and you ll know what I mean.

And again, there are numerous other purposes for high speed internet: new internetsoftware that need high speeds for example

 

[KittenKoder]

So ... fads are not profitable ... odd you would not see that your statement says this.

In reality, the most profitable products are always fads, and almost always fade even after becoming standard. HDTV is a fad, once all TVs become HD by standard people will forget the difference completely and there just won't be any other types of TVs out there, the cost will fall drastically when the fad passes ... as did the iPod, CD player, DVD player ... etc.. Almost all technology is a fad at first, all common tech that is, before it becomes standard. The only difference between a fad and an advancement is need vs. want. A fad is something that you don't need but you may or may not want (I don't care about HD at all myself). The most recent transition from fad to standard is the iPhone ... now you will notice almost all phones use the same OS and technology, it's now a standard and the iPhone itself has almost faded into memory because it's common, but when it was first introduced it was just a fad, many people wanted one and they could charge whatever they wanted for it, but now they are lucky to get 200 for one.

Now, back to internet speed, what do you think our standard speed should be? Then how do you propose to get all the money to all the servers world wide so they can upload fast enough even at peak times to make use of it? How about all the privately owned servers in households (some people have then running in their closet now)? It's not an investment if the price is more than the return, so how would we see the return from all this? Most websites make no money, they are free, and sometimes sell advertising space, which then the costs go right back into the operating costs ... how is making them faster going to improve the economy?

Then there is the simple fact that people don't need the internet, they could switch it off at any moment for any reason, are you proposing that to make any profit we completely overload our sites with advertising the same way TV and cable have? Ever notice that people don't use those mediums nearly as much ... ever stop to wonder why? Ignoring the interaction component of the internet, if they did fill too much space with advertising people would likely follow the same trend, switch it off and find something less advertisement filled to do, like DVDs.

Lastly, if you think our internet access is slow in the US, prove it, seriously. I'm going to give you a chance to show we even need an upgrade ... so far I see 2 gig from one company, 70 meg in another (which is working toward 2 gig soon), and the lowest end companies averaging about 50 meg ... so how fast do you really think it needs to be? Also, look up what the speeds mean to, before you try to answer this, and how optimizers work. Also check a bit on connection types and the effects the OS's have on speeds (Windows slows the internet connection you have by almost 50% now with all services running). What you are proposing would never pay off ... ever. It's a waste.

Infrastructure ... ahh ... there is another waste of money now, and not because we don't need it but because no matter how much money you put in it, cities will waste that money not use it well. For example, here in Seattle, the I-5 viaduct. It was a waste of money when they first built it, doesn't really help our traffic problems but does create more. Now, after the earthquake we had, they have to take it down. Guess what? Instead of using the federal money on a wise alternative they are wasting it on drilling a fucking tunnel. How is that a good investment? Of course you need to know a little more about our city to realize how bad this idea is since it would work fine in other cities. So let's go back a bit further ... look into the failed monorail project a decade ago, then look into the SLUT project which replaced it after it failed ... you will see the trends of waste. I know Seattle isn't the only city making such stupid choices with the money based solely on idiotic ideas from politicians, but I live here so I know those ones best.

 

[Chris]

Also no, I asked for one investment from Obama ... that was the whole debate. He is wasting money on programs that will NOT improve our economy ... you haven't given one investment he has made with our money.

Where is Your Money Going? | Recovery.gov

 

[KittenKoder]

Chris ... thanks for proving that Obama is wasting money.