vansmack wrote:
17-inch MacBook Pro, because what the world needs is less portable laptops as we get rid of our desktops…
*COUGH*$2800!!!*COUGH*
*COUGH*$2800!!!*COUGH*
Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...
*COUGH*$2800!!!*COUGH*
Haha! iTunes is finally DRM free? sort of.
Are you willing to pay for DRM free music?
69 Cents for DRM, $1.29 for DRM free on iTunes (speculation on my part).
No thanks, I'll use one of the many other services that provide DRM free music for 99 cents.
Are you willing to pay for DRM free music?
69 Cents for DRM, $1.29 for DRM free on iTunes (speculation on my part).
No thanks, I'll use one of the many other services that provide DRM free music for 99 cents.
Venerable wrote:the l.a. times, feinstein and rockfeller dont like appointment, does that mean you have to like it?vansmack wrote:
Panetta for CIA Chief?
"they've got to put him somewhere"
godsshoeshine wrote:Venerable wrote:the l.a. times, feinstein and rockfeller dont like appointment, does that mean you have to like it?vansmack wrote:
Panetta for CIA Chief?
"they've got to put him somewhere"
hey, i like feinstein and i even voted for her. . .plus, she kicked all the black people out of san francisco. . . .and jello biafra does a funny impression of her when he ran against her for mayor.
vansmack wrote:
Haha! iTunes is finally DRM free? sort of.
Are you willing to pay for DRM free music?
69 Cents for DRM, $1.29 for DRM free on iTunes (speculation on my part).
No thanks, I'll use one of the many other services that provide DRM free music for 99 cents.
this is a concession?
Apple's top marketing executive, Philip Schiller, said iTunes songs would come in three pricing tiers: 69 cents, 99 cents and $1.29. Record companies will choose the prices, which marks a significant change, since Apple previously made all songs sell for 99 cents.
Venerable wrote:
hey, i like feinstein and i even voted for her. . .plus, she kicked all the black people out of san francisco. . . .
Comments like this belong in threads started by others on this board. Kindly keep them out of mine. Interesting comment by someone who "only sees class"….
Venerable wrote:
this is a concession?
Apple's top marketing executive, Philip Schiller, said iTunes songs would come in three pricing tiers: 69 cents, 99 cents and $1.29. Record companies will choose the prices, which marks a significant change, since Apple previously made all songs sell for 99 cents.
I would call it more like keeping up with the competition (Amazon, eMusic, Zune) then I would call it a concession. It wasn't the majority of the record industry that was pushing for this (although at least one major company was).
BTW - these are still AAC songs, not MP3, so for some conversion will still be necessary.
Venerable wrote:
i think he would be a better pick for other agencies, based on his experience. . .and seems too much of an overtly political pick for the cia….
Is this about Panetta or George HW Bush?
At least in this instance Blair is actually in charge of intelligence and Panetta is in charge of cleaning up processes - something few would argue he's not capable of.
vansmack wrote:Venerable wrote:
i think he would be a better pick for other agencies, based on his experience. . .and seems too much of an overtly political pick for the cia….
Is this about Panetta or George HW Bush?
At least in this instance Blair is actually in charge of intelligence and Panetta is in charge of cleaning up processes - something few would argue he's not capable of.
glad to see you've caught up on the talking points. . . .
Venerable wrote:
glad to see you've caught up on the talking points. . . .
You know I'm limited in what I can say on the issue…I was just going to link to the Economist article, but thought better of it. I think you're right, I'm not going to like this new searchable forum.
The Bush joke was my first thought though. His appoinment was the most obviously political we've ever seen. Nixon and Ford, if they were still alive, would still be paying him back for giving up that House seat in his failed Senate bid. First UN Ambassador, then the China gig and lastly the CIA. Hell, they may even have persuaded Reagan for the VP slot.
And on DiFi - she's just bitter she wasn't contacted first. Get used to it, or dare I say, have some better intelligence folks. You are in charge of the intelligence committee after all.
I really do think Obama feels the need to clean up the CIA and chose Panetta to do just that, perhaps get them back in the good graces of the legislature after a series of failures and Panetta is the man for that. Do I think it's an odd choice? Absolutely. But this is not the same agency as it was pre-911. It doesn't have the same clout, nor does it have the respect it had before George Tenet. [sarcasm]Maybe Dick Clarke turned him down?[/sarcasm]
vansmack wrote:Venerable wrote:
glad to see you've caught up on the talking points. . . .
You know I'm limited in what I can say on the issue…I was just going to link to the Economist article, but thought better of it. I think you're right, I'm not going to like this new searchable forum.
I really do think Obama feels the need to clean up the CIA and chose Panetta to do just that, perhaps get them back in the good graces of the legislature after a series of failures and Panetta is the man for that. Do I think it's an odd choice? Absolutely. But this is not the same agency as it was pre-911. It doesn't have the same clout, nor does it have the respect it had before George Tenet.
an excellent, for the most part, response. . .i think the economist story gets to the larger issue about finding a new cia director- since the latter stages of the clinton adminstration, some form of torture has been implicitly allowed, and bush made that even more explicit. the problem is that you are dealing with at least 10 years of experience that needs to be thrown out the window and obama, at least initially bowing to pressure (see- John Brannan), is basically ignoring anyone associated with the cia over that past decade. if obama has decided that his first step with the cia is to clean-house and not, you know, focus on spying, then i suppose panetta is just as good a pick as anyone. . .and obama needs to put him somewhere. still, i'm surprised that panetta is willing to leave the lucrative leon and sylvia panetta institute of public policy at lovely cal state-monterey bay. . .
He's 70 years old, from my contact with him I'm frankly shocked he took the job (I don't think he pressured the administration for a job, and certainly not this one) and I think it's a short term gig, kind of like the Iraq Group job (and I disagree with the LAT assessment that they wrong, but we've been through that).
And you're damn right I'm throwing my name in the hat to keep his seat warm at Moterrey Bay while he's gone. Prime gig.
And you're damn right I'm throwing my name in the hat to keep his seat warm at Moterrey Bay while he's gone. Prime gig.
One of my favorite series since the Election has been The Economists series called "Barack Obama's Blackberry." They've sent a series of recommendations to the President-Elect's Blackberry before he loses it for security reasons:
Guantanamo
Health Care
Israel-Palestine (this one probably needs to be re-written)
The Environment
Iran
This weeks was on Wall Street, and when you've got the Economist calling for a new regulatory scheme, you know things have gotten bad.
Wall Street
?FIRST the good news. While the recession is getting worse, the financial crisis that started it has been contained?for now. The government has had to bail out only one big financial institution in the past six weeks.
The bad news is that the Bush administration and the Fed had nothing resembling a consistent strategy. They crushed Fannie?s and Freddie?s stock holders. They saved Citigroup?s. Ad-hockery is costly: it keeps private capital on the sidelines for fear of being wiped out in the next Sunday night rescue. And the government is now on the hook for perhaps trillions of dollars of guarantees and new capital, in return for which it got no extra power to protect the system and the taxpayer in the future.
What we need, and soon, is a ?resolution regime?, governing how the government may take over any big financial institution and sell, nationalise or close it. We do have such a regime for deposit-taking banks, but it?s flawed in two respects. First, huge amounts of money are sloshing around outside the banks. Second, the biggest banks have long since become so thoroughly intertwined with the financial system that they cannot be neatly closed down as our laws once envisioned.
Designing such a regime is going to be a lot harder than just saying we need one. How are we going to decide which institutions are so important that they must come under it? And any institution we do agree to cover will be seen as ?too big to fail?, obtaining an unfair advantage over its competitors in their cost of borrowing.
Whatever we come up with, voters have a right to be sure that we never get into this kind of mess again. The inability of the Republicans to forestall or fix the crisis was the main reason you won (after your charm and brains, naturally).
At a minimum, we will need much tighter federal oversight of the non-banks, and that is going to be hugely unpopular with Wall Street (though a bit of squealing from them is no bad thing for voters to hear). This ought to be part of a broader overhaul of a financial regulatory system that everyone knows is a mess: we have seven agencies overseeing banking, securities and futures and they still allowed the banks to behave like lunatics and failed to spot Bernie Madoff?s Ponzi scheme. It took four years to pass the last overhaul. We don?t have that much time: the crisis could claim its next victim at any moment. We have to figure out, right now, how we will respond.?
Guantanamo
Health Care
Israel-Palestine (this one probably needs to be re-written)
The Environment
Iran
This weeks was on Wall Street, and when you've got the Economist calling for a new regulatory scheme, you know things have gotten bad.
Wall Street
?FIRST the good news. While the recession is getting worse, the financial crisis that started it has been contained?for now. The government has had to bail out only one big financial institution in the past six weeks.
The bad news is that the Bush administration and the Fed had nothing resembling a consistent strategy. They crushed Fannie?s and Freddie?s stock holders. They saved Citigroup?s. Ad-hockery is costly: it keeps private capital on the sidelines for fear of being wiped out in the next Sunday night rescue. And the government is now on the hook for perhaps trillions of dollars of guarantees and new capital, in return for which it got no extra power to protect the system and the taxpayer in the future.
What we need, and soon, is a ?resolution regime?, governing how the government may take over any big financial institution and sell, nationalise or close it. We do have such a regime for deposit-taking banks, but it?s flawed in two respects. First, huge amounts of money are sloshing around outside the banks. Second, the biggest banks have long since become so thoroughly intertwined with the financial system that they cannot be neatly closed down as our laws once envisioned.
Designing such a regime is going to be a lot harder than just saying we need one. How are we going to decide which institutions are so important that they must come under it? And any institution we do agree to cover will be seen as ?too big to fail?, obtaining an unfair advantage over its competitors in their cost of borrowing.
Whatever we come up with, voters have a right to be sure that we never get into this kind of mess again. The inability of the Republicans to forestall or fix the crisis was the main reason you won (after your charm and brains, naturally).
At a minimum, we will need much tighter federal oversight of the non-banks, and that is going to be hugely unpopular with Wall Street (though a bit of squealing from them is no bad thing for voters to hear). This ought to be part of a broader overhaul of a financial regulatory system that everyone knows is a mess: we have seven agencies overseeing banking, securities and futures and they still allowed the banks to behave like lunatics and failed to spot Bernie Madoff?s Ponzi scheme. It took four years to pass the last overhaul. We don?t have that much time: the crisis could claim its next victim at any moment. We have to figure out, right now, how we will respond.?
vansmack wrote:
He's 70 years old, from my contact with him I'm frankly shocked he took the job (I don't think he pressured the administration for a job, and certainly not this one) and I think it's a short term gig, kind of like the Iraq Group job (and I disagree with the LAT assessment that they wrong, but we've been through that).
And you're damn right I'm throwing my name in the hat to keep his seat warm at Moterrey Bay while he's gone. Prime gig.
i agree that this is probably a short term job, panetta will last just long enough to outlast the demands of the progressives who demand their people get jobs. after that, someone like brennan will show back up. but it also probably means that blair will have most of the power. . .
and feinstein won't be bullied (unlike boxer now). . .you should know that.
Is this the new Bachelor Party Jersey?
Teixeira's wife calls the shots
On Tuesday, Mark Teixeira officially became a Yankee by cramming his big fat head into the dreaded blue cap and smiling nicely for the cameras. But perhaps the most interesting news to come out of the dog and pony show in New York was the revelation that Teixeira was never that into playing for the Red Sox.
Because his wife wanted him to be a Yankee.
"Two weeks before Christmas, I talked to [wife] Leigh about it again, and we kind of decided that, hey, the Yankees are where we want to be. [W]hen I asked her during the process, 'Where should I go, where should I go?' she'd always say, 'I just want you to be happy.'
"Finally she said, 'I want you to be a Yankee,' and it was a done deal. Once we got the contract figured out, it was a no-brainer for me."
To borrow a line from Saturday Night Live: Really, Mark? Really? Your wife chooses where you play ball? Yeah, the Yankees offered you a big contract, but living expenses are so much higher in Manhattan than they are in Boston. You could have had a gorgeous condo at the Mandarin, just steps from one of Boston?s classiest restaurants. Imagine all the great date nights you could have had there.
But, no. Instead, you chose the bright lights of New York because your Charlotte from Sex in the City look-alike wife told you that the Bronx would be a good idea. Hope you enjoy the even more raucous booing from the Fenway faithful when the pinstripes roll into the Hub.
Teixeira's wife calls the shots
On Tuesday, Mark Teixeira officially became a Yankee by cramming his big fat head into the dreaded blue cap and smiling nicely for the cameras. But perhaps the most interesting news to come out of the dog and pony show in New York was the revelation that Teixeira was never that into playing for the Red Sox.
Because his wife wanted him to be a Yankee.
"Two weeks before Christmas, I talked to [wife] Leigh about it again, and we kind of decided that, hey, the Yankees are where we want to be. [W]hen I asked her during the process, 'Where should I go, where should I go?' she'd always say, 'I just want you to be happy.'
"Finally she said, 'I want you to be a Yankee,' and it was a done deal. Once we got the contract figured out, it was a no-brainer for me."
To borrow a line from Saturday Night Live: Really, Mark? Really? Your wife chooses where you play ball? Yeah, the Yankees offered you a big contract, but living expenses are so much higher in Manhattan than they are in Boston. You could have had a gorgeous condo at the Mandarin, just steps from one of Boston?s classiest restaurants. Imagine all the great date nights you could have had there.
But, no. Instead, you chose the bright lights of New York because your Charlotte from Sex in the City look-alike wife told you that the Bronx would be a good idea. Hope you enjoy the even more raucous booing from the Fenway faithful when the pinstripes roll into the Hub.
apparently, teixeira was also a yankees fan growing up in maryland.
thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you . . . . GOD!!!!!!!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/01/08/microsoft.ballmer/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/01/08/microsoft.ballmer/index.html
walkonby wrote:
thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you . . . . GOD!!!!!!!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/01/08/microsoft.ballmer/index.html
I can confirm this. After one month of use, Win7 is by far the best version of Windows yet. The leaked version had a little MP3 hiccup, but tomorrows public version won't have this problem (I recommend waiting until tomorrow to DL it). MS just sent me a full version of Vista Ultimate to install on a new test machine and I sent it back and said, no thanks, I'm running 7 on everything - even in beta.
Venerable wrote:
apparently, teixeira was also a yankees fan growing up in maryland.
Heres hoping Teixeira's career takes a Johnny Damon turn after signing with the Yankees.