The following image is a screenshot from Hillary Clinton’s website (assuming they haven’t taken the video down or replaced it by the time you read this). I took it after reading this article and then verified I was looking at the correct website by retyping the URL manually.
Here’s detail of the (rather crudely) faked headline:
Note that, almost absurdly, it is in fact an article on the “troopergate” scandal (in which it was alleged that Bill Clinton used state troopers to procure women for him while he was Governor of Arkansas).
I have to wonder if this is evidence of arrogance, stupidity, incompetence, or deliberate sabotage by an irate campaign worker. Or perhaps something as simple as harmless mischief like the penis-shaped coral in the original movie posters for The Little Mermaid. In any event it just reinforces my opinion that Hillary’s bid for the White House has gone way beyond “gritty and determined” and is now harming not only the Democratic Party’s chances in November, but Hillary’s future as a senator and presidential candidate.
Don’t accuse people of being traitors for doing their jobs. Yes, you didn’t use the word “traitor” or “treason” — you used the word “betray”. Oh yeah, and you made play of a guy’s name.
Moveon or Moron? Hahahaha so clever.
Seriously, as a lifelong Democrat, I tell you guys to get a clue. You’ve just managed to completely miss the point.
Instead of insulting people, ask them intelligent questions. Here are the questions I would ask General David Petraeus:
1) Do you think we will win in Iraq?
2) Define win.
3) What is the likely cost of our current course of action? (Lives, dollars, etc.)
4) What is the likely outcome of serious alternative courses of action, such as leaving, or invoking the draft and sending in 200k more soldiers?
5) What is the likely cost of leaving, or invoking the draft?
If the answer to any of these is “I don’t know” then who does? Let’s ask them.
Once we have reasonable answers to these questions, then we can decide for ourselves whether to stay or go. Until then, we don’t have enough information to make a reasonable decision, in which case I’d err on the side of saving money, blood, and prestige and leave as quickly as possible.
Well, I can predict one of the surprises that will be in Leopard based on this patent filing and a bunch of similar, related patents.
Apple is going to offer procedural desktop pictures (essentually GPU pixel shader programs) that produce pretty animated abstract or image-processed desktop pictures. These will be gorgeous, stylish, and have the following virtues:
- Unlike desktop pictures, they won’t take up memory in either system or video — beyond the images they use. Since many of the options will be purely abstract (think of iTunes visualizations or Motion samples) this will be a significant chunk of RAM freed up.
- Unlike desktop pictures, these can be procedurally animated for free (essentially accessing a static pixel and accessing a computed pixel are pretty much identical operations for modern GPUs).
Just look at the kinds of things Motion does effortlessly and you can be sure this stuff will be gorgeous (quite possibly distractingly so) and make Windows Vista look like the pathetic, obsolete hunk of junk it is, but which its “me too Aqua” graphical wrapper partially conceals.
Incidentally, animated window frames could be done exactly the same way.