Rush Limbaugh Begs Steve Jobs For Bug Fixes 689
jlgolson writes "Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh complained on his radio program about some problems that he was having with his Mac: 'Mr. Jobs, please help me. I know we don't agree on anything ... But can you put me to somebody that can get this going, because I know it's gotta work for most people. What am I doing wrong?' Eventually he shared that he was running into actual problems with Time Machine and Back to My Mac. Can you fix them?"
Re:moto (Score:5, Insightful)
It's news because it's a known issue with Time Machine that now a high profile user is raising. And it's now something that might get fixed.
Whether you like Rush or hate him (I find him amusing), I'm actually quite interested that he not only uses Macs, but has a network of them.
Of course, there will be the standard set of "evil people use Macs?" If someone actually says it in a new way, I may find that entertaining as well.
Re:moto (Score:2, Insightful)
a. He's serious
2. There are people who actually believe him.
Re:moto (Score:3, Insightful)
Send Al Gore with a new AirBook and a missing-manual.
Seriously, I'm fairly conservative and _I_ would listen to that radio show (though I don't listen to Rush's show normally). Would be great publicity for all involved and *gasp* might have some serious dialogue on important issues. But like I said, that's about as likely as this thread not turning into a "Rush = personification of hate" & "I hate your hate" useless diatribe.
Color me cynical, but all those who truly hold onto ideals in their hearts are.
Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? (Score:1, Insightful)
But what I don't get is why this guy gets to have a personal forum on Slashdot to solve his problems. The guy is a vicious hypocrite who makes his living inciting attacking people all day and getting his audience angry.
Instead of the Orwellian "two minutes of hate" this guy puts forth a daily radio show full of hate and anger 3-5 hours a day (I don't know, I don't listen to the show) and I have heard the show and he is often inaccurate but very capable at seeding his audience with misconceptions and anger.
Before the Rwandan massacres, they had similar radio programs pumping the audience full of hate and anger with deadly results.
That kind of behavior has made him a wealthy man, but I don't see why it should get him any love from Slashdot, or any priority over anyone else who has technical issues.
huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, there's plenty of moderate opinions (known in America as "the left"), but the amount of right-wing posts and moderation here seems a little strange. (election year?)
That must be... (Score:3, Insightful)
And I just finished up a lengthy back and forth with a Ron Paul guy - so that's saying something.
No one denies that bugs are a part of life. No one denies that we all have experience with them. The article is noteworthy - and Slashdot assigns it primarily, and appropriately - to the "it's funny" tag because, well, it's funny to hear a national talk show host discuss not only bugs with software, but to discuss them quite specifically. It's also fairly rare to hear bugs in a fairly niche OS get national play like that. Bonus points for Limbaugh using a machine manufactured by a company of which Al Gore is a part. As a Mac user, I even find myself sympathizing with him.
So grow up and deal with it. Yes, we all deal with bugs, but they rarely get this exposure.
And then there's this gem:
Before the Rwandan massacres, they had similar radio programs pumping the audience full of hate and anger with deadly results.
That kind of behavior has made him a wealthy man, but I don't see why it should get him any love from Slashdot, or any priority over anyone else who has technical issues.
It's hard to imagine a more asinine allusion. Really, you can't honestly be trying to compare the two, can you? I mean, this is either one of the sickest pieces of political posturing or the most feeble-minded reasoning I have read in some time - and like I said, I've been talking with Ron Paul fans, so that's really saying something.
Are we really going to equate Rush Limbaugh to these people? Oh, I'm sure we'll all get to hear some nonsense about him "stoking the flames of war with Iraq" or whatever, and you'll do your best to provide a tenuous link between Limbaugh and ongoing U.S. military action, but really - when was the last time Limbaugh got on the radio and told anyone to grab a machete and go murder their neighbors of a different ethnic group next door - really, when? Or are you just spouting nonsense? You even further your claim by arguing that he is getting wealthy off of such comments. According to Wikipedia (yeah, I know...) twice as many people listen to his show as there are in the entire population of Rwanda. Where's the uprising?
So, assuming you believe that Limbaugh can lead a bunch of hillbillies or whoever to load up and start gunning down their neighbors, what do you suggest? Since you feel free to make allusions, should I? Should I assume that you believe we should regulate political speech? Should we prevent people from being paid for political speech? Should we only allow the good, happy, cheerful thoughts to be put out over the airwaves, so as to avoid the mere possibility of genocide? (A genocide which, as it just so happens to be, has never occurred in the U.S. and is exceedingly unlikely to occur?) Should we simply prevent criticism? Free discussion? Should we shut up radio announcers here who happen to express ideas you don't like because a bunch of a slaughter that occurred in the third-world that just so happened to use radio as a medium of passing along information?
The scary thing is that the government - and, one would assume, the party in government you yourself would favor - is trying to do that exact same thing with attempts to return to the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". We just can't have people expressing their ideas over the radio, can we?
And you have the gall to refer to others as "Orwellian"? It would appear that we were reading very different copies of Mr. Blair's work.
Hell, I don't even like Limbaugh.
Re:moto (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple Mail has worked fine for our users for a number of years, the big advantage is obviously its integration with OS X features like the address book, dictionary, keychain, and for iPhone users the todo and notes.
I can't imagine how he's having trouble recovering deleted messages from his Time Machine backup -- he talks about "wherever they are" which makes me think he's rooting around in the Finder trying to dig up his mail files. If you run Time Machine while Mail is open, it will show you right in the Mail interface all your old deleted stuff and let you restore. It's pretty simple. Far simpler (yet more powerful) than any other mail application backup or restore process.
Re:Why does he get a personal forum on Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rush is definitely a hyperpartisan, but he's an opinion man. Most of what he says is just opinion. He's not comparable to Rwandan massacres, and he's probably more accurate than Air America, (I enjoy both, but Rush is a lot more chill, frankly).
Rush is following a high tradition: free speech. Yeah, I disagree with a lot of it, but I wish all hyperpolitical folks did their work with such a sense of humor about them. I certainly don't think he's dangerous. He's been attacked by censors who are linked to powerful political dynasties, and a lot of the "hate radio" label has come from them. They are your enemy, my friend. They wan tto shu Rush up so they gain some miniscule political advantage. Let Rush speak, and feel free to speak against him. That's what democracy looks like.
It's sad that liberals aren't all like me, and willing to let everybody give their best argument. I don't pretend anyone has all the answers, so no one out there can claim to always be right and Rush to always be wrong. Listen to him sometime, an be serious about it. He's full of goading and he's biassed as all hell, but he really isn't that angry.
Re:a slashdotter can dream... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:thanks (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fie on Rush (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:moto (Score:2, Insightful)
But no, there is one correct answer, and it's the one you have (shades of Marx's historical inevitability there) and anyone who disagrees needs re-education, or is misled, or brainwashed by lying right wing propaganda etc etc
Re:Fie on Rush (Score:3, Insightful)
you are criticizing Rush Limbaugh because you think he insults people, and you chose to do that by... insulting him?
Hey jackhole, get a clue. When a bloated gasbag spews lies about an advocate for people with a debilitating disease, you're goddamned right he gets insulted. And when Rush mocks the disease's effects [alternet.org] , shaking his body spastically around on camera to mimic Fox's illness, oh holy crap does he deserve to be insulted. Shakespeare didn't write enough insults for sick bastard whores like Rush Limbaugh.
But guess what? Rush was right. Fox later admitted that he purposely skips his medication before public events like this so people will see his worst case symptoms. Here is a video clip of him admitting this.
Guess what, you brain-dead moron? In that video clip Fox denies what he supposedly admitted, saying explicitly -- listen to your own video clip [akamai.com] --
Which of course pustulent corpse-raper Rush Limbaugh quotes as [rushlimbaugh.com]:
Here, as usual, Rush listeners learn their facts about the world exactly backwards. It's the price you pay for giving a fat, impotent, parasitic slug-worm an invitation into your living room. Lend credence to the sneering ringmaster of a national freakshow and what happens is that you become stupid. Let me give you another example. If you'd bothered to learn [cbsnews.com] something [crooksandliars.com] instead of lazily gulping down Limbaugh's diarrhea, you might have known that the visible tremors Rush was mocking come from the medication:
I'm not the president of the Michael J. Fox fan club or anything. But the guy has to take his meds in order to be able to talk and move and interact with the world with some kind of normalcy. Without the medication, Parkinson's [wikipedia.org] patients' muscles become rigid, their movements slow, and they even become unable to move at all. At the start of the filming day, Fox doesn't know if he's going to nail the ad in one take or is going to be there all day, so you can only imagine how carefully he plans out how much medication he's going to take and when, to ride the tightrope between his disease's wracking paralysis and the cure's tremors. Did he guess exactly right? I don't know, maybe not. Is Rush Limbaugh the biggest hate-smeared asshole the world has ever seen for second-guessing a prescription for someone he's never met, someone who is just trying to help a cause he believe
Re:thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
They also think that they are being quite successful thanks to their wit and they can't see why everybody cannot do the same, and consequently wonder why they should pay for social security. Hence, they lean to the right. Techies are not very good with empathy, usually.
However, when the whole planet catches on and starts threatening their job, they call for government intervention.
You must be a tolerant "loving" liberal (Score:2, Insightful)
It's ok to hate someone because I disagree with him!
Re:That must be... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a son. I'm just one step away from a child abuser, and should be equated with child abusers?
And I've had sex with a woman (see above), does this leave me one step away from being a rapist and misogynist?
Yup, entirely vapid post, you got it right.
It's been my experience that many of the people that hate Rush the most are genuinely intolerant of dissenting opinion, recommend that he (and others 'like him') be jailed or restrained from offering opinion, and that their views be suppressed at every opportunity.
Amerika the Beautiful. Hypocrites.
Re:thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fie on Rush (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:moto (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:moto (Score:2, Insightful)
Liberals do not preach relativism as such but rather diversity - they look dumb when they feel compelled to support extreme positions on principle rather than on substance ("Um, yah, I hate what the Nazis are saying, but I think they ought to be able to say it.") Conservatives look dumb when they make meta-arguments about so-called-accepting liberals not accepting their perspective ("Poor oppressed little me: the nasty liberals don't love my hate"). Mainly, liberals and conservatives talk past each other - obscuring what they actually care about with words they think will successfully prove their points.
Look at it this way: liberals seek to optimize society through a Genetic Algorithm or Simulated Annealing, Conservatives through Hillclimbing./geek
Liberals fear stagnation, Conservatives fear chaos.
Re:moto (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:moto (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:moto (Score:5, Insightful)
Cramer, of Kudlow and Cramer, is a shill and villain. He himself admits that at times he has manipulated reporters to get a better stock price for himself. (That goes back to my First LAW: Trust no-one on television.)
Tax breaks for oil companies? It's actually a suspension of wack-ass royalties or a method of paying a company back for royalties they have to pay to another government on oil. Otherwise, they don't drill or do neat things like bitumen reclamation because it would take at least fifteen years to break even. (Unless you don't like plastics, nuclear materials, and your car I would look elsewere.) It's an attempt to balance out gov't interference with more gov't interference. Sort of like tax rebates, not the optimal solution but better than a sharp stick in the eye. (Disclosure: I work for one of the top 10 oil companies in the world. I used to work for a largish movie studio, trust me, Hollywood's fucking you hard. The oil guys are generally cleaner about their business.)
I'm atheist, and I'm anti-gay marriage. Not in the ceremonial sense of the word. I think you can do whatever you like as far as ceremonies are concerned. However, I do think that the gov't should encourage breeding amongst people who are productive as they tend to produce more productive people. (There is a bell curve here, the 2nd generation wealthy tend to be schleps.) Gay's have a particularly hard to cross threshold regarding the breeding thing. It's inconvenient and inefficient for them.
Flag burning sucks. What a bestial and primitive way to express yourself. It is protected speech. If only I could get punching people like that in the nose declared protected speech. Almost makes me as angry as those wack-ass evangelicals screaming at soldier's funerals.
As an atheist, I have never found it difficult to express my views. As a rule atheists spend more time attempting to restrict religious people than the reverse. Mucking about with Christmas and Hannukah traditions is just rude. Your argument is a bit of a canard. Atheists need to spend less time trying convert people and more time showing that you can lead a moral and kind life without a paternal heirarchy based on imaginary friends.
Just one conservative guy's $0.02.
Re:It was ever thus (Score:3, Insightful)
OTOH that's not the whole story. The terms don't mean the same thing. eg. in the UK Christians, if they're anything, tend to be associated with what we call left wing policies* - social justice, feeding the poor, equality, welfare state, etc. In the US they're universally described as right wing, for, I presume, similar reasons.
The terms used by the political compass, clearly US based, are interesting reading - we see extreme right wing as about control (a legacy of world war two I suspect) and left wing as about freedom (power to the people etc.).. whereas the political compass defines them in completely opposite.
Basically until we can agree on clearly defined terms that mean the same globally it's meaningless to even try to compare. The best you can do is agree/disagree on certain points and form your own unique political stance - then vote for the best candidate at the next available election.
* That's a simplification - there are plenty of christian conservatives (again that word doesn't mean the same thing it does in the US).
Re:moto (Score:5, Insightful)
Last I checked, the United States is doing quite well. Our government hires about 15% of the population directly, and has another 20-25% of the population hired under direct contract work. These are rough numbers, but I did spend a while working in
7) Enough homophobia to shake a stick at.
I really fail to see the relevance here. (Some) right wingers hate gays, (some) left wingers hate men, the middle class, whites, Christians and their own country. How does anyone of that automatically verify someone's beliefs?
My guess is that the GP is noting that, in the US, the political right tends to rally behind anti-gay candidates (both the government officials, and their voters). The GP is making a generality here, for sure, but the generality is at least backed up by the fact that the majority of the political right has this sentiment (or such candidates would not consistently win the vote).
What's most amusing to me is how many of the anti-gay candidates end up rubbing people's ankles in the bathroom (senators, leaders of the christian coalition, etc). Not that the left is any better. I only wish that such political folks would work a little more to understand themselves, and that their constituents would work a little more to understand their leader. That shall continue to be my wish...
Re:thanks (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, and everybody knows that the conservative right is all about the "science and technology" based solutions. They have no use for "faith" or "religion" based solutions.
Why do you people always do this? (Score:2, Insightful)
WHO CARES?
If you're doing something wrong, it is completely irrelevant that someone else is doing it too and in no way absolves you.
Saying "he did it too" is the kind of thing that belongs in an elementary school classroom, not in a discussion amongst adults. And yes, that applies just as equally for the people who scream "BILL CLINTON GOT A BLOW JOB!!!!" every time someone says something about Bush.
STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR LEADERS WHO BEHAVE LIKE CHILDREN.
"You might want to look in the mirror the next time you think only one side are hypocrites."
I see no claim of that anywhere. Nowhere in the post is any attempt to claim that it is only liberals that are hypocrites. No other claims were forwarded, or even implied.
It is not ok if liberals behave hypocritically, even if every single non liberal does behave hypocritically. Sadly, your reaction is all too common, despite the fact that so many Slashdotters profess to be more educated and enlightened.
Well, I'll step up I guess and do what you didn't. Yes, liberals behave hypocritically. The question is not whether it occurs, but whether it benefits the greater good when it happens. Hypocrisy is not by itself an indicator of anything except a willingness to reconsider one's position if necessary. I would hope my leaders would do that, specifically, if they realize a previous policy decision had failed.
See how easy that was? I was able to derail the "hypocrisy" argument without resorting to 3rd grade rhetoric. It saddens me that people genuinely think an appropriate response to criticism of their leaders is to denounce the other guys choices.
"I will not give in to George Bush. I will not become fearful."
Too late. You're clearly so afraid of him that you'll blindly defend people who don't deserve it. The way to "not give in" is to INSIST that your leaders are better, and answer for what they do, not cover up criticism of them with attacks on the other side.
Re:You must be a tolerant "loving" liberal (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as the "general case" goes, I would just quote Thomas Mann: "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil."
Re:backwards? (Score:1, Insightful)
That kind of blind condescension will get you nowhere (unless it's slashdot).
It's the classic tripe:
If someone agrees with you: "A that guy is very bright and enlightened."
If someone disagrees with you: "Oh I thought you were smarter than that."
Sorry to tell you, but you position is not automatically correct.
Posting anon to avoid modding by just this sort of one-sided thinking.
Re:moto (Score:3, Insightful)
Having lived in a couple of the worst inner cities in the US, and visited the third world, I can tell you haven't.
"Open debate only works when no possibility is dismissed out of hand."
What a ridiculous statement. Let us consider at length the possibility that your brain is made of turnips. We can't have an open debate if we dismiss this out of hand. Do you think trepanation would be the best route for investigation?
Re:moto (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fie on Rush (Score:3, Insightful)
And some religions need (dis)solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Like bridges and monster trucks, the more widely disseminated the religion, the more massive the suspension.
Re:moto (Score:2, Insightful)
Thank you so much for demonstrating exactly what he meant. You are an example of the very problem he was addressing.
You have decided, without even hearing the argument. You dismiss it first, THEN go on to claim "you don't make comments like that unless you can damn sure back it up." What if he could? Had you even given him the chance to present his evidence before you declared his point "ridiculous". Why would someone even bother to converse with someone so closed minded as to dismiss a point before hearing the evidence?
Were you genuinely interested in honest debate, your dismissal of said claim would be based on the evidence presented. Between reasonable people, we can both admit the claim stated would seem silly, but it was done for effect, and to prove a point. Some issues are so contentious that people will refuse to even discuss them, and quash ANY attempt at reasoned debate.
And you just proved it.
Re:Fie on Rush (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think you know what "liberal arts" are. Liberal Arts in the academic context has nothing to do with political affiliation, and more to do with an academic philosophy based on balancing practical knowledge with more esoteric cultural studies and arts. Thus you can't just go to school for your MBA, you must also take some humanities. A Liberal Arts school is one with a focus ON humanities, I'm guessing.
"Liberal" has many meanings. If I make liberal use of butter in my recipe, does that mean I'm intoning the "Communist Manifesto" over my butter?
Looking at the 3 big cables news networks, I don't see any latent bias, left or right. Fox is mainly right leaning, CNN is slightly to the right with Beck, but Dobbs is schizophrenic enough to balance that out. MSNBC leans hard to the left with Obermann, but not too far because of that Tucker guy balances that out. But then again these networks are about ratings, and part of ratings is finding audiences. People want to hear what they agree with, thus all niches are filled.
The journalists themselves have less to do with any perceived bias then the corporate executives, who are generally more right leaning, and who select journalists based on what perceived audience they want to convince to watch ads.
Thanks to the FCC, there really isn't that much difference between newspapers and TV, since they are largely owned, and controlled, by the same people. Ditto with radio. These "bias" is again selected by corporate folk, to align the selected media towards the perceived audience.
Actually the media is leaning MORE leftward now, thanks to a groundswell of disgust in the Republican policies of the last 12 or so years (since the Gingrich coup taking the House), and especially of the last eight. Before the anti-war movement got authentic grass-roots groundswell status, the media was largelly right leaning in coverage. I heard NO critique of the war, or the rampant attacks on American freedom from the media until it became popular despite the media.
That said, this might be my selection bias, just as the leftist media theory could be due to yours.