Hard News: Yes, there is a Media3
36 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
-
Sacha, in reply to
that's a sign in itself
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I feel something is missing, today.
Heh. (a) I was travelling, and (b) I'm nowhere near interested enough to think about obseleting all my 30-pin peripherals.
I'm more interested in the forthcoming iMac rev and, possibly, the big TV play.
-
Sacha, in reply to
obseleting all my 30-pin peripherals
..shows how it's hard to make compelling news from it
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
NBR has a roundup of the first hands-on reviews. Wired's is quite good:
"The iPhone 5 is the greatest phone in the world. It has top-notch hardware with a zippy new A6 processor and amazing four-inch display. Its new operating system, iOS 6, is slicker than slugs on ice. And its ultra-slim body, an all-glass and aluminum enclosure, is a triumph of industrial design. There is nothing not to like about the phone. It’s aces. Just aces.
"And yet it is also so, so cruelly boring." - Mat Honan
Our expectations are so high ...
-
muse on the US Presidential race
My muse says WTF! in a tired kinda bemused fashion. I think she shakes her head left 2 right…left 2 right…as well…. and hums lala lala laaaaa
-
Is media 3 going to be available on iTunes?
-
WH,
I liked Clinton's speech, but I liked Obama's too. Each gave the speech their place in history allowed them to give. I don't think people wanted another high flown speech about the audacity of hope.
The trajectory of Obama's presidency is looking a lot like Clinton's: a period of early promise followed by unpopular legislation, the loss of his Congressional majority, re-election facilitated by personal charisma and the unreasonableness of the opposition, and then economic recovery. It's easy to forget how acrimonious everything was back in 1996.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
It's easy to forget how acrimonious everything was back in 1996.
But at least then the GOP selected a presidential candidate who conducted himself with some dignity and good judgement, and ran a campaign staffed with functional adults. Whatever else you say about Bob Dole, he wouldn't have blundered into a fuck-up fiesta like this.
The Atlantic's James Fallowes is lethal here.
When [Romney] first heard about the violence and protests last night, he rushed to condemn the administration before anyone knew fully what was going on. After he had had a few hours to think, he dug himself in far deeper with a graceless press conference whose dominant theme was partisan criticism of the administration.
In short, when faced with a 3 a.m. test, he reacted immediately, rather than having the instinct to wait. And after he waited, he mistook this as a moment for partisanship rather than for at least the appearance of statesmanlike national unity. The irony, of course, is that resisting the partisan impulse today would have been the greatest possible boost to his horse-race prospects two months from now.
Think of this temperament and these instincts in a command role, and with stakes much higher than they were today.
If the US election really was all "about the economy, stupid", it should be Romney's to lose. But he keeps insisting on making the narrative about his character, his judgement and his principles. Which wouldn't be so bad, if he didn't fuck up so horribly on what's supposed to be a strong point for Republicans.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
If the US election really was all “about the economy, stupid”, it should be Romney’s to lose.
Except: "Take two tax cuts, some deregulation, and call me in the morning" isn't a plan for the economy. It's similar to the lack of a plan we face here.
And on credibly balancing the budget? Clinton made the point: arithmetic. What plan Romney and Ryan might have- and they've been bloody opaque about it- simply doesn't add up. -
Russell Brown, in reply to
And on credibly balancing the budget? Clinton made the point: arithmetic. What plan Romney and Ryan might have- and they’ve been bloody opaque about it- simply doesn’t add up.
Quite. Now they're claiming they'll make it add up by "closing tax loopholes", but are refusing to say what loopholes they'll close.