• Home
• Reviews
• News
• Downloads
• CNET TV

About me

My posting summary

1 to 10 of 12

My comments

• Quite simply a lie. Checking out the Wiki page on the Liberal Party of Canada:
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada
  
  You can see in the 2008 election, the total popular votes it garnered was 3,629,990. In 1984, it attracted 3,516,486 popular votes. Now if the Liberal Party got MORE votes in the 2008 than it did in 1984, how the 2008 votes turn into the "lowest number of votes in it's [sic] 140 year history"? Answer: it doesn't. mmntech is simply lying and expect trusting readers to believe instead of verifying and exposing his lie.
  
  And it's also interesting how the mmntech does not mention how the Green Party increased its total vote count by over 200,000 votes, the only major party to gain votes since the last election (the Conservative Party lost 170,000 votes). And the New Democratic Party also increased the number of its parliamentary seats. Both the Greens and the NDP favor strong environmental rules including climate control regulations. So why doesn't mmntech mention the electoral gains of those parties? Oh right, because their electoral gains inconveniently muddy the poster's flat wrong lies and spin. In reply to: "Commentary: Cap and trade could cost families $1,761 a year"

  September 15, 2009

  0 replies

• Of course. Cite the unbiased interpretation of a man whose book denies the existence of global warming with the usual mix of highly selective facts, half-truths and flagrantly misleading lies. Yes, keep up the hard-hitting journalism which interviews only those sources who parrot the reporter's personal, political and ideological beliefs.
  
  Keep up the good work, Declan. In reply to: "Commentary: Cap and trade could cost families $1,761 a year"

  September 15, 2009

  0 replies

• Where's the cheapest money saving tip: Tiger users can buy and use the $30 upgrade!
  
  Walt Mossberg at the Wall Street Journal has actually done his job as a reviewer and discovered the Snow Leopard upgrade installs just fine for Tiger users. He confirmed with Apple that it's allowed. Apple prefers Tiger users pay $170 but there's nothing technical or in the fine print of the software license preventing Tiger users from using the $30 upgrade.
  
  Please stop regurgitating Apple's marketing line and directing readers to unnecessarily give Apple an extra 140 bucks. In reply to: "Apple, Amazon offering Snow Leopard discounts"

  August 27, 2009

  1 reply

• When people posts opinion pieces like this, I think the site should make it mandatory that links to posted to past pieces declaring the imminent failure of Apple as a company, the iPhone, the iPod, Mac OS, etc. etc.
  
  And writers should have their salaries clawed back when their sage wisdom proves staggeringly wrong. Without the risk of consequences for writing asinine pieces like this, tech journalists will continue to write them on the back of napkins at the neighborhood bar. In reply to: "Why consumers won't buy tablets"

  August 4, 2009

  1 reply

• What a ridiculous response from Amazon. How does a promise not to do it again address what they did ALREADY? Especially when what they did violated their own terms of use and service? Why would you trust Amazon to abide by a "promise" when it casually violates its own contract with Kindle users?
  
  This is about Amazon choosing to protect its own interest at the expense of its users. Obviously, their legal department ran the numbers and determined that the cost of liability from being sued by the books' rights holder was bigger than the cost of being sued by Kindle users. So they decided to violate their own Kindle terms of service to avoid getting sued for greater damages by the publisher.
  
  Hopefully, some Kindle owners will sue Amazon. In reply to: "Amazon says it won't repeat Kindle book recall"

  July 17, 2009

  5 replies

• I guess Microsoft has decided it has too much cash on hand and has come up with a brilliant plan to quickly and efficiently burn through tons of it. What other brilliant ideas does Steve Ballmer have up his sleeve? Restart Kozmo?
  
  If there is any person left alive who does not believe Microsoft has Apple envy and incapable of an original idea of its own, this retail plan should dispel all doubts. I look forward to a nationwide chain of stores selling Zunes, mice and keyboards. And then, 2 years from now, after burning through billions of dollars, the press release announcing the closing of the retail division. In reply to: "Microsoft follows Apple into the retail business"

  February 12, 2009

  0 replies

• This article is an incredible waste of time, based on a false premise that so many commenters have pointed out that is absurd: that the President's location is some kind of secret that would be compromised by an electronic device. You want to know where the President is during the hours of 1 am to 7 am almost every day of the year? 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. There, the secret's out. Oooh, everybody duck and cover! The absurd paranoia that the Chinese are going to know where he is when he's in China is laughable. You think the President is going to sneak out of his hotel in the dead of night to meet with the North Koreans? Does your idea of how diplomacy works come from 24?
  
  The security of the President does not depend on keeping his whereabouts secret, which is basically impossible since he is such a high profile individual. It is about working to make sure the area where he is is secure. Stealth is not an element of the President's security: you think a security motorade that includes dozens of vehicles, including one vehicle with a machine gun sticking out of its rear window, is designed with the idea of stealth and secrecy in mind?
  
  This article is Exhibit A of When Smart People Write Dumb Things. In reply to: "Obama's BlackBerry brings personal safety risks"

  February 12, 2009

  0 replies

• Ah, no. It's called a stimulus plan (no quotations). Putting it into quotation inserts the reporter's personal opinion that it's not really a stimulus plan but something else, especially when she also added "so-called" before it. She's editorializing and it's inappropriate. It's not her job to make the argument for or against the legislation. Describe it as what it's called: a stimulus plan, not a so-called "stimulus" plan. Would it be appropriate for a journalist to write, so-called "conservative" former President George Bush? That would be just as objectionable because it's inserting the journalist's personal opinion of George Bush into what should be a neutral description of him. Whether or not George Bush really is or is not a conservative is for others to decide. The fact is, he considers himself one and a journalist should reflect it and not editorialize or cast doubt on it. Same goes for the stimulus bill.
  
  And for the reply from tomws, it's pretty clear from his tiresome rant against the liberal media that he's of the type that couldn't identify bias if it was a bus that ran him over. No doubt Rush is the Moses bringing down the Word of God from the mountaintop. I wouldn't expect anything from him except for thuggery. In reply to: "Senate considers altered broadband provisions"

  February 6, 2009

  0 replies

• Gee, Stephanie, nice of you to so blatantly telegraph your personal political opinion about the legislation. That's what journalism needs right now: more injection of a reporter's personal opinion into news items. Perhaps you should include a link to the Republican National Committee and the Weekly Standard at the end of this piece.
  
  In the future, I hope you will begin putting quotation marks and adding "so-called" before such terms like "network neutrality," "green energy" or "climate change." Keep up the good work being a fair and neutral reporter of the news! In reply to: "Senate considers altered broadband provisions"

  February 6, 2009

  4 replies

• And the looney train has left the station...
  
  An inocuous, disposable factoid of a story with a tech angle that should have registered 10 seconds of attention generates a unhinged diatribe against: (1) communism; (2) female reporters; and (3) the media. It's interesting how frequently irrationality, sexism and unhinged rage at the world show up together so often.
  
  Kwasiowusu, you're excused while you throw up. Your face hovering above a toilet bowl is probably the most appropriate place for it to be.
  
  As for the rest of us still living on Planet Earth, what's so hard to believe that this is the first official presidential portrait taken with a digital cam? Remember, it's the official portrait, which is taken once at the start of a president's term. So the last official portrait was shot in 2000. Did any digital camera exist back then that would have been adequate to the job? In reply to: "Another first: Presidential portrait shot with digicam"

  January 16, 2009

  1 reply