'Hell no, you can't!"

Impotent rage is funny.

'Mother Nature, Father Time'

I have no idea what to make of this.



[h/t Blue Gal]

iMac gaining desktop market share

A market analysis projects Apple's iMac will account for 25 percent of the growth in the desktop marketplace in 2010.

Apple has already seen a boost in sales as a result of the release of its latest iMac last October, with widescreen LED display and wireless keyboard. Apple saw a 74 per cent rise in desktop sales, following the update to the iMac, according to Cihra."We continue to model note/netbook accounting for greater than 90 per cent of PC unit growth in 2010, but with desktops at least now looking like they've stopped eroding and can resume at least some low single-digit recovery after two years of decline, driven by emerging markets, corporate workhorse use and power gamers," Cihra wrote, reports Apple Insider.

"But believe it or not, we estimate Apple's iMac accounting for a full quarter of ALL desktop market growth in calendar year 2010," he said.

I bought my first Mac this year - the 21.5 inch iMac. After comparing the amount of computer (hardware and software) that you get for the money, the Mac wasn't just competitive, it was a bargain compared to most comparable PC configurations.

The Anagram Times

If I discover something cooler than The Anagram Times (All the news that's fit to anagram), I'll let you know. Don't hold your breath, though.

My favorite, from the banner headline:

Ashton, in Gaza, condemns violence after fatal rocket

becomes

An earnest old conflict of revenge: Hamas attack Zion!

No matter what you think about who did what to whom, the wordplay is outstanding.

Study: Over half of Australian news driven by P.R.

"Over half your news is spin," proclaims Crikey, an Australian news outlet that conducted a study of that country's news product. The study, done in partnership with an Australian university, determined that public relations influences the majority of content in Australia's news.

[A]fter analysing a five-day working week in the media, across 10 hard-copy papers, ACIJ and Crikey found that nearly 55% of stories analysed were driven by some form of public relations. The Daily Telegraph came out on top of the league ladder with 70% of stories analysed triggered by public relations. The Sydney Morning Herald gets the wooden spoon with (only) 42% PR-driven stories for that week.

Many journalists and editors were defensive when the phone call came. Who’d blame them? They’re busier than ever, under resourced, on deadline and under pressure. Most refused to respond, others who initially granted an interview then asked for their comments to be withdrawn out of fear they’d be reprimanded, or worse, fired.

But to their credit, some editors were quite candid. Chris Mitchell, editor in chief of The Australian, told UTS student Sasha Pavey:

“It’s very difficult I think, given the way resources have drifted from journalism to public relations over the past 30 years, to break away as much as you really want to … I guess I’m implying, the number of people who go to communications school and go into PR over the years has increased and the number in journalism has shrunk even more dramatically.”

Given the grim state of some of these papers, and the deep cuts to their workforces of late, in some ways it’s surprising the 55% isn’t higher.

One can't help but wonder what an analysis of U.S. news content would find.

A recent study by Cision, Inc. and The George Washington University found that many journalists rely on public relations for information.

According to the Cision/GWU survey, most journalists turn to public relations professionals for assistance in their primary research. Editors and reporters surveyed said they depend on PR professionals for “interviews and access to sources and experts” (44%), “answers to questions and targeted information” (23%), and “perspective, information in context, and background information” (17%).

A study on how P.R. efforts are reflected in news coverage would be instructive.

NYT: 'The Perils of Pay Less, Get More'

The NYT's David Leonhardt takes a look at the relatively recent phenomenon of government trying to provide services to its citizens while telling them that it won't cost them anything.

He note that "as a society gets richer, its tax rates tend to rise." As people's basic needs are met, as they no longer have to worry about their basic survival, they tend to want things such as safe and effective infrastructure, good public education, and a strong military to protect them from foreign threats.

In most societies, Leonhardt writes, a citizenry expects to have to pay for what government provides. Americans, he says, have decided relatively recently that while we like the things government provides, we would rather not pay.

Taxes are no longer rising. They fell to 18 percent of G.D.P. in 2008 and, because of the recession, to a 60-year low of 15.1 percent last year.

Yet our desire for government services just keeps growing. We added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Farm subsidies are sacrosanct. Social Security is the third rail of politics.

This disconnect is, far and away, the main reason for our huge budget problems. Yes, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the recession and the stimulus have all added to the deficit. But they are minor issues in the long run. By 2020, government spending is projected to equal 26 percent (and rising) of G.D.P., mostly because of Medicare and Social Security. Taxes are on pace to equal just 19 percent.

On Friday, Congressional Republicans named six members of a deficit commission that President Obama created last month. In all, the commission will have 10 Democratic members and eight Republicans. It is scheduled to issue its recommendations late this year.

“By any reasonable projection, we’re on an utterly unsustainable path,” Peter Orszag, the White House budget director, told me last week. “And the fiscal commission, while not guaranteed to succeed, offers the best hope of getting ahead of this problem before it becomes a true crisis.”

The commission can succeed, of course, only if it comes up with solutions that Congress and the White House accept. For now, political leaders in both parties are still in denial about what the solution will entail. To be fair, so is much of the public.

What needs to happen? Spending will need to be cut, and taxes will need to rise. They won’t need to rise just on households making more than $250,000, as Mr. Obama has suggested. They will probably need to rise on your household, however much you make.

It is unlikely that any politicians currently in office will have the will to suggest significant spending cuts combined with tax increases. On the left, any solution that targets elements of the social safety net is considered a non-starter. On the right, any solution that involves cutting military spending or any kind of tax increase is characterized as nothing less than treasonous.

It is likely that nothing short of a catastrophe will jolt the public enough to be willing to at least debate making hard, politically difficult choices. Sustained, widespread power outages due to a decaying electricity grid would disrupt the lives of enough people to make some willing to listen to solutions that they would refuse to hear under less dramatic conditions. The inability to defend our national interests or our own territory would be another.