While I was a firm believer of reply-to to be used by mailing lists because of how RFC822 was worded (sender sets reply-to, the list is the sender) 2822 states it much differently which leaves no room for different interpretations. The/author/ sets the reply-to.
However, I am sad to see that the mailing list issue simply has not been addressed. They have the perfect opportunity to formalize a way to for mailing lists to indicate how to respond to the list versus to the individual and they have not, from my brief skimming of the document, completely failed to do so.:/
You/are/ aware that California's power problems aren't from privitization, AKA, "deregulation". Any time you hear "deregulation" when it comes to California's power companies you must encapsulate it in quotes. Why? Because under "deregulation" California power companies were:
Regulated to buy on the spot market. The spot market means they can only buy for the next day, no more. As a result it is VERY susceptible to outside pressures.
Regulated to not buy power on long-term contracts. Long-term contracts would have allowed the power companies to purchase power at a cheaper rate.
Regulated to sell power at or below a set ceiling regardless of the wholesale price of power.
What does that mean? It means they were regulated to buy high-costing power on the short-term market and sell it far below cost. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the "deregulated" market was regulated into failure.
Want to hear the latest laugh? Gov. Gray Davis, the man who has clearly never heard the basics of economics, blames the Feds for California's problems. Why?
Wair for it...
They wouldn't regulate the wholesale market!
And here you are using the California "deregulation" scheme as an example of the problem with privitization? I say it is a prime example of the problems with government run systems. Gray Davis is too busy trying to lay the blame elsewhere to actually fix the problem. Remove the regulations from the "deregulated" market. Sure, people will have to pay more but guess what, they pay one way or another in the end. I'd much rather pay the power companies fair market prices for my power up front than to pay the state in taxes to either cover their bad deals/or/ to cover the interest on the bond measures they are going to sell to cover for their bad deals. At least when I'm paying the power companies I'm paying people who can actually add and subtract single digits integers and get right answers all of the time, something Gov. Davis is completely incapable of doing!
Too bad the controls are a pain in the ass to manipulate, huh? Even the most basic movement is difficult because of the constant camera shifting. Might be nice for those who played the PS games that the same crappy camera style but, please, not here too!
Re:PC's aren't good for Enterprise servers
on
Linux Is Going Down
·
· Score: 1
If I want/real/ reliability I won't want a single point of failure. Even an S390 represents that. Give me a farm of smaller, cheaper machines behind a combonation of L4 and L7 switches with redundancy and a back-end pocket network hooked into NetApps that are mirroring off one another.
The whole, well, problem with the problem with a lack of those features is that they really aren't needed today. They're nice, they're cool, the make people oooh and aaaah, but you can replicate it with off-the-shelf hardware.
You can hot swap a CPU in that machine over there? So what, I can hot swap this machine over here and my whole costs less than yours to build and maintain.
Well, my respect of /.'s staff just dropped to nil
on
Microsoft's DNS Down
·
· Score: 1
Let's see..
microsoft.com
msn.com
hotmail.com
zone.com
Those are the domains off the top of my head that are most likely on those servers and are now kaput. I learned about this last night while playing Asheron's Call. Imagine that, playing Microsoft published games. There are a few out there, Taco, and guess where their DNS is hosted.
Also, let's not forget that because of Microsoft's problems the net as a whole is having problems because of how many DNS servers coughing and dying under the load of hundreds of thousands of stalled connections. I bet that is a "Yawn" to you but certainly isn't something that the ISPs are shrugging off.
Your treatment of this matter disgusts me. I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy but try engaging your brain before you type and THINK about what might be going on.
eBay won't suffer from this, and I wouldn't be surprised if you frequent their site again within a few months.
If he is anything like me, no, he won't. When Amazon decided to do their BS patent work against bn.com guess who has gotten every dime of my internet business since then. Right, bn.com.
If eBay pulls that shit on me, not that they will since my account has been inactive for over a year, they'll get the same treatment. I want computer equipment I can go to Yahoo! or Egghead or several other difference places to buy and sell. There are loads of specialized auction sites out there that one can quite happily not go to eBay.
Passively support the use of Microsoft products? Uhm, well, let's see. This post is composed in Opera under Linux running KDE2. Oh, and it is IDing itself as Mozilla 4.76, not IE.
Me thinks the "weak-willed" comment wasn't directed at technophiles in general, but one in particular named "MAJ Rantage" on/.
Simply put there are some things you do NOT let slide. And calling that spamming a "Service" is one of them.
The litmus test is this: when all is said and done, if we feel sorry for Anakin, just plain sorry for him, Lucas has failed. But if we feel shaken and sick at heart, because we see that it could be us making those choices and _choosing_ the dark side- Lucas will have succeeded.
If it were JMS instead of Lucas I'd have faith that the man at the head of the project could pull it off. JMS had loads of that in B5. Characters that were real, that made choices that we as observers may very well would have made had we been in their position. No one was really good or really evil. Hell, just looking at Londo and G'Kar's many intertwining story lines one can find it.
Lucas, I'm not sure. Watching other films from him I don't have that confidence because I've not seen it from him. If I recall correctly he's said that the films aren't made for adults but more for kids and the kids at heart. That leads me to believe it would tend towards the simpler story.
Eventually the Earth's rotation would slow down to the point that it is no longer rotating with respect to the moon, so the moon's orbit would be synchronized with the Earth's rotation and the moon would only be visible from one side of the Earth. The Earth would still rotate with respect to the sun, but the days will be much longer, something like 50 times (IIRC) as long as they currently are. But this won't happen until something like 50 billion years in the future, by which point the Earth will have been consumed by the Sun anyway.
Uhm, the other factor is the sun itself. It's gravity is also slowing down the Earth's rotation and, given enough time, the Earth will stop rotating in relation to the sun as well. It happens to any pair of bodies in space where one orbits the other and has a rotation that is not the same length as the orbit, they eventually will sync.
You've not hit upon something new, you're just damned lucky. On both of my domains and all email addresses on those domains I've gotten spam in short order even though I know I was the first and only person to get the domain. And it isn't easy stuff, either. Hell, when I setup an account at a national ISP with this username (greydmiyu) which I have/NEVER/ seen anyone else use anywhere I was getting mail 2 DAYS later. I never use the account for anything since I have my own server. Go fig.
Opera is a great browser. I'm using 4.02 (for Windows, shhh!) to write this reply right now. It has a number of features that I love, like the MDI interface, zooming web pages, and the fact that if it crashes, it doesn't necessarily take Windows with it. I also like that when I re-open Opera, it remembers the last web pages I had open (a-la multiple default home pages).
Ya forgot another cool feature. "Open all folder items" on the bookmark list. I've not organized my bookmarks into things I want to remember and things I open on a daily basis. I've bookmarked all the comics I want to read from UComics and Comics.com. Hit that button, boom, 20 open pages./., K5 and my RC5 stats are in another folder. I want to check out the latest gaming news for the games I play? That's the folder with Planet Unreal, Counter-Strike.net, Asheron's Call Vault and Crossroads of Dereth is for.
Though I dislike the MDI interface in general I've grown to like it in Opera and there is no way I'm giving up the ability to open dozens of sites with a click.
Finding a job is never that simple. *NEVER*. The last time I checked the rule of thumb was 1 week for every 10k you earn. So the person in question here would have looked for 2.5 weeks, over one pay period, looking for a job. Then they have to wait one more pay period before they get paid. When I was working for 25k I was living paycheck to paycheck. A 1 month interruption was not acceptable. I doubt it is for this person, either.
In fact, I had to support my roommate for the month she didn't have a paycheck. She quit one job and *chose* to find another. 2-3 interviews A DAY and nearly 3 weeks later she found a job with a 2 hour commute time. Was this in some backwater city? No. Los Angeles.
Days? Bull. Weeks? Yes. Even then that is the first available job, not a preferred job. Sure the person you're badmouthing could choose to go get another job and choose to take the first offered once his money runs out and be in the exact same position.
Well, upon reading this article I now know completely why the EC should be destroyed this very day. The good Dr. spends the entire time explaining how it increases each individual vote's power. He forgets to mention that to increase one person's voting power it is required to decrease the voting power of someone else's vote.
Just a real simple example from his math. 3 voters, each have a 50% chance of turning the election. That's fine and dandy. However, in a 2-1 vote where one person's vote turned the election the vote of the single person that voted the other way is tossed out. IE, power was transfered from the losers to the winners, depriving the losers of their vote.
That's great for the winners, sucks bad for the losers, doesn't it?
For a real world example, since Gore got 54% of the votes in California (5,254,500) the EC grants him 54 EC votes. The 4,054,756 people that voted for Bush, the 372,543 people who voted for Nader, 40,263 people who voted vor Browne (of which I am one), 39,897 people who voted for Buchanan, 14,884 people who voted for Philips and 9,415 people who voted for Hagelin all/lost/ their voice in the national election because California's EC votes all go to Gore. Their vote's power are transferred from their candidate to Gore, end of discussion.
The mathematics of it are all well and good, but this isn't the world series, this is a presidential election. There are far better ways of giving people more voice in an election which were covered in an earlier slashdot story.
Furthermore people say the EC prevents the candidates from concentrating on the population centers. Flat out lie. Instead of concentrating on the population centers now they are concentrating on... oh, the most populous states. Also the EC prevents the candidates from going to certain states. If a state isn't contested, if it is solidly in one column or another, it is ignored. Bush hit California, what, 2-3 times early on then ignored it? Gore did the same thing. If Florida weren't a swing state this year they would have ignored it as well. Look at their campaigning and you'll see lots of states pretty much ignored because they knew they would get 100% of the EC vote regardless of the actual votes cast in that state. All the EC did was deprive large portions of people the effect of their vote and grant that power to others.
I'd like to see this man do the math to see where that power comes from and how it negatively effects people before saying the EC is "provably" superior to straight popular voting.
NPR is about as unbiased as you're going to find. Yeah, I get upset when I hear Cladio Sanchez mention how Latinos are effected out of wack to everyone else (He gets that in 95% of his reports) but overall the reports are quite balanced and very accurate.
It is rare that I find NPR incorrect on technical details (the last one being calling Napster a web site) but overall their inaccuracies are minimal. Compare that to the common reporting on the local TV news where each story has at least 2-3 glaring errors and the local print not being much better.
As for balance I have yet to hear NPR air a story that was one sided. This is a very common tactic when it comes to local TV and print news as well as the national news. For example, when Merriam-Webster was going to change the entry for Nigger (IIRC) they did a report on it. Three sides to the issue were presented. Merriam-Webster's view, those for altering the entry and those for removing it. All had valid points and all three were give the same treatment by NPR. None of the views were given preference by NPR at all.
NPR is also the only news source that I see actively pursuing third party candidates in an ongoing series. Most news sources don't even acknowledge there are cadidates outside Bush and Gore.
Even on the most contentious issues, Gun Control, Abortion, etc they are quite unbiased. About the only time I had issue with NPR and gun control, as an example, was when they aired an opinion piece right after Columbine. Of course, after I got over my initial anger I realized it was misdirected at NPR and should have been at the woman who submitted the peice in the first place.
I think the largest praise I can give NPR is this. Unlike many other news sources they don't comment on the news or give opinions on the news. You don't hear glib little digs out of the reporters or anchors. I lost all respect for local news when one night the achors tossed in a dig against a rock group and the people going to the concert they had just reported on when the next night they praised the talent of the country artist whose concert they just reported on.
Sure, Claudio Sanchez could do without the whole woe of Latinos dig in each report but aside from that one bone I have I don't recall any of the anchors mistake giving opinions and stupid little jokes for reporting the news.
Personally I think/. is objective as it needs to be. It certainly does one thing that most other news sources don't do, quote their source up front. Hell,/. LINKS to the sources!
Personally it is that fact that makes me question why this whole thread is here./. is not a news source. It is not. I state it again, it is not. Most, if not all, of the stories here are really links to other "reputable" new sources and the discussion of the/. community is held here. Meta-news source, yes. News-source in its own right, no.
That is why I like reading/. so much. I don't have to go off and read 2-3 dozen other sites to find news that is of interest to me. The readers of/. do that and forward it on up from there. Something of interest in the Times? I find it on/.. Something interesting from NASA? It's here on/.. Something oddball I never would have found on my own? It is here. Did/. do the reporting and investigation of those stories? No, the individual sources did.
How in the world can higher taxes lead to a second parent getting a job to help pay the taxes?
Simple math. When Parent A brings home $50k/year but 33% of it goes to taxes, they only get $33k/year. So Parent B works and brings home, say, $20k/year and is taxed 20%. Parent B brings home $16k/year. Notice that 33+16>33. Now, say Parent A wasn't taxed as much. Only, oh, 16%. That $33k becomes $42k/year. An extra $9k/year. So Parent B can now either go part time to cover the remaining $7k/year they need/or/ they can look at their expenses and see if they could cut out $7k/year and Parent B stays home.
Simple fact is that a few decades ago families were able to not only survive but thrive on single incomes and today the largest drain on most middle-class people's income is taxes.
My most expensive bill is rent and it is 1/4th of my gross income. Taxes are well over 1/3rd. That is just income tax. It does not include sales tax or any of the taxes that are passed onto me as a consumer. If that large drain were removed I have no doubts that I'd be able to support a family on my income alone. As it is one of my coworkers is able to do it, barely, and because he doesn't have all the bills that most people do.
You know, you lost my interest and respect when you repeated the same tired line that the wealthiest 1% will get the largest amount of the tax break. I will repeat this 10 times so you will get it.
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
Get it yet? I don't think it is fair that just because someone earns more then the fellow down the block he automatically has to be taxed more on that income. That is not fair, it is not just, it is wrong. And perpetuating that stupid "Well, they'll get more" $H!T over and over while ignoring the fact that they PAY MORE just pissed me, and anyone with half a brain, off!
Am I in the top 1%? Hell no. Am I ever going to be in the top 1%? Most likely not. But you better believe I'm quite upset that the more I make the less, in percentage, I take home. A few years ago at the start of my career I took home nearly 75% of my income. Now I am making three times as much and taking home only 66%. I'm not taking home three times as much. If I even get another meager raise I'm almost certainly to break into the next tax bracket and take home even less. All because I am getting more and more experience and being more and more successful in my professional career.
IE, the more successful people become, the more we try to pull them back down on par with everyone else. Meanwhile the worse people are the more we try to pull them up with everyone else BY FORCABLY REMOVING FROM THOSE WHO ARE SUCCESSFUL. I'm sorry, that isn't social mobility, that is socialism. Tell me, how can you move from class to class when there ARE NOT CLASSES.
Do I want Bush in the office? Hell no. Do I want Gore in the office? Hell no. What I want is a stop to this BS when it comes to tax breaks to stir the popular vote through FEAR, UNCERTAINTY and DOUBT.
Once more..
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
Blame the idiots. Think globally, but mock them locally.
The interesting thing is that as I get older I begin to realize more and more things and find them ironic. For example there was a recent study which recommended that parents be given more time off work for parenting because there were issues with 0-5yo children. When I heard the story I giggled thinking about the irony of all these social programs which dictate higher taxes which in turn dictate both parents working which leads right back to social programs to "cure" the ills of working parents! Programs which will start the cycle all over again.
To some extent I see this happening here, the candidates representing the people who just don't get it and, in turn, creating more people who just don't get it. A vicious cycle. The irony here is that both candidates are trying to prove that they have what it takes to lead by/following/ the worst doctorine possible. Ignorance.
...given the source. They listed Opera as needing 200Mb of HD space. WTF?! Neoplant is IE with skins, get over it. The other alternative was a Mac browser and Macs have to be the/worst/ for anything to do with the internet. Given that set of problems with the article I can only take it as a worthless assessment by a bunch of clueless nits.
You don't often see the kind of rampant cheating that prevailed in Diablo 1 or Ultima Online when you are playing the FPS games. It seems that the shooters have acquired a sort of sports culture. To cheat at Team Fortress would be a lot like cheating at a pick-up basketball game.
You didn't play much CS when the wall cheat was prevailant, did you? Didn't play much when the model cheats were around, did you? I'm sorry, but I see more cheating in FPS than I do in MMORPGs simply because the FPS scene is full of immature people who simply need to "own" everyone else. You cannot play an FPS for more than 15 minutes without some prick out there trash talking everyone that he deems lesser than himself. I have never seen a more hostile group of people or a group that is more apt to cheat because of it in my years of gaming. It is a large reason why I quit playing them with any seriousness.
How is posting bogus files harmful to Napster's interests unless Napster's purpose is to violate copyrighted materials.
Simple, what about posting legitimate MP3s and someone posts crap with the same name as them? Let's say, for example, Hell on High Heels? The point isn't that what he is targetting, the point is that he is doing something annoying.
To put it another way say some spammer clearly got your private email address and states you're on an opt-in only list but spams you constantly. You ping flood him from here to, uh, The Netherlands. Guess who's accout is still going to get shut down for a DoS. Yours.
Is it just me or is anyone else disturbed by the fact that the most recent cite in that report which was nothing more than a collection of snippets of other studies was nine years old! 1991 was the latest study cited in that report. 1991. Where were you in 1991? I know where I was, working in a comic shop for a $.25 above minimum wage. 1991 Linux' latest version at the end of the year was 0.11! FreeBSD's 0.1 wasn't released until 1992. In short, girls and boys, this report is so out of date it isn't even funny. It completely ignores all advances in this field and in the social view of this field in the past 10 years. Those 10 years also happen to be when the largest advances on social perception of this field took place.
Yup, the study is invalid from the start yet now we have to deal with the problems it is going to create for years to come.
There was a/. article about a year back where a project was made to see what M$ had really innovated. Not feeling up to drudging through the archives to find it. Anyway, the last time I looked at that page I think they pretty much summed it up with this: Bob. Everything else was copied or aquired.
Slashdot Mirror
While I was a firm believer of reply-to to be used by mailing lists because of how RFC822 was worded (sender sets reply-to, the list is the sender) 2822 states it much differently which leaves no room for different interpretations. The /author/ sets the reply-to.
:/
However, I am sad to see that the mailing list issue simply has not been addressed. They have the perfect opportunity to formalize a way to for mailing lists to indicate how to respond to the list versus to the individual and they have not, from my brief skimming of the document, completely failed to do so.
"If we don't get attention at E3 we won't ship!"
"If I don't get 8 million dollars in a month, the lord's taking me home!"
Kinda makes you wonder who said which, right?
You /are/ aware that California's power problems aren't from privitization, AKA, "deregulation". Any time you hear "deregulation" when it comes to California's power companies you must encapsulate it in quotes. Why? Because under "deregulation" California power companies were:
/or/ to cover the interest on the bond measures they are going to sell to cover for their bad deals. At least when I'm paying the power companies I'm paying people who can actually add and subtract single digits integers and get right answers all of the time, something Gov. Davis is completely incapable of doing!
Regulated to buy on the spot market. The spot market means they can only buy for the next day, no more. As a result it is VERY susceptible to outside pressures.
Regulated to not buy power on long-term contracts. Long-term contracts would have allowed the power companies to purchase power at a cheaper rate.
Regulated to sell power at or below a set ceiling regardless of the wholesale price of power.
What does that mean? It means they were regulated to buy high-costing power on the short-term market and sell it far below cost. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the "deregulated" market was regulated into failure.
Want to hear the latest laugh? Gov. Gray Davis, the man who has clearly never heard the basics of economics, blames the Feds for California's problems. Why?
Wair for it...
They wouldn't regulate the wholesale market!
And here you are using the California "deregulation" scheme as an example of the problem with privitization? I say it is a prime example of the problems with government run systems. Gray Davis is too busy trying to lay the blame elsewhere to actually fix the problem. Remove the regulations from the "deregulated" market. Sure, people will have to pay more but guess what, they pay one way or another in the end. I'd much rather pay the power companies fair market prices for my power up front than to pay the state in taxes to either cover their bad deals
The industry didn't take notice. You're right, Deus Ex (UT engine) was never made, nor was No One Lives Forever (Lith Engine). Silly industry. ;)
Too bad the controls are a pain in the ass to manipulate, huh? Even the most basic movement is difficult because of the constant camera shifting. Might be nice for those who played the PS games that the same crappy camera style but, please, not here too!
If I want /real/ reliability I won't want a single point of failure. Even an S390 represents that. Give me a farm of smaller, cheaper machines behind a combonation of L4 and L7 switches with redundancy and a back-end pocket network hooked into NetApps that are mirroring off one another.
The whole, well, problem with the problem with a lack of those features is that they really aren't needed today. They're nice, they're cool, the make people oooh and aaaah, but you can replicate it with off-the-shelf hardware.
You can hot swap a CPU in that machine over there? So what, I can hot swap this machine over here and my whole costs less than yours to build and maintain.
Let's see..
microsoft.com
msn.com
hotmail.com
zone.com
Those are the domains off the top of my head that are most likely on those servers and are now kaput. I learned about this last night while playing Asheron's Call. Imagine that, playing Microsoft published games. There are a few out there, Taco, and guess where their DNS is hosted.
Also, let's not forget that because of Microsoft's problems the net as a whole is having problems because of how many DNS servers coughing and dying under the load of hundreds of thousands of stalled connections. I bet that is a "Yawn" to you but certainly isn't something that the ISPs are shrugging off.
Your treatment of this matter disgusts me. I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy but try engaging your brain before you type and THINK about what might be going on.
eBay won't suffer from this, and I wouldn't be surprised if you frequent their site again within a few months.
/.
If he is anything like me, no, he won't. When Amazon decided to do their BS patent work against bn.com guess who has gotten every dime of my internet business since then. Right, bn.com.
If eBay pulls that shit on me, not that they will since my account has been inactive for over a year, they'll get the same treatment. I want computer equipment I can go to Yahoo! or Egghead or several other difference places to buy and sell. There are loads of specialized auction sites out there that one can quite happily not go to eBay.
Passively support the use of Microsoft products? Uhm, well, let's see. This post is composed in Opera under Linux running KDE2. Oh, and it is IDing itself as Mozilla 4.76, not IE.
Me thinks the "weak-willed" comment wasn't directed at technophiles in general, but one in particular named "MAJ Rantage" on
Simply put there are some things you do NOT let slide. And calling that spamming a "Service" is one of them.
The litmus test is this: when all is said and done, if we feel sorry for Anakin, just plain sorry for him, Lucas has failed. But if we feel shaken and sick at heart, because we see that it could be us making those choices and _choosing_ the dark side- Lucas will have succeeded.
If it were JMS instead of Lucas I'd have faith that the man at the head of the project could pull it off. JMS had loads of that in B5. Characters that were real, that made choices that we as observers may very well would have made had we been in their position. No one was really good or really evil. Hell, just looking at Londo and G'Kar's many intertwining story lines one can find it.
Lucas, I'm not sure. Watching other films from him I don't have that confidence because I've not seen it from him. If I recall correctly he's said that the films aren't made for adults but more for kids and the kids at heart. That leads me to believe it would tend towards the simpler story.
Eventually the Earth's rotation would slow down to the point that it is no longer rotating with respect to the moon, so the moon's orbit would be synchronized with the Earth's rotation and the moon would only be visible from one side of the Earth. The Earth would still rotate with respect to the sun, but the days will be much longer, something like 50 times (IIRC) as long as they currently are. But this won't happen until something like 50 billion years in the future, by which point the Earth will have been consumed by the Sun anyway.
Uhm, the other factor is the sun itself. It's gravity is also slowing down the Earth's rotation and, given enough time, the Earth will stop rotating in relation to the sun as well. It happens to any pair of bodies in space where one orbits the other and has a rotation that is not the same length as the orbit, they eventually will sync.
You've not hit upon something new, you're just damned lucky. On both of my domains and all email addresses on those domains I've gotten spam in short order even though I know I was the first and only person to get the domain. And it isn't easy stuff, either. Hell, when I setup an account at a national ISP with this username (greydmiyu) which I have /NEVER/ seen anyone else use anywhere I was getting mail 2 DAYS later. I never use the account for anything since I have my own server. Go fig.
Opera is a great browser. I'm using 4.02 (for Windows, shhh!) to write this reply right now. It has a number of features that I love, like the MDI interface, zooming web pages, and the fact that if it crashes, it doesn't necessarily take Windows with it. I also like that when I re-open Opera, it remembers the last web pages I had open (a-la multiple default home pages).
/., K5 and my RC5 stats are in another folder. I want to check out the latest gaming news for the games I play? That's the folder with Planet Unreal, Counter-Strike.net, Asheron's Call Vault and Crossroads of Dereth is for.
Ya forgot another cool feature. "Open all folder items" on the bookmark list. I've not organized my bookmarks into things I want to remember and things I open on a daily basis. I've bookmarked all the comics I want to read from UComics and Comics.com. Hit that button, boom, 20 open pages.
Though I dislike the MDI interface in general I've grown to like it in Opera and there is no way I'm giving up the ability to open dozens of sites with a click.
Finding a job is never that simple. *NEVER*. The last time I checked the rule of thumb was 1 week for every 10k you earn. So the person in question here would have looked for 2.5 weeks, over one pay period, looking for a job. Then they have to wait one more pay period before they get paid. When I was working for 25k I was living paycheck to paycheck. A 1 month interruption was not acceptable. I doubt it is for this person, either.
In fact, I had to support my roommate for the month she didn't have a paycheck. She quit one job and *chose* to find another. 2-3 interviews A DAY and nearly 3 weeks later she found a job with a 2 hour commute time. Was this in some backwater city? No. Los Angeles.
Days? Bull. Weeks? Yes. Even then that is the first available job, not a preferred job. Sure the person you're badmouthing could choose to go get another job and choose to take the first offered once his money runs out and be in the exact same position.
Get some perspective.
Well, upon reading this article I now know completely why the EC should be destroyed this very day. The good Dr. spends the entire time explaining how it increases each individual vote's power. He forgets to mention that to increase one person's voting power it is required to decrease the voting power of someone else's vote.
/lost/ their voice in the national election because California's EC votes all go to Gore. Their vote's power are transferred from their candidate to Gore, end of discussion.
Just a real simple example from his math. 3 voters, each have a 50% chance of turning the election. That's fine and dandy. However, in a 2-1 vote where one person's vote turned the election the vote of the single person that voted the other way is tossed out. IE, power was transfered from the losers to the winners, depriving the losers of their vote.
That's great for the winners, sucks bad for the losers, doesn't it?
For a real world example, since Gore got 54% of the votes in California (5,254,500) the EC grants him 54 EC votes. The 4,054,756 people that voted for Bush, the 372,543 people who voted for Nader, 40,263 people who voted vor Browne (of which I am one), 39,897 people who voted for Buchanan, 14,884 people who voted for Philips and 9,415 people who voted for Hagelin all
The mathematics of it are all well and good, but this isn't the world series, this is a presidential election. There are far better ways of giving people more voice in an election which were covered in an earlier slashdot story.
Furthermore people say the EC prevents the candidates from concentrating on the population centers. Flat out lie. Instead of concentrating on the population centers now they are concentrating on... oh, the most populous states. Also the EC prevents the candidates from going to certain states. If a state isn't contested, if it is solidly in one column or another, it is ignored. Bush hit California, what, 2-3 times early on then ignored it? Gore did the same thing. If Florida weren't a swing state this year they would have ignored it as well. Look at their campaigning and you'll see lots of states pretty much ignored because they knew they would get 100% of the EC vote regardless of the actual votes cast in that state. All the EC did was deprive large portions of people the effect of their vote and grant that power to others.
I'd like to see this man do the math to see where that power comes from and how it negatively effects people before saying the EC is "provably" superior to straight popular voting.
NPR is about as unbiased as you're going to find. Yeah, I get upset when I hear Cladio Sanchez mention how Latinos are effected out of wack to everyone else (He gets that in 95% of his reports) but overall the reports are quite balanced and very accurate.
It is rare that I find NPR incorrect on technical details (the last one being calling Napster a web site) but overall their inaccuracies are minimal. Compare that to the common reporting on the local TV news where each story has at least 2-3 glaring errors and the local print not being much better.
As for balance I have yet to hear NPR air a story that was one sided. This is a very common tactic when it comes to local TV and print news as well as the national news. For example, when Merriam-Webster was going to change the entry for Nigger (IIRC) they did a report on it. Three sides to the issue were presented. Merriam-Webster's view, those for altering the entry and those for removing it. All had valid points and all three were give the same treatment by NPR. None of the views were given preference by NPR at all.
NPR is also the only news source that I see actively pursuing third party candidates in an ongoing series. Most news sources don't even acknowledge there are cadidates outside Bush and Gore.
Even on the most contentious issues, Gun Control, Abortion, etc they are quite unbiased. About the only time I had issue with NPR and gun control, as an example, was when they aired an opinion piece right after Columbine. Of course, after I got over my initial anger I realized it was misdirected at NPR and should have been at the woman who submitted the peice in the first place.
I think the largest praise I can give NPR is this. Unlike many other news sources they don't comment on the news or give opinions on the news. You don't hear glib little digs out of the reporters or anchors. I lost all respect for local news when one night the achors tossed in a dig against a rock group and the people going to the concert they had just reported on when the next night they praised the talent of the country artist whose concert they just reported on.
Sure, Claudio Sanchez could do without the whole woe of Latinos dig in each report but aside from that one bone I have I don't recall any of the anchors mistake giving opinions and stupid little jokes for reporting the news.
Personally I think /. is objective as it needs to be. It certainly does one thing that most other news sources don't do, quote their source up front. Hell, /. LINKS to the sources!
/. is not a news source. It is not. I state it again, it is not. Most, if not all, of the stories here are really links to other "reputable" new sources and the discussion of the /. community is held here. Meta-news source, yes. News-source in its own right, no.
/. so much. I don't have to go off and read 2-3 dozen other sites to find news that is of interest to me. The readers of /. do that and forward it on up from there. Something of interest in the Times? I find it on /.. Something interesting from NASA? It's here on /.. Something oddball I never would have found on my own? It is here. Did /. do the reporting and investigation of those stories? No, the individual sources did.
Personally it is that fact that makes me question why this whole thread is here.
That is why I like reading
How in the world can higher taxes lead to a second parent getting a job to help pay the taxes?
/or/ they can look at their expenses and see if they could cut out $7k/year and Parent B stays home.
Simple math. When Parent A brings home $50k/year but 33% of it goes to taxes, they only get $33k/year. So Parent B works and brings home, say, $20k/year and is taxed 20%. Parent B brings home $16k/year. Notice that 33+16>33. Now, say Parent A wasn't taxed as much. Only, oh, 16%. That $33k becomes $42k/year. An extra $9k/year. So Parent B can now either go part time to cover the remaining $7k/year they need
Simple fact is that a few decades ago families were able to not only survive but thrive on single incomes and today the largest drain on most middle-class people's income is taxes.
My most expensive bill is rent and it is 1/4th of my gross income. Taxes are well over 1/3rd. That is just income tax. It does not include sales tax or any of the taxes that are passed onto me as a consumer. If that large drain were removed I have no doubts that I'd be able to support a family on my income alone. As it is one of my coworkers is able to do it, barely, and because he doesn't have all the bills that most people do.
You know, you lost my interest and respect when you repeated the same tired line that the wealthiest 1% will get the largest amount of the tax break. I will repeat this 10 times so you will get it.
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
Get it yet? I don't think it is fair that just because someone earns more then the fellow down the block he automatically has to be taxed more on that income. That is not fair, it is not just, it is wrong. And perpetuating that stupid "Well, they'll get more" $H!T over and over while ignoring the fact that they PAY MORE just pissed me, and anyone with half a brain, off!
Am I in the top 1%? Hell no. Am I ever going to be in the top 1%? Most likely not. But you better believe I'm quite upset that the more I make the less, in percentage, I take home. A few years ago at the start of my career I took home nearly 75% of my income. Now I am making three times as much and taking home only 66%. I'm not taking home three times as much. If I even get another meager raise I'm almost certainly to break into the next tax bracket and take home even less. All because I am getting more and more experience and being more and more successful in my professional career.
IE, the more successful people become, the more we try to pull them back down on par with everyone else. Meanwhile the worse people are the more we try to pull them up with everyone else BY FORCABLY REMOVING FROM THOSE WHO ARE SUCCESSFUL. I'm sorry, that isn't social mobility, that is socialism. Tell me, how can you move from class to class when there ARE NOT CLASSES.
Do I want Bush in the office? Hell no. Do I want Gore in the office? Hell no. What I want is a stop to this BS when it comes to tax breaks to stir the popular vote through FEAR, UNCERTAINTY and DOUBT.
Once more..
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
Blame the idiots. Think globally, but mock them locally.
/following/ the worst doctorine possible. Ignorance.
The interesting thing is that as I get older I begin to realize more and more things and find them ironic. For example there was a recent study which recommended that parents be given more time off work for parenting because there were issues with 0-5yo children. When I heard the story I giggled thinking about the irony of all these social programs which dictate higher taxes which in turn dictate both parents working which leads right back to social programs to "cure" the ills of working parents! Programs which will start the cycle all over again.
To some extent I see this happening here, the candidates representing the people who just don't get it and, in turn, creating more people who just don't get it. A vicious cycle. The irony here is that both candidates are trying to prove that they have what it takes to lead by
...given the source. They listed Opera as needing 200Mb of HD space. WTF?! Neoplant is IE with skins, get over it. The other alternative was a Mac browser and Macs have to be the /worst/ for anything to do with the internet. Given that set of problems with the article I can only take it as a worthless assessment by a bunch of clueless nits.
You don't often see the kind of rampant cheating that prevailed in Diablo 1 or Ultima Online when you are playing the FPS games. It seems that the shooters have acquired a sort of sports culture. To cheat at Team Fortress would be a lot like cheating at a pick-up basketball game.
You didn't play much CS when the wall cheat was prevailant, did you? Didn't play much when the model cheats were around, did you? I'm sorry, but I see more cheating in FPS than I do in MMORPGs simply because the FPS scene is full of immature people who simply need to "own" everyone else. You cannot play an FPS for more than 15 minutes without some prick out there trash talking everyone that he deems lesser than himself. I have never seen a more hostile group of people or a group that is more apt to cheat because of it in my years of gaming. It is a large reason why I quit playing them with any seriousness.
How is posting bogus files harmful to Napster's interests unless Napster's purpose is to violate copyrighted materials.
Simple, what about posting legitimate MP3s and someone posts crap with the same name as them? Let's say, for example, Hell on High Heels? The point isn't that what he is targetting, the point is that he is doing something annoying.
To put it another way say some spammer clearly got your private email address and states you're on an opt-in only list but spams you constantly. You ping flood him from here to, uh, The Netherlands. Guess who's accout is still going to get shut down for a DoS. Yours.
Nah, I suck. Read this article and another one similar to it and got them confused. :(
Is it just me or is anyone else disturbed by the fact that the most recent cite in that report which was nothing more than a collection of snippets of other studies was nine years old! 1991 was the latest study cited in that report. 1991. Where were you in 1991? I know where I was, working in a comic shop for a $.25 above minimum wage. 1991 Linux' latest version at the end of the year was 0.11! FreeBSD's 0.1 wasn't released until 1992. In short, girls and boys, this report is so out of date it isn't even funny. It completely ignores all advances in this field and in the social view of this field in the past 10 years. Those 10 years also happen to be when the largest advances on social perception of this field took place.
Yup, the study is invalid from the start yet now we have to deal with the problems it is going to create for years to come.
There was a /. article about a year back where a project was made to see what M$ had really innovated. Not feeling up to drudging through the archives to find it. Anyway, the last time I looked at that page I think they pretty much summed it up with this: Bob. Everything else was copied or aquired.