You really don't get it if you think that a consumer has any desire to worry about their video chipset or WiFi drivers. Seriously.
And your "McD's coffee V. Starbucks coffee" analogy is just bad. These are well branded companies. Any person on the street could tell you that their impression is that Starbucks is further up market than McDonalds. Now go ask them that same question about ATI Vs. nVidia. They'll look at you like you're on LSD. Ditto for Intel WiFi Vs. Broadcom WiFi.
Linux is still offered on "Nerd Terms." Linux may be free of charge but there's still a heavy cost associated with it. If you want to run linux, great, but you're going to have to become a computer expert. You're going to have to understand what a driver is, first of all, and then understand why you need certain makes of hardware. You'll need to understand many of the mundane things that Windows abstracts away. You'll need to know why Broadcom=Bad and Intel=Good except for somethings where Intel=Bad and AMD=Good and you'll have to know what a video card is and why ATI is a huge brand name but ATI=Bad and nVidia=Good and you'll need to understand that SOME nVidia STILL =Bad and the next nVidia card that comes out might =Bad for a year until drivers come out and then it =Good.
To any "average" user that I know, if you'd ask them to pick between learning that, or shelling out another $100 for a copy of Windows, they'll pick Windows in a second.
People always talk about about how "If cars worked like windows, they'd crash all the time..." but you never hear about "If cars worked like linux.."
If cars worked like Linux they'd be totally free, but they'd require you compile them from their parts. You'd have to know why the Delco spark plugs that fit your car won't work, but the Bosch spark plugs do. You'd be able to boast that your car can stay running for 300 days even though you don't actually ever need it to. You'd have a car that doesn't crash but you'd also have a car that you couldn't lend to a friend without giving them a significant training lesson. You'd have to re-compile the car every time you make a significant addition to it. It would look like a normal car on the outside, but on the inside, everything you're used to in a Windows world is different. If you bought a fleet of linux cars for your business, they'd run forever but you'd never have any good drivers. You could get more speed out of a lesser engine but you'd find that the most common and coolest new roads aren't compatible with your car. You'd be able to configure things like how many degrees your wheels turn for every revolution of your steering wheel, or how fast your CD plays back, or fuel injection timing, even though you don't want to do those things. At the same time, you'd have to use a CLI to change your radio station or set your climate control.
I'm going to run out of town with a mob carrying torches and pitch forks just for saying this, but THIS is why Linux--despite anyones claims--is simply not ready for the desktop.
When a guy that has enough knowledge and comfort to actually install and run linux STILL didn't know all the esoteric reasons why you need a specific GPU or WiFi card, etc, how could you ever hope for a regular joe-user to know?
I'm certain that the average user doesn't know a GPU from an IOU and they don't want to know.
Whether or not this is a GOOD thing (i think it is, personally), users are accustom to something that Microsoft does that/. gives them no credit for: Ensuring hardware compatibility--usually "plug & play" style--for nearly anything that you can buy at Best Buy or Dell or CompUSA.
When linux can say the same, then you're on to something. Until then, stop evangelizing so much and spend more time writing decent drivers.
The server market--esp. web server--Linux is awesome. But desktops are a different beast. You can argue that the desktop shells for Linux are excellent now--and that was an important piece of the puzzle--but now that users have a desktop they might actually want to USE IT for something, and to do that, they'll need support for networking, optical, and video hardware.
1. Intel Based PCs can dual boot XP and Vista, too 2. Why the hell would you buy a Mac--from a business POV--only to have users spend 1/2 their time in XP, which you're ALREADY RUNNING?
The way he says "I asked Vista.." made me picture Scottie in 1984...
"Hello, Computer?" "Computer, Hello?" [Office Guy Hands Scottie the Mouse] "Use This," he says. "Ahhh." [Picks up the mouse, brings it to his mouth] "Hello, Computer!" "Just use the keyboard," The office guy suggests. "The keyboard," Scottie Says, "How quaint."
The sacchrine sweet mac-fanboy-ism on slashdot is enough to turn my stomach, and I generally think that anyone that loves a $bn corporation is a useless consumer tool, but I _LOVE_ that ad. It might be the most spot-on critique of a product that I've ever seen. As a rule, adverts only generalize their competition. It's YOUR AD for christ sake. But they threw that out the window entirely.
Many of the PC-Mac ads have been a little tired, IMO, but THAT is brilliant.
Dude, I didn't deny anything. What I wrote was perfectly clear to everyone but you.
For example, imagine this conversation:
"Cancer runs in my family. This is why it scares me so much."
If you, (a pedantic loser), read such a sentence you might ask "Something that RUNS IN YOUR FAMILY scares you? Are you too good for the rest of your family? Wouldn't you WANT to share genetic traits with your family?"
However, the rest of us clearly understand that what the person dislikes about cancer is not, in fact, that it runs in the family. What the person dislikes about cancer is that it kills people. This didn't NEED to be expressed because it was both obvious and not relevant to the point.
So really, dude, quit being such a dumb fuck. It doesn't contribute to the community, make for entertaining discourse, or have any redeeming qualities whatsoever.
And seriously? You actually think Newt can win? You have to be kidding me. He left office disgraced after practically losing their congressional majority. The contract of America was a flop. Gingrich and Lott fumbled the government shutdown so badly that even today, just last week, when there was a possibility of a shut down, the GOP blinked because they have such a bad taste in their mouth from a DECADE ago when they shut it down last time.
But honestly, I would _love it_ if you nominated Newt. Any of the top Dem names -- Clinton, Edwards, Gore, Obama, even Kerry for christ sake -- would own a Gingrich for President campaign. People say that Hillary has bad favorables. Well, wait until they get a look at Newts.
From Rasmussen:
Clinton (50%) Gingrich (43%) Gore (51%) Gingrich (40%) Obama (48%) Gingrich (38%)
etc etc etc.
Polls this early are usually about name recog. Well, people recognize Gingrichs name. They also recognize the faint smell of burning sulfur in the room as they say it out loud.
The UK buys entire weapons systems from us. Fighter Jets. SAMs. Their nuclear warheads are mounted on AMERICAN misiles.
You actually are going to suggest that relying on WINDOWS is going to somehow endanger the ability for the british to defend themselves?
Besides, I'm a pretty smart guy and I can't even think of a scenario where the US and Britain would be on opposing sides of a military conflict. I mean, it would take a radical shift--RADICAL--akin to a Hitler-esque figure taking control of one of the countries. (Hell, if W didn't make war between us, that tells you just how strong that bond is.)
You either just genuinely confused logic or you were so interested in being "right" in a day old slashdot thread that you scoured the post pedantically to so you can find a way to argue with me about what I MEANT when I WROTE IT.
If you'll take of your "i'm a dick who just wants to be right" hat, and actually read what I wrote, you'll see that I never actually said why I would not like Rudy to be the President. I never mentioned it. I never alluded to it. I never brought it up.
Clearly, however, I did imply that would not like to see Rudy win, and I suggested that the fact that he CAN win (which I said in plain english) scares me.
Only somebody that's just TRYING to find a way to win some meaningless "argument" would assume that the reason I dislike Rudy is that he shares most American values.
You need to turn on Windows Update, bro. This joke was patched years ago. The new Virtual Laugh Machine doesn't provide backwards compatibility for 10 year old jokes, so you'll have to pick between one of these new options:
1. Bart calls API. "Is your remote registry service running?" "Well, you better go catch it." 2. Two kernels walk into a bar. The third one panics.
The issue is that Rudy has ALREADY made public statements that leave no question that he will appoint judges and justices that share "traditional republican values." He's doing this to win favor from the right wing of his party. He's GIVING THEM JUSTICES to get their votes.
This is sickening and it will only result in more of the same. If you add up every statewide or federal elected official in the US for the past 30 years, the Dem/Rep breakdown stays very consistent at about 49%/49%. However, we have a supreme court that is significantly skewed to the right.
So really, before you lament the state of politics in America, and before you criticize me for how I chose to cast MY VOTE, why don't you go out there and really learn who it is you're lamenting.
Are you suggesting that flight systems are not as complicated as Windows 3.1?
Besides, it's probably no different than every other real-world software application. We all stand on the shoulders of giants. The technology stack is probably pretty mature and stable, with all the conventions of modern programming: Layers of APIs and abstractions, shared libraries, etc.
It's probably, I'd say, that the systems have many millions of lines of code. It's probably unlikely that the specific subsystems affected had that many lines.
First, Senators are at a disadvantage due to a very large and esoteric voting record. The senate can be a tricky place. As much as John Kerry was a dumb fuck for actually SAYING "I voted for the $87bn before I voted against it," it's actually a pretty common scenario.
However, Kerry had 20 years in the Senate.
Of the top 3 dem contenders--all Senators or Ex Senators--Clinton has the longest Senate record at 6y 2mo, followed by Edwards at 6yr and Obama at 2yr 2mo. Much fewer time bombs. Especially considering Clinton had her eyes on the prize the whole way, and Edwards has already aired his Senate dirty laundry last time.
This is a very similar situation to JFK running in 1960 and not very similar to previous runs made by Senators.
Furthermore, how can you fully subscribe to a bias like "This nation doesn't elect Senators.." and NOT accept the bias of "This nation has never elected an Hispanic?"
And I have to say that I disagree with your overall political judgement a great deal. Rudy, for example, would take a General election in a walk. His values really do align with those of an average American. He his socially liberal and fiscally conservative. These are American values. This means that Rudy scares the hell out of me.
The only saving grace is that Rudy will almost surely not win the GOP Nomination, for exactly the same reason he would win a general. His is pro-abortion. He has pictures of himself in drag (everyone has the pics), he actually LIVED with a gay couple and their pet chihuahua. He is pro gay-rights. Pro gun-control. Etc. These views are anethma in the GOP.
And even if the moderates in their party make a power grab away from the christian right, they're not just going to stand by and take it. They have demonstrated their willingness to jump ship from the GOP in a general and run a third party. Of course they know they can't WIN but they do know they can split the GOP vote and they'll use that power in a second in 2008 if it puts them back in the drivers seat for picking a nominee in 2012. The christian right is the equivilant to minority support in the democratic party. You just cannot win without it.
I think it's clear to most watching that Richardson is running for Veep. He has issues as a nominee. He's not exactly trim and healthy looking (yes, this makes a diff. Clinton got a lot of bad press for this. But he was Clinton. He could over come it. Richardson is not Clinton in terms of raw political skill). He's not exactly an inspiring speaker. New Englanders, you say, don't fare well in generals, how do south-westerners fare? More importantly, he better makes serious waves very soon or he's not going to have the cash he needs to even make it to the first Caucus a year from now. Candidates are going to need to raise $100MM before 2008 ever hits the calendar. In democratic politics, the current top 3 candidates have a large amount of the cash men signed up. This is what the recent spat has been about between Obama and Clinton regarding David Geffen. Hillary has tried for months now to lock up the financing in her party to choke the supply lines of her competitors. If you're going to run a campaign that doesn't rely on traditional Dem money-raisers, you need a serious personality like Howard Dean to raise cash in smaller increments. So far Richardson hasn't even made the RADAR for most people. Yes it's early, but that doesn't matter. It's well under way.
And finally, Richardson has done this toe-dipping before. And he didn't generate much buzz then, and he probably won't this time, either. He's running for the Veep slot.
And for what it's worth, my candidate is Obama. I was sold when I read his book and I encourage all Americans to read it. It's not campaign literature like most candidate books. It reads as though he genuinely wrote it before he ever knew he was going to run in 2008, and in fact, that's likely what happened. He has a certain power. For example, this time last cycle, Howard Dean was bringi
The problem as i see it is that since 1980, the elite have just gotten too greedy. These are off the top of my head, but here goes: in 1980 the average CEO earned 20x more than his average employee. Today it's 400x more. in 1980 the top one percent owned 30% of the nations wealth, today it's 55%.
Business profits have doubled up a number of times since then but they still act like there's a pinch on the American business.
And you're right about party affiliation. In many ways democratic leaders have been unwilling or unable to stop or even slow this machine. FDR did the most good and it took a depression and world war to make those changes possible. And who knows what his motivations really were. He was absurdly rich. Perhaps he was just making up for the bones not thrown over the previous decade. After all, great depression conditions for too long == the missing number 7 on the list (revolution!).
1. Government meddling into business and private affairs usually costs businesses and people $. (e.g. disposing of toxic waste by dumping into a lake is far cheaper than disposing properly) 2. The American Elite (eg the GOP) wish to maximize personal wealth by limiting such government meddling 3. The GOP in such efforts have taken control of Government. In reality, the elite have controlled every government in the history of mankind 4. Now the issue is maximizing wealth. Question: Could government help with such a thing? 5. Yes it Can! Use the federal military to protect commercial interests. Use economic policy to create a modern class of 'indentured servants' 6. Create an effective marketing machine and throw the bottom class enough bones to keep it from revolting. 7. Repeat 5 & 6 ad infinitum
I don't know where you get this idea that Cingular is run by bumpkins but it's not my experience. I travel throughout the midwest (usually driving) and I've had very few problems, no more than I had while using my old Verizon account or my work-purchased SprintNextel phone. In fact, in my experience, the Sprint network is the worst.
I'd do it. I'd sign up in a second if they offered it to the US. Renting often costs more than buying--for basically EVERYTHING. Your argument could also be "Why would people RENT a house when they could just BUY ONE for SO MUCH CHEAPER?" "Why would a person ever RENT A CAR? It costs $45 a day to rent a car that would only cost you $500 a month if you bought it"
But there are a couple things that I want to point out. I tend to blather about things I'm passionate about so I'll try to keep this concise. I usually hate the "rebut every sentence" format, but i'm going to use it sparingly here.
"Well what happens if the amount of money owed by the Government to providers exceeds what is in the gathered funds pools?"
Ask yourself this: What happens now when the amount of money owed to healthcare providers exceeds what is gathered in the pool of funds an insurance company accrues from premiums? Three things, usually: 1. They have re-insurance to help distribute the load geographically. 2. They raise premiums to cover their more expensive re-insurance and to ensure that it doesn't happen again (for a while, at least), and they deny more treatments. This is what we've been putting up with for 20 years. It's status-quo for private insurers.
"Why should I have my taxes raised to pay for other people's health care if I only had 3 or 4 inexpensive Doctor's visits throughout the year?"
But you already are! This is how insurance works! You pay more in a year than you actually use. This is why insurance companies can afford to pay for those $1MM surgeries you mentioned. This is also why Government is such a great fit for health care. You see, healthcare in america--Insurance companies themselves--are already "socialist." They already work by pooling together "groups" of people into a Group Plan and distributing risk across a popultion. The only difference with the national healthcare system is the group is much larger.
What about the millions of illegal immigrants? In the current system the corporate entities (hospitals, clinics, etc) that you dislike so much are the ones who are forced to eat the cost of providing care to these individuals.
First, I don't hate hospitals or clinics. In fact, if you'd read my posts, I'm (loudly) advocating a single payer system. This means the corporate hospitals et al will still exist, mostly unchanged. American hospitals _are_ the best in the world and that's something we shouldn't change.
Furthermore, the hospitals themselves are not eating the costs of the indigent, poor, and illegals. In every state in America as well as Puerto Rico, there is a network of state-subsidized hospitals. Traditionally there is one in each county. Often the "County General" or whatever. Furthermore, many hospitals (but still a tiny percentage of them) fund similar care thru donations. Still, a large number of hospitals get funding as well as indirect funding like state write-offs and such for treating such patients. So in reality, you're already paying for it.
Additionally, if I'm already being taxed for healthcare, why would I want the "benefit" of my employer contributing money for me? Why would they want to provide it?
Your employer would pay it because it would be the law. We have only two options for funding such a system. First, we have a "Personal Mandate." This is similar to auto insurance. It's the law that if you drive a car you must have insurance. It's a "mandate." It's the law that YOU must pay for it, thus the "personal" part. In 1992 when Clinton tried to enact healthcare, the competing plan, led by Bob Dole, was for a Personal Mandate on health insurance. Recently, in his SOTU, Bush suggested a similar program. This works by the Fed Govt offering tax credits and such and then making it the law (the LAW) that _you_ must pay for your own health care costs. In Bush's recent plan, the money that companies are paying today would show up on your W2 as taxable income, which would be mostly offset by the tax breaks Bush is suggesting.
The other option is an Employer Mandate, which works basically the same way, but the burden is on the employers.
The Edwards plan calls for a combination of Employer Mandate with higher taxes on the top 1% of Americans (those earning > $350,000 a year) to pay for the un- and under-employed.
I once read a story online (i'm sure you could google it if you're so inclined) where Sea Gulls (or perhaps Pigeons..) would pick up a hard nut that had fallen from the trees, drop it in the street, and let cars drive over them. They'd sit and wait and watch and when it was cracked open, they'd fly over and snatch it up.
So what you're saying is that you read into something that I wrote and made your own assumptions and that I'm some how responsible for what you imagined you read?
Slashdot Mirror
You really don't get it if you think that a consumer has any desire to worry about their video chipset or WiFi drivers. Seriously.
And your "McD's coffee V. Starbucks coffee" analogy is just bad. These are well branded companies. Any person on the street could tell you that their impression is that Starbucks is further up market than McDonalds. Now go ask them that same question about ATI Vs. nVidia. They'll look at you like you're on LSD. Ditto for Intel WiFi Vs. Broadcom WiFi.
Linux is still offered on "Nerd Terms." Linux may be free of charge but there's still a heavy cost associated with it. If you want to run linux, great, but you're going to have to become a computer expert. You're going to have to understand what a driver is, first of all, and then understand why you need certain makes of hardware. You'll need to understand many of the mundane things that Windows abstracts away. You'll need to know why Broadcom=Bad and Intel=Good except for somethings where Intel=Bad and AMD=Good and you'll have to know what a video card is and why ATI is a huge brand name but ATI=Bad and nVidia=Good and you'll need to understand that SOME nVidia STILL =Bad and the next nVidia card that comes out might =Bad for a year until drivers come out and then it =Good.
To any "average" user that I know, if you'd ask them to pick between learning that, or shelling out another $100 for a copy of Windows, they'll pick Windows in a second.
People always talk about about how "If cars worked like windows, they'd crash all the time..." but you never hear about "If cars worked like linux.."
If cars worked like Linux they'd be totally free, but they'd require you compile them from their parts.
You'd have to know why the Delco spark plugs that fit your car won't work, but the Bosch spark plugs do.
You'd be able to boast that your car can stay running for 300 days even though you don't actually ever need it to.
You'd have a car that doesn't crash but you'd also have a car that you couldn't lend to a friend without giving them a significant training lesson.
You'd have to re-compile the car every time you make a significant addition to it.
It would look like a normal car on the outside, but on the inside, everything you're used to in a Windows world is different.
If you bought a fleet of linux cars for your business, they'd run forever but you'd never have any good drivers.
You could get more speed out of a lesser engine but you'd find that the most common and coolest new roads aren't compatible with your car.
You'd be able to configure things like how many degrees your wheels turn for every revolution of your steering wheel, or how fast your CD plays back, or fuel injection timing, even though you don't want to do those things. At the same time, you'd have to use a CLI to change your radio station or set your climate control.
Etc
I'm going to run out of town with a mob carrying torches and pitch forks just for saying this, but THIS is why Linux--despite anyones claims--is simply not ready for the desktop.
/. gives them no credit for: Ensuring hardware compatibility--usually "plug & play" style--for nearly anything that you can buy at Best Buy or Dell or CompUSA.
When a guy that has enough knowledge and comfort to actually install and run linux STILL didn't know all the esoteric reasons why you need a specific GPU or WiFi card, etc, how could you ever hope for a regular joe-user to know?
I'm certain that the average user doesn't know a GPU from an IOU and they don't want to know.
Whether or not this is a GOOD thing (i think it is, personally), users are accustom to something that Microsoft does that
When linux can say the same, then you're on to something. Until then, stop evangelizing so much and spend more time writing decent drivers.
The server market--esp. web server--Linux is awesome. But desktops are a different beast. You can argue that the desktop shells for Linux are excellent now--and that was an important piece of the puzzle--but now that users have a desktop they might actually want to USE IT for something, and to do that, they'll need support for networking, optical, and video hardware.
"I wonder what the range is?"
It can go up to 11.
1. Intel Based PCs can dual boot XP and Vista, too
2. Why the hell would you buy a Mac--from a business POV--only to have users spend 1/2 their time in XP, which you're ALREADY RUNNING?
Scientists? Please.
These are the people who don't believe in the book of Genesis, for chrissake.
<cite: bill maher>
I swear--check my comment history, subscribers--this is the first time I've ever done this. But, wth...
In soviet russia, the globe warms you.
Ahhhhhhhhh...... I've been holding that in for a while.
The way he says "I asked Vista.." made me picture Scottie in 1984...
"Hello, Computer?"
"Computer, Hello?"
[Office Guy Hands Scottie the Mouse]
"Use This," he says.
"Ahhh."
[Picks up the mouse, brings it to his mouth]
"Hello, Computer!"
"Just use the keyboard," The office guy suggests.
"The keyboard," Scottie Says, "How quaint."
"Vista? Hello Vista? Please delete 36,000 files for me?"
"Vista? Hello?"
The sacchrine sweet mac-fanboy-ism on slashdot is enough to turn my stomach, and I generally think that anyone that loves a $bn corporation is a useless consumer tool, but I _LOVE_ that ad. It might be the most spot-on critique of a product that I've ever seen. As a rule, adverts only generalize their competition. It's YOUR AD for christ sake. But they threw that out the window entirely.
Many of the PC-Mac ads have been a little tired, IMO, but THAT is brilliant.
I'll take the penis mightier for $100 please, Alex.
Dude, I didn't deny anything. What I wrote was perfectly clear to everyone but you.
For example, imagine this conversation:
"Cancer runs in my family. This is why it scares me so much."
If you, (a pedantic loser), read such a sentence you might ask "Something that RUNS IN YOUR FAMILY scares you? Are you too good for the rest of your family? Wouldn't you WANT to share genetic traits with your family?"
However, the rest of us clearly understand that what the person dislikes about cancer is not, in fact, that it runs in the family. What the person dislikes about cancer is that it kills people. This didn't NEED to be expressed because it was both obvious and not relevant to the point.
So really, dude, quit being such a dumb fuck. It doesn't contribute to the community, make for entertaining discourse, or have any redeeming qualities whatsoever.
And seriously? You actually think Newt can win? You have to be kidding me. He left office disgraced after practically losing their congressional majority. The contract of America was a flop. Gingrich and Lott fumbled the government shutdown so badly that even today, just last week, when there was a possibility of a shut down, the GOP blinked because they have such a bad taste in their mouth from a DECADE ago when they shut it down last time.
But honestly, I would _love it_ if you nominated Newt. Any of the top Dem names -- Clinton, Edwards, Gore, Obama, even Kerry for christ sake -- would own a Gingrich for President campaign. People say that Hillary has bad favorables. Well, wait until they get a look at Newts.
From Rasmussen:
Clinton (50%) Gingrich (43%)
Gore (51%) Gingrich (40%)
Obama (48%) Gingrich (38%)
etc etc etc.
Polls this early are usually about name recog. Well, people recognize Gingrichs name. They also recognize the faint smell of burning sulfur in the room as they say it out loud.
The UK buys entire weapons systems from us. Fighter Jets. SAMs. Their nuclear warheads are mounted on AMERICAN misiles.
You actually are going to suggest that relying on WINDOWS is going to somehow endanger the ability for the british to defend themselves?
Besides, I'm a pretty smart guy and I can't even think of a scenario where the US and Britain would be on opposing sides of a military conflict. I mean, it would take a radical shift--RADICAL--akin to a Hitler-esque figure taking control of one of the countries. (Hell, if W didn't make war between us, that tells you just how strong that bond is.)
You either just genuinely confused logic or you were so interested in being "right" in a day old slashdot thread that you scoured the post pedantically to so you can find a way to argue with me about what I MEANT when I WROTE IT.
If you'll take of your "i'm a dick who just wants to be right" hat, and actually read what I wrote, you'll see that I never actually said why I would not like Rudy to be the President. I never mentioned it. I never alluded to it. I never brought it up.
Clearly, however, I did imply that would not like to see Rudy win, and I suggested that the fact that he CAN win (which I said in plain english) scares me.
Only somebody that's just TRYING to find a way to win some meaningless "argument" would assume that the reason I dislike Rudy is that he shares most American values.
So yea, go try that again.
You need to turn on Windows Update, bro. This joke was patched years ago. The new Virtual Laugh Machine doesn't provide backwards compatibility for 10 year old jokes, so you'll have to pick between one of these new options:
1. Bart calls API. "Is your remote registry service running?" "Well, you better go catch it."
2. Two kernels walk into a bar. The third one panics.
Next time, please refer to the KB article.
You want to know what the issue is?
The issue is that Rudy has ALREADY made public statements that leave no question that he will appoint judges and justices that share "traditional republican values." He's doing this to win favor from the right wing of his party. He's GIVING THEM JUSTICES to get their votes.
This is sickening and it will only result in more of the same. If you add up every statewide or federal elected official in the US for the past 30 years, the Dem/Rep breakdown stays very consistent at about 49%/49%. However, we have a supreme court that is significantly skewed to the right.
So really, before you lament the state of politics in America, and before you criticize me for how I chose to cast MY VOTE, why don't you go out there and really learn who it is you're lamenting.
Are you suggesting that flight systems are not as complicated as Windows 3.1?
Besides, it's probably no different than every other real-world software application. We all stand on the shoulders of giants. The technology stack is probably pretty mature and stable, with all the conventions of modern programming: Layers of APIs and abstractions, shared libraries, etc.
It's probably, I'd say, that the systems have many millions of lines of code. It's probably unlikely that the specific subsystems affected had that many lines.
Ok.... I have to bite here.
First, Senators are at a disadvantage due to a very large and esoteric voting record. The senate can be a tricky place. As much as John Kerry was a dumb fuck for actually SAYING "I voted for the $87bn before I voted against it," it's actually a pretty common scenario.
However, Kerry had 20 years in the Senate.
Of the top 3 dem contenders--all Senators or Ex Senators--Clinton has the longest Senate record at 6y 2mo, followed by Edwards at 6yr and Obama at 2yr 2mo. Much fewer time bombs. Especially considering Clinton had her eyes on the prize the whole way, and Edwards has already aired his Senate dirty laundry last time.
This is a very similar situation to JFK running in 1960 and not very similar to previous runs made by Senators.
Furthermore, how can you fully subscribe to a bias like "This nation doesn't elect Senators.." and NOT accept the bias of "This nation has never elected an Hispanic?"
And I have to say that I disagree with your overall political judgement a great deal. Rudy, for example, would take a General election in a walk. His values really do align with those of an average American. He his socially liberal and fiscally conservative. These are American values. This means that Rudy scares the hell out of me.
The only saving grace is that Rudy will almost surely not win the GOP Nomination, for exactly the same reason he would win a general. His is pro-abortion. He has pictures of himself in drag (everyone has the pics), he actually LIVED with a gay couple and their pet chihuahua. He is pro gay-rights. Pro gun-control. Etc. These views are anethma in the GOP.
And even if the moderates in their party make a power grab away from the christian right, they're not just going to stand by and take it. They have demonstrated their willingness to jump ship from the GOP in a general and run a third party. Of course they know they can't WIN but they do know they can split the GOP vote and they'll use that power in a second in 2008 if it puts them back in the drivers seat for picking a nominee in 2012. The christian right is the equivilant to minority support in the democratic party. You just cannot win without it.
I think it's clear to most watching that Richardson is running for Veep. He has issues as a nominee. He's not exactly trim and healthy looking (yes, this makes a diff. Clinton got a lot of bad press for this. But he was Clinton. He could over come it. Richardson is not Clinton in terms of raw political skill). He's not exactly an inspiring speaker. New Englanders, you say, don't fare well in generals, how do south-westerners fare? More importantly, he better makes serious waves very soon or he's not going to have the cash he needs to even make it to the first Caucus a year from now. Candidates are going to need to raise $100MM before 2008 ever hits the calendar. In democratic politics, the current top 3 candidates have a large amount of the cash men signed up. This is what the recent spat has been about between Obama and Clinton regarding David Geffen. Hillary has tried for months now to lock up the financing in her party to choke the supply lines of her competitors. If you're going to run a campaign that doesn't rely on traditional Dem money-raisers, you need a serious personality like Howard Dean to raise cash in smaller increments. So far Richardson hasn't even made the RADAR for most people. Yes it's early, but that doesn't matter. It's well under way.
And finally, Richardson has done this toe-dipping before. And he didn't generate much buzz then, and he probably won't this time, either. He's running for the Veep slot.
And for what it's worth, my candidate is Obama. I was sold when I read his book and I encourage all Americans to read it. It's not campaign literature like most candidate books. It reads as though he genuinely wrote it before he ever knew he was going to run in 2008, and in fact, that's likely what happened. He has a certain power. For example, this time last cycle, Howard Dean was bringi
Very good observation.
The problem as i see it is that since 1980, the elite have just gotten too greedy. These are off the top of my head, but here goes: in 1980 the average CEO earned 20x more than his average employee. Today it's 400x more. in 1980 the top one percent owned 30% of the nations wealth, today it's 55%.
Business profits have doubled up a number of times since then but they still act like there's a pinch on the American business.
And you're right about party affiliation. In many ways democratic leaders have been unwilling or unable to stop or even slow this machine. FDR did the most good and it took a depression and world war to make those changes possible. And who knows what his motivations really were. He was absurdly rich. Perhaps he was just making up for the bones not thrown over the previous decade. After all, great depression conditions for too long == the missing number 7 on the list (revolution!).
Follow me, here:
1. Government meddling into business and private affairs usually costs businesses and people $. (e.g. disposing of toxic waste by dumping into a lake is far cheaper than disposing properly)
2. The American Elite (eg the GOP) wish to maximize personal wealth by limiting such government meddling
3. The GOP in such efforts have taken control of Government. In reality, the elite have controlled every government in the history of mankind
4. Now the issue is maximizing wealth. Question: Could government help with such a thing?
5. Yes it Can! Use the federal military to protect commercial interests. Use economic policy to create a modern class of 'indentured servants'
6. Create an effective marketing machine and throw the bottom class enough bones to keep it from revolting.
7. Repeat 5 & 6 ad infinitum
No, no ISPs are considered common carriers. They are free from litigation because they're protected by the Good Samaritan provisions of the DCMA.
Sorry man, but you're full of it. Apache out of the box _is_ more secure than IIS out of the box.
But both of them can be secured properly.
There are MILLIONS of IIS servers running sensitive information.
You saying otherwise is FUD every bit as disgusting as anything Microsoft produces.
Everyone needs to work together to bust the fud.
I don't know where you get this idea that Cingular is run by bumpkins but it's not my experience. I travel throughout the midwest (usually driving) and I've had very few problems, no more than I had while using my old Verizon account or my work-purchased SprintNextel phone. In fact, in my experience, the Sprint network is the worst.
I'd do it. I'd sign up in a second if they offered it to the US. Renting often costs more than buying--for basically EVERYTHING. Your argument could also be "Why would people RENT a house when they could just BUY ONE for SO MUCH CHEAPER?" "Why would a person ever RENT A CAR? It costs $45 a day to rent a car that would only cost you $500 a month if you bought it"
Convenience. Just that simple. Convenience.
But there are a couple things that I want to point out. I tend to blather about things I'm passionate about so I'll try to keep this concise. I usually hate the "rebut every sentence" format, but i'm going to use it sparingly here.
"Well what happens if the amount of money owed by the Government to providers exceeds what is in the gathered funds pools?"
Ask yourself this: What happens now when the amount of money owed to healthcare providers exceeds what is gathered in the pool of funds an insurance company accrues from premiums? Three things, usually: 1. They have re-insurance to help distribute the load geographically. 2. They raise premiums to cover their more expensive re-insurance and to ensure that it doesn't happen again (for a while, at least), and they deny more treatments. This is what we've been putting up with for 20 years. It's status-quo for private insurers.
"Why should I have my taxes raised to pay for other people's health care if I only had 3 or 4 inexpensive Doctor's visits throughout the year?"
But you already are! This is how insurance works! You pay more in a year than you actually use. This is why insurance companies can afford to pay for those $1MM surgeries you mentioned. This is also why Government is such a great fit for health care. You see, healthcare in america--Insurance companies themselves--are already "socialist." They already work by pooling together "groups" of people into a Group Plan and distributing risk across a popultion. The only difference with the national healthcare system is the group is much larger.
What about the millions of illegal immigrants? In the current system the corporate entities (hospitals, clinics, etc) that you dislike so much are the ones who are forced to eat the cost of providing care to these individuals. First, I don't hate hospitals or clinics. In fact, if you'd read my posts, I'm (loudly) advocating a single payer system. This means the corporate hospitals et al will still exist, mostly unchanged. American hospitals _are_ the best in the world and that's something we shouldn't change.
Furthermore, the hospitals themselves are not eating the costs of the indigent, poor, and illegals. In every state in America as well as Puerto Rico, there is a network of state-subsidized hospitals. Traditionally there is one in each county. Often the "County General" or whatever. Furthermore, many hospitals (but still a tiny percentage of them) fund similar care thru donations. Still, a large number of hospitals get funding as well as indirect funding like state write-offs and such for treating such patients. So in reality, you're already paying for it.
Additionally, if I'm already being taxed for healthcare, why would I want the "benefit" of my employer contributing money for me? Why would they want to provide it? Your employer would pay it because it would be the law. We have only two options for funding such a system. First, we have a "Personal Mandate." This is similar to auto insurance. It's the law that if you drive a car you must have insurance. It's a "mandate." It's the law that YOU must pay for it, thus the "personal" part. In 1992 when Clinton tried to enact healthcare, the competing plan, led by Bob Dole, was for a Personal Mandate on health insurance. Recently, in his SOTU, Bush suggested a similar program. This works by the Fed Govt offering tax credits and such and then making it the law (the LAW) that _you_ must pay for your own health care costs. In Bush's recent plan, the money that companies are paying today would show up on your W2 as taxable income, which would be mostly offset by the tax breaks Bush is suggesting.
The other option is an Employer Mandate, which works basically the same way, but the burden is on the employers.
The Edwards plan calls for a combination of Employer Mandate with higher taxes on the top 1% of Americans (those earning > $350,000 a year) to pay for the un- and under-employed.
I agree that costs must be cappe
I once read a story online (i'm sure you could google it if you're so inclined) where Sea Gulls (or perhaps Pigeons..) would pick up a hard nut that had fallen from the trees, drop it in the street, and let cars drive over them. They'd sit and wait and watch and when it was cracked open, they'd fly over and snatch it up.
Seriously.
So what you're saying is that you read into something that I wrote and made your own assumptions and that I'm some how responsible for what you imagined you read?
Very well said.