No. His point is that Obama was never the problem.
You have a whole field of GOP candidates falling over themselves to see what kind of absurdly unsustainable tax cuts they can propose. This is in the face of the aforementioned budget problems.
Republicans fiscal conservatives? Since when?
I wonder how much of this deficit is due to the increased costs associated with "civilian contractors" once you try to privatize parts of the military. How much of that deficit is going straight into Cheney's pocket?
We also have this bit of "status quo" about equal protection under the law. There's also another one about full faith and credit and another one about the one about the right to make contracts.
On the other hand, you've got the government in the "sacrament" business. That's probably something that never should have happened in the first place.
The government never should have been in the business of declaring one religious viewpoint valid to the detriment of others. This also includes the active oppression of Mormons that no one seems to object to.
It seems that "principles" only matter so long as it's not your own personal agenda that's being negatively impacted.
Why would I throw a fit over the purest form of democracy you can have?
Santorum doesn't have a Google problem. He has a people problem. The truth is that most people don't like what Santorum represents. Thus the unflattering comparisons.
Although ANY search is bound to feature detractors. They are a highly relevant part of anything you're looking for.
Some people just can't handle Democracy. So the reaction of Santorum and his supporters is no big surprise.
No. The alternative is that they win the market BY BUILDING A BETTER PRODUCT.
You're the perfect example of what's wrong with the current state of corrupt corporate culture. Actually competing on merit is something that isn't even considered.
No. Once you have the specification, it is not easy. That's the point of your little anecdote. The zipper wasn't something that a college student could recreate with a perl script or a SQL query after thinking about it for 5 whole minutes.
The current patent process is not only full of things that are trivial but full of things that have already been done before.
People tend to cave when it comes to bullies. The cost of trying to fight us usually considered too high. The struggle itself can be expensive regardless of whether you win or lose.
That is why any patent or copyright is "stifling". It gives obnoxious people the idea they have cause to bother others. It doesn't matter if it's Microsoft, Apple, or Harlan Ellison.
The ones where a number of patents are given but not actually identified. So what if Microsoft blows a lot of money on R&D? There's no gaurantee that they have actually produced something or that it's even present in Linux (or anywhere else for that matter).
Think something has been "stolen". Fine. Then say what's actually supposed to be stolen rather than trying to cast a shadow of fear over a rival.
Patents are supposed to encourage the disclosure of interesting trade secrets that would not otherwise be disclosed. They're not intended as a form of property, or a virtual land grab, or a means to bully rivals.
Yes. A 17 year monpoly is stifling. That fact should not even be under dispute. Anyone that tries simply being honest.
The question is whether or not it's worth the associated trouble.
He didn't even sound that annoyed really. The whole tone of the interview was much less intense then you would expect from the summary. Then again, where are you going to get readers or viewers without "controversy".
I can think of at least 3 pop/rock/metal songs off the top of my head that complain about this very thing. Some of them are old enough that their copyrights should be expired.
Platform switches tend to shake out people. There is nothing at all surprising or shocking about this. If he doesn't want to deal with Microsoft crap in his day job, there are plenty of places that are Unix shops. Plenty of places that use Unix also use Linux. All you have to do is search in the places you would usually search.
ConAgra would love to get away with that kind of thing today.
That's why transparency is important.
If you are "producing a product for public consumption" and you are unwilling to let the customer watch the process then it is right for people to be suspicious.
People SHOULD object to any law or sausage that is made in this fashion. The fact that people object is not a bad thing. Citizens of a democracy should not accept CRAP. This applies equally to food or the law.
"quick and cheap" are usually objectionable for a good reason.
The problem with Bismark's remark is that it doesn't describe Democracy at all.
In Democracy, a level of participation and oversight is not just tolerated. It should be expected, perhaps even rising to the level of an individual duty.
Well, there's an obvious way to get around that problem.
Keep obviously stupid sh*t out of the process. If you are running a committee then keep on topic and disallow stuff that will obviously alienate the people watching.
Certain ideas should not even be brought up. If they are contrary to your nation's founding guiding principles, perhaps they should not be sneaked into legislation.
There is no reason the process can't tolerate full transparency.
This is equally true for making sausage.
If the customer objects to the process, you're probably doing something wrong and need to stop doing that sh*t.
Most of the pining for the Cloud appears to be from device vendors and fans of devices that refuse to build products with an adequate amount of local storage.
People and companies are trying to make up for the lameness of devices by becoming dependent on a networks that are even more lame.
Slashdot Mirror
> yeah except that it creates additional overhead from managing those windows to be on the "right" desktop...
That's a minimal bit of initial setup that's actually pretty trivial.
That's measured against constant ongoing inefficiencies created by most of the alternate approaches (like MacOS & Win7).
I have yet to encounter an attempted implementation of virtual desktops on Windows that is not completely full of fail.
Apple's version is a bit awkward too.
No.
Godwin's Law is meant to avoid a certain type of rhetorical abuse. It's not meant to avoid uncomfortable observations that happen to be true.
Some people are rightfully labeled theocrats.
There is an entire wing of the Republican party dedicated to this idea.
No. His point is that Obama was never the problem.
You have a whole field of GOP candidates falling over themselves to see what kind of absurdly unsustainable tax cuts they can propose. This is in the face of the aforementioned budget problems.
Republicans fiscal conservatives? Since when?
I wonder how much of this deficit is due to the increased costs associated with "civilian contractors" once you try to privatize parts of the military. How much of that deficit is going straight into Cheney's pocket?
We also have this bit of "status quo" about equal protection under the law. There's also another one about full faith and credit and another one about the one about the right to make contracts.
On the other hand, you've got the government in the "sacrament" business. That's probably something that never should have happened in the first place.
The government never should have been in the business of declaring one religious viewpoint valid to the detriment of others. This also includes the active oppression of Mormons that no one seems to object to.
It seems that "principles" only matter so long as it's not your own personal agenda that's being negatively impacted.
Why would I throw a fit over the purest form of democracy you can have?
Santorum doesn't have a Google problem. He has a people problem. The truth is that most people don't like what Santorum represents. Thus the unflattering comparisons.
Although ANY search is bound to feature detractors. They are a highly relevant part of anything you're looking for.
Some people just can't handle Democracy. So the reaction of Santorum and his supporters is no big surprise.
No. The alternative is that they win the market BY BUILDING A BETTER PRODUCT.
You're the perfect example of what's wrong with the current state of corrupt corporate culture. Actually competing on merit is something that isn't even considered.
No. Once you have the specification, it is not easy. That's the point of your little anecdote. The zipper wasn't something that a college student could recreate with a perl script or a SQL query after thinking about it for 5 whole minutes.
The current patent process is not only full of things that are trivial but full of things that have already been done before.
People tend to cave when it comes to bullies. The cost of trying to fight us usually considered too high. The struggle itself can be expensive regardless of whether you win or lose.
That is why any patent or copyright is "stifling". It gives obnoxious people the idea they have cause to bother others. It doesn't matter if it's Microsoft, Apple, or Harlan Ellison.
The ones where a number of patents are given but not actually identified. So what if Microsoft blows a lot of money on R&D? There's no gaurantee that they have actually produced something or that it's even present in Linux (or anywhere else for that matter).
Think something has been "stolen". Fine. Then say what's actually supposed to be stolen rather than trying to cast a shadow of fear over a rival.
Patents are supposed to encourage the disclosure of interesting trade secrets that would not otherwise be disclosed. They're not intended as a form of property, or a virtual land grab, or a means to bully rivals.
Yes. A 17 year monpoly is stifling. That fact should not even be under dispute. Anyone that tries simply being honest.
The question is whether or not it's worth the associated trouble.
It is when the "bad things" are in response to a Muslim invasion.
The Muslims conquered most of the Xian world including the religion's most important holy sites.
Isn't that why people run something like Windows?
Isn't that supposed to be why Linux is so hard? There are too many gratuitous arcane details?
So Win7 doesn't have "native USB 3.0" support?
That kind of sucks. Although it's not unprecedented.
Microsoft needs to find some way to artificially drive demand for new versions of Windows.
I don't even do that. I just double click it.
It sounds like someone needs to update their FUD playbook. They're at least 5 years behind the times.
He didn't even sound that annoyed really. The whole tone of the interview was much less intense then you would expect from the summary. Then again, where are you going to get readers or viewers without "controversy".
I can think of at least 3 pop/rock/metal songs off the top of my head that complain about this very thing. Some of them are old enough that their copyrights should be expired.
...or he could simply find a new job at a better company.
Chances are that their sudden exclusive use of Microsoft is just the tip of the iceberg.
If you spent "hours upon hours" trying to configure samba to talk to a Windows 7 box then you need to turn in your college degree and ask for a broom.
The entire setup seems bogus.
If you don't want to work with Microsoft products, there's plenty of room for you out there. Dice and Monster are full of such jobs.
The idea that you can't find any seems like some sort of lame attempt at propaganda.
Platform switches tend to shake out people. There is nothing at all surprising or shocking about this. If he doesn't want to deal with Microsoft crap in his day job, there are plenty of places that are Unix shops. Plenty of places that use Unix also use Linux. All you have to do is search in the places you would usually search.
It's a total non-problem really.
So you are basically saying that "bad ideas need to be kept from the proles"?
Everyone else is just that stupid.
Fascinating.
Given that you can use ancient methods to measure the shape and diameter of the planet, your fixation on Flat Earthers is especially funny.
Your 28 years was up.
You corrupted Congress in order to alter the bargain.
You deserve ZERO sympathy.
ConAgra would love to get away with that kind of thing today.
That's why transparency is important.
If you are "producing a product for public consumption" and you are unwilling to let the customer watch the process then it is right for people to be suspicious.
"quickly and cheaply"
People SHOULD object to any law or sausage that is made in this fashion. The fact that people object is not a bad thing. Citizens of a democracy should not accept CRAP. This applies equally to food or the law.
"quick and cheap" are usually objectionable for a good reason.
The problem with Bismark's remark is that it doesn't describe Democracy at all.
In Democracy, a level of participation and oversight is not just tolerated. It should be expected, perhaps even rising to the level of an individual duty.
Well, there's an obvious way to get around that problem.
Keep obviously stupid sh*t out of the process. If you are running a committee then keep on topic and disallow stuff that will obviously alienate the people watching.
Certain ideas should not even be brought up. If they are contrary to your nation's founding guiding principles, perhaps they should not be sneaked into legislation.
There is no reason the process can't tolerate full transparency.
This is equally true for making sausage.
If the customer objects to the process, you're probably doing something wrong and need to stop doing that sh*t.
Most of the pining for the Cloud appears to be from device vendors and fans of devices that refuse to build products with an adequate amount of local storage.
People and companies are trying to make up for the lameness of devices by becoming dependent on a networks that are even more lame.
A bird in the hand beats two in the Cloud.