You need the proper role models, the proper amount of nurturing, and the proper relationship.
Yet all throughout history there have been families without those due to death and such.
Are you suggesting that there are no differences between men and women when it comes to nurturing and raising children?
I'd say there is more of a difference between individuals of the same sex (good dad... bad dad) than there is among the average individuals between sexes (average dad approx equal average mom).
Is a male role-model exactly the same as a female role-model?
That depends upon what that role-model is doing. If mom is holding down a job to pay for food, shelter and clothing, then she is modelling the "provider" role. And she can probably do that just as well as the average male.
I am not arguing that same-sex couples aren't capable of raising children and given the choice between a child in an orphanage and one adopted by a same sex couple, the second choice is clearly better.
Yep. Once you step away from the idealized "family", you realize that it is a continuum (and that the ideal family never has existed and never will).
Two stable gay guys can raise a child better than a "normal" man/woman couple where one or both is/are alcoholic, abusive, etc.
However, what I am arguing is that whenever possible heterosexual unions combine the best of both worlds and despite their flaws, they are the ideal for that task.
No. That is only accurate when all other conditions are equal.
But they never are.
Children in the worst of the heterosexual families would do far better if placed in the best of the homosexual families.
So, it comes down to evaluating each situation based upon all of the factors in that situation. Never a "...heterosexual unions combine the best of both worlds and despite their flaws, they are the ideal for that task".
As for the issue at hand, one of my college profs was ex-Secret Service and he described stuff like this happening all the time. Write something like that about the Pres and get a visit.
That doesn't sound statistically possible.
There are a limited number of Secret Service agents.
It takes time to visit each person and nothing actually bad happens to that person except some fame for being oppressed by the government.
Wouldn't the kids posting crap soon overwhelm the SS's ability to visit each and every one? Particularly if they started posting more crap after the visit?
Again. Nice of you to back up that claim. And, you're too ignorant to understand isn't going to cut it. I know that *nix is easier to diagnose in some areas, and Windows in either. By and large, however, it comes down to what you're most familiar with.
No, it doesn't. Someone with the same level of experience in both Windows and Linux will have an easier time diagnosing and even repairing the same problem under Linux than under Windows.
That is because the Windows Registry is extremely brittle. When it breaks, you cannot repair it. You can only restore from a backup or try to copy from another machine.
Then set up automated backups for them. Regardless, the *.sav files are enough to get you booted with a clean OS. And the Repair folder will be newer than those.
Oh dear. Maybe you missed the bit where I said "If they had a backup, I wouldn't be called in."? Yes? Did you? Again, this is just great if the end user has current backups or has had someone make backups for him/her. Oh dear. You mean that Windows doesn't automatically prompt for that? So that would mean that most users don't have a current back up? Oh dear.
The registry is brittle. When it fails (and there are lots of ways to cause it to fail), there is no way to repair it. This is a major design defect in Windows. This defect is not present in Linux.
Linux can be repaired, Windows can only be replaced.
You're comparing getting a Linux machine to boot, versus getting a Windows machine to boot and save configuration settings of all your apps. Hardly apples to apples.
Once a Linux machine is booted, everything can be accessed and repaired. Everything. I can edit and save files. That means I can "save configuration settings of all your apps".
Therefore, it is "apples to apples". So, again, Linux is easier than Windows.
Ever heard of the Recovery Console, XP Repair process, BartPE, ERD Commander, BlueCon, etc? These are the Windows equivalents of Rescue Linux or Knoppix. Learn to use them.
Yep. I've even used them. But, while being able to access the disk allows you to repair a Linux system, it does not allow you to repair a Windows system. Particularly with a corrupted hive.
Very little in the Software hive needs to be the same across systems to boot. Location of the Windows folder and possibly Program Files are about the only things I can think of that would be needed. Safe Mode would need even less.
Ooooh, sorry to tell you, but you're wrong. I've tried swapping the software hive from a Vectra 400 to a d530, both from HP/Compaq. It kept giving blue screens.
The only way to do that is to put another drive in the machine and do a completely new install of Windows. Then you can copy the hive over.
Oh, but that is so much more work than with a Linux system.
And it still doesn't give you the system you had before. All of those apps with all of those registered.dll's just won't work until you re-install them.
With Linux, that isn't ever a problem.
With Windows, you HOPE you have a current, working backup.
If you need references for that statement, then you aren't at a level to comprehend that.
1. Boot to the aptly named Last Known Good Confinguration. 2. Run Recovery Console chkdsk - since it's usually a corrupt file. 3. Replace from my ERD, or the Repair folder. 4. Copy a software hive from another system. etc., etc.
#1. I have never seen this work. Ever.
#2. In my experience it is usually a corrupt hive. Chkdsk won't fix it.
#3. And how many users have current backups? If they had a backup, I wouldn't be called in.
#4. This only works if the systems are almost identical. I've tried this on the same hardware with only a few apps difference and it still wouldn't work. Over time, crap ends up in the hives. The crap from one user won't match the crap from another user. If you want to do this, you'd do better re-installing the OS and apps on a different drive and copying the clean hive over. Too much work.
Particularly when you compare it to Linux where I can boot a CD or floppy and fix any file on the hard drive including the boot files.
While, with Windows, your only option is to have a current backup. Such a shame.
If you're point was that the registry is a binary file and can't be fixed with a text editor...well, duh. So are a lot of files in *nix. And it's quite difficult to fix a corrupt text file with a text editor as well.
Actually, Linux has FEWER binary files necessary to boot and none of those binary files in Linux are difficult to completely recreate and re-install if that is necessary.
Without having a current backup.
Without re-installing the entire OS/apps.
Without needing a second machine similar enough to do an organ transplant.
Thank you for supporting my whole point. People are PERSONALLY SUFFERING SOME LOSS. They are losing friends and family in Iraq everyday or having them come home maimed.
Yes they are. But they number in the thousands. Bush has millions of supporters in just one state.
They or their friends and family are losing jobs everyday to outsourcing and are being pushed down the economic ladder.
Now go talk to those people. See how many of them blame Clinton for the recession and how many of them claim that the economy is improving now because of Bush. But whatever you do, don't vote for Kerry because he will only make it worse. Fear a Kerry administration.
The employment rate is a joke.
And they blame Clinton and believe Bush will fix it. But whatever you do, don't vote for Kerry because he will only make it worse. Fear a Kerry administration.
If i were getting a blue screen on start-up, i don't think rebooting would fix it, 'cause... it would just take me back to start-up, you know?:/
I'd start by hooking another hard drive into that machine and doing a clean install to the new drive. That way you can access the old installation and start the repair process. But that's just me.
In any case, i didn't mean to suggest that Windows is flawless or that it will work the same for everyone else as it will for me.
The main issue that I see is that people are familiar with the architecture of Linux. The same situation with Linux is not difficult to repair. So they compare the two systems and find that Windows is very much lacking.
This is not about being ignorant of Windows.
This is about knowing other systems and seeing how those systems have resolved those problems.
It works so well the other way, though. You Linux people often have no idea what you're doing on Windows, i suppose mostly because you refuse to learn it rather than you're too stupid to.
All computers perform the same functions. Input data, store data, process data, output data. Once you understand that, the rest is just learning the logic and the idiosyncracies behind each system.
You see it ALL THE TIME on here, people bitching about how ugly Windows is, how much useless crap it comes with, how you can't change ___ (which just means you don't know where to look), how it crashes non-stop, how it's so slow, et cetera.
Ugly is a matter of opinion.
The useless crap can be removed, UNLESS you're talking about IE which is a problem because it is bolted to the OS which makes the security problems in IE operating system holes.
The crashes can usually be mitigated by rebooting the system. Remember, Microsoft has issued a couple of service packs to deal with problems such as that. Until you get the service pack that fixes the crash bug you're experiencing, you don't have much in the way of options, do you?
None of it is true if you have any idea at all what you're doing, but more often than not some moron whining about how Windows crashes all the time (i have never once had Windows XP crash, and i've been using it continuously since the beta versions) will get his post modded up insightful. -___-
What that actually means is that you've never triggered any of the crash bugs that Microsoft has admitted to.
If you don't use a sub-system that has a crash bug in it, is it because you know how to use Windows or because you are avoiding those bugs?
(This doesn't necessarily reflect on you, per se, but your 'only know Windows' comment leads me to believe that you might be one of these people after all, because i know i certainly don't fix problems by just rebooting.)
The problem with Windows is that it isn't designed for easy diagnostics. It is easier to just reboot it than to actually find the problem.
With Linux, the diagnostic process is easy.
Go ahead. Show that I'm wrong. What would you do if you were getting a blue screen on startup with a message about the software hive?
They have no chance of winning so they aren't a viable option so its a "wasted vote" so no one will vote for them.
The people are "energized" to oppose Bush...
I'm pretty sure half of America is thoroughly awake now, is energized against Bush and Co., unfortunately the only option they have is Kerry and a candidate that bad really de-energizes people.
But they are only "energized" enough to look at one other candidate and not to start pushing a 3rd candidate.
I saw more energy then that with Dean's campaign PRIOR to the nomination.
How are the people so "energized" that they have to nominate someone who "de-energized" them and then complain about him?
As I originally suggested the chances of a viable third party springing up, that is viable, increases if the people in power go further off the deep end and really alienate a big block of middle Americans.
Again, you keep assuming that those Americans will
believe that they've been alienated.
It has been demonstrated that many people who support Bush are NOT able to identify his policies. In fact, many of them get it BACKWARDS.
In order for them to change their minds, they would have to PERSONALLY SUFFER SOME LOSS. Other than that, it all happens to "bad" people who are a danger to the "good" people like them.
It's all about fear and blame.
The ones who have not woken up yet will not wake up. They are comfortable in the reality they inhabit. The system works for them. They do not want change.
I'm not an admin, and I don't have time to figure out why "dhcpcd" or "dnsmasq" decided they dont need to spawn anymore.
There's a problem waiting to happen. Will you know if you've setup something wrong on your firewall and you get cracked?
Rather, you are a good example of why ISP's need to offer "managed" services. The Internet is not a safe place to connect a computer and too many people are unwilling to take the time to learn how to protect their systems.
It just appears that way because the two parties dominate most everything.
I'm pretty sure half of America is thoroughly awake now, is energized against Bush and Co., unfortunately the only option they have is Kerry and a candidate that bad really de-energizes people.
They also have Libertarian, Green, Independant and many other choices.
Yet I have not seen much interest in other candidates aside from their usual supporters.
I find it difficult to believe that they are "energized" to fight Bush, but then give up after only looking at Kerry.
Why is this good? Because things might get so bad it might wake up sane Americans that their government is no longer of the people, by the people or for the people, and it doesn't really matter which party has power because they are both screwing the people.
Those that have not woken up yet are not going to wake up.
Until it is them being abused, most people are more then happy to accept the government's claim that the people it is abusing are "bad" people who want to hurt the "good" people in this country.
It all comes down to emotion. Once you can get someone to react emotionally, they tend to turn off the logical portion of their brain. Find out what scares people and you can control them.
That's why Bush and Co are running those wolf ads in the swing states. The US citizens aren't getting any smarter but the political parties are getting smarter about packaging their candidates.
Bush answered the outsourcing question with answers about increased education opportunities. Education helps, but I'd rather he give a firm answer to the crticism.
Actually, education does not help.
As long as the people willing to do the job for less money have the education sufficient to do that job, you having more education will not get that job for you.
Some might even support more agressive means to prevent outsourcing (taxes, trade resticitions, embargoes, etc).
I'd start by killing any "free trade" with any country that cannot meet or exceed our levels of worker and environmental protections (they move up, we don't move down). It isn't equal if they don't have the same protections. Then it is just a race to find the people with the fewest protections so they can be exploited.
So, let's compare the number of off-shored jobs to the total number of jobs in the US (including burger flippers and such).
Why, it will take 7,000 years to replace all of those jobs at the current rate of off-shoring.
Nevermind that we're not talking about off-shoring burger flipping, just manufacturing and software and such. You know, the jobs that pay better than burger flipping and coffee-serving.
Now tell me that Florida is anything further than 10% from draw? I don't think so.
Jeb Bush.
92% chance that he'll manage to give Florida to his brother.
Servers are not supposed to be "fun".
on
Updates From Debian
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Debian's strategy of rock-solid releases is something that makes the distro unique. It also doesn't make it much fun.
Servers are supposed to be "boring", "dull", "mundane", "reliable", etc.
I run a few Debian servers and they never give me any problems. Patches go in without any problems. They never do down. They just keep serving.
I've always admired Debian's power structure and community focus, but I've been so much happier with my hobby computer when I switched to a more "I-think-I'm-an-expert-but-really-I'm-an-idiot" distro like gentoo.
Gentoo is great on a desktop. But a desktop has completely different requirements than a server. A desktop can get by with an unstable app.
A server should not be running anything it doesn't absolutely have to and everything it runs must be rock solid. Debian gives me all of that on a server.
For binary distros, I think there's a big pack of modern flashy desktop ones that eat Debian's lunch. Debian's idealism might end up side-lining it in the Linux world.
Maybe.
Knoppix on the desktop is awesome and it is Debian. One Knoppix CD + a USB toy and you've got it all.
Debian on the server may not have all the Oracle support and such that Red Hat does, but it handles just about everything else.
c) the voucher is placed into a ballot box for the vote to be counted, the voucher itself _is_ the legally binding vote
Yep. Personally, I'd rather see a combination of instant counts, barcode/punch card, voucher used.
That way, the machines can instantly report the votes, the votes the machines reported can be checked by other computers via barcode/punch card on the voucher, and those numbers can be verified by people manually counting the vouchers.
Three levels of verification. With the human count validating the other two.
In the end, it all comes down to having a person being able to validate each, single vote.
That's why the only sane way to do electronic voting is to use whatever fancy dan front end you want, I couldn't care less, but at the end of the voting session you spit out a human verifiable paper receipt that is the official vote.
And the easiest way I can think of doing that is with a nice, old fashined punch card.
The voter chooses at the computer, the computer records the vote electronically, punches the card, and prints the names of the candidate chosen on it.
That way, the voter looks at the card, checks whether the person they've selected is printed on it and then drops it in the box.
Each machine can be verified by matching: #1. The electronic count to #2. The punch cards to #3. A hand count
It's quick and easy to tally punch cards if that's request and if a hand vote is necessary, it's just as easy (but not as quick).
That way, any problems can quickly be tracked to the machine(s).
While I don't disagree in the least with the spirit of the concept of making the system(s) open source, it should be noted that, contrary to popular belief, Diebold asserts that its systems have been scrutinized, including at a source code level, by independent authorities...
Why would that be "contrary to popular belief"?
I don't care whether Diebold has someone else looking at the code or not.
I care what the code does and how secure the system is.
Without public review, there is no way to determine EITHER of those. You're just relying upon someone else's honesty and integrity (in an election no less).
... and that there is also a paper record:
As others have pointed out, it's useless for the individual voter to verify his/her vote.
Ummm, how BLATANT does the warning have to be before you would choose not to use their service?
...I really do think they're trying to put out the best electronic voting systems they can,...
Great. Really. And I suppose that having a retarded 10 year old as police chief is okay as long as he's trying to do the best he can.
"the best... they can" is NOT the criteria here. Accurate and secure is. Their machines are neither accurate nor secure. Since that is "the best... they can" do, then they will not be allowed to provide that service.
...but are suffering from the same problems that any large, proprietary system suffers from when it languishes in the comfort of large government-guaranteed long-term contracts: namely, inattention to the details that need to be addressed, that sometimes get lost in not seeing the forest for the trees.
What the fuck? They're building a system to record votes. How complicated can it be?
PAPER has worked for CENTURIES. They can't match the capabily of PAPER? They are either incompetent or have an agenda.
Perhaps opening the source to these critical systems and having it overseen by an independent election agency would be an idea worth considering...
"worth considering"? People here have been harping on it for months!
If you cannot provide the same level of security and authentication and validation with a computerized ballot that you can get from a fucking 1 cent PAPER BALLOT then you need to either fire that firm (buh bye Diebold) or re-evaluate your rational for computerization.
As noted in TFA, slot machines are held to a higher standard than voting machines.
Yet thousands of people hammer on slot machines every day.
Thanks for helping prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Iraq had WMD, according to U.S. law. Cheers!
What was shown was that the US re-wrote its own laws in 2003 to fit Iraq's capabilities into the terms used by Bush.
By that definition, the US has killed Iraqi citizens with "WMD's". Wasn't that one of the reasons we were going to war against Saddam? Because he used "WMD's" against civilians?:D
One or more of the proscribed missiles filled with conventional explosives and launched at Kuwait or Saudi Arabia certainly would fill Freeh's definition of WMD, as it would have destructive capacity to overwhelm local responders more than the OK City bombing.
Rather, accourding to Title 18 of the United States Code, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2332 the definition is:
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a disease organism; or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.
Now some chemical agents show up in other parts of Europe that Iraq was supposed to have, and Iraq hasn't kept account of what happened to all of their chemical agents.
What are you talking about? And provide citations from established sources. No personal webpages.
An example: did Kerry call terrorists a "nuisance"? Yep. Sure did. Undeniable fact.
No he did not. His exact words were: "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/bush.k er ry.terror/
If you want to parse that out, in the past, terrorists were a "nuisance". Currently, they are the "focus of our lives". In the future, they will be only a "nuisance" again.
Seems like you don't know what was actually said.
Never mind that I've taken this out of context in order to intentionally bias the question.
No. You cannot take something out of context and then claim that it is an "undeniable fact" that he said that.
None of the questions in that survey were done that way. They were all very explicit and complete.
That said: I was once a registered Democrat; I'm now a registered Republican, and I doubt that I'll ever go back to the Democratic ticket. Why? While I was a Democrat, I never had a Republican call me stupid.
I've always wondered about people like you. Why do you let other people control how you will vote?
Oh, right. The proof is in the article.
I never saw conservative think tanks come out with a study showing that my political affiliation implied that I was disconnected from reality.
Search amazon for Ann Coulter. Look for a boot titled "Treason".
I wish the converse were true; but it's not. As a known conservative, particularly in this election season, I have been on the receiving end of enough hatred, bigotry, and invective directed at me to last a lifetime.
Again, amazon.com, Ann Coulter.
Most of it has come from strangers who know nothing about me other than that I'm a registered Republican, which makes me an instant candidate for their own personal two-minute hate.
WTF? Do you have a bumperstick on your ass or something? How can a stranger tell that you're a "registered Republican"?
The only "fact" that matters to them is my party affiliation, which they apparently believes gives them the right to be abusive, insulting, and treat me as if I were some sort of sub-human.
Dude, you're walking around with a bumpersticker on your ass. That doesn't qualify you for the top of the evolutionary ladder.
So... even if I were convinced that Kerry was a better candidate than Bush, I would be voting against him, purely becuase of his association with such an arrogant, hateful, spiteful, and all-around viscious politcal party.
Again, you let other people control how you'll vote and then you complain about people treating you like a sub-human?
Puppets ARE sub-human.
However, the party in general - and the leadership in particular - has gotten progressively more hateful and viscious over the last 20 years.
4 years ago. Clinton. Starr. Now who's the problem?
Their "facts", opinions, and interpretations are useless to me, becuase before I can even enter into a debate about their validity, I have to at least implicitly agree to their negative characterization of me - because unless I do, they are unwilling to consider my "ignorant" and "uninformed" point of view.
You let them control how you will vote and you don't believe you're "ignorant"?
Until the actions of the Democratic party leadership and the rank and file show me that they've lost their penchant for assuming their own inherent superiority, relying on hate speech and ad homenin attacks rather than rational argument... well, I'm going to be ignoring them.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say there is more of a difference between individuals of the same sex (good dad
That depends upon what that role-model is doing. If mom is holding down a job to pay for food, shelter and clothing, then she is modelling the "provider" role. And she can probably do that just as well as the average male.
Yep. Once you step away from the idealized "family", you realize that it is a continuum (and that the ideal family never has existed and never will).
Two stable gay guys can raise a child better than a "normal" man/woman couple where one or both is/are alcoholic, abusive, etc.
No. That is only accurate when all other conditions are equal.
But they never are.
Children in the worst of the heterosexual families would do far better if placed in the best of the homosexual families.
So, it comes down to evaluating each situation based upon all of the factors in that situation. Never a "...heterosexual unions combine the best of both worlds and despite their flaws, they are the ideal for that task".
http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?ar chive=43&num=5339&printer=1
sheesh
There are a limited number of Secret Service agents.
It takes time to visit each person and nothing actually bad happens to that person except some fame for being oppressed by the government.
Wouldn't the kids posting crap soon overwhelm the SS's ability to visit each and every one? Particularly if they started posting more crap after the visit?
Again. Nice of you to back up that claim. And, you're too ignorant to understand isn't going to cut it. I know that *nix is easier to diagnose in some areas, and Windows in either. By and large, however, it comes down to what you're most familiar with.
.dll's just won't work until you re-install them.
No, it doesn't. Someone with the same level of experience in both Windows and Linux will have an easier time diagnosing and even repairing the same problem under Linux than under Windows.
That is because the Windows Registry is extremely brittle. When it breaks, you cannot repair it. You can only restore from a backup or try to copy from another machine.
Then set up automated backups for them. Regardless, the *.sav files are enough to get you booted with a clean OS. And the Repair folder will be newer than those.
Oh dear. Maybe you missed the bit where I said "If they had a backup, I wouldn't be called in."? Yes? Did you? Again, this is just great if the end user has current backups or has had someone make backups for him/her. Oh dear. You mean that Windows doesn't automatically prompt for that? So that would mean that most users don't have a current back up? Oh dear.
The registry is brittle. When it fails (and there are lots of ways to cause it to fail), there is no way to repair it. This is a major design defect in Windows. This defect is not present in Linux.
Linux can be repaired, Windows can only be replaced.
You're comparing getting a Linux machine to boot, versus getting a Windows machine to boot and save configuration settings of all your apps. Hardly apples to apples.
Once a Linux machine is booted, everything can be accessed and repaired. Everything. I can edit and save files. That means I can "save configuration settings of all your apps".
Therefore, it is "apples to apples". So, again, Linux is easier than Windows.
Ever heard of the Recovery Console, XP Repair process, BartPE, ERD Commander, BlueCon, etc? These are the Windows equivalents of Rescue Linux or Knoppix. Learn to use them.
Yep. I've even used them. But, while being able to access the disk allows you to repair a Linux system, it does not allow you to repair a Windows system. Particularly with a corrupted hive.
Very little in the Software hive needs to be the same across systems to boot. Location of the Windows folder and possibly Program Files are about the only things I can think of that would be needed. Safe Mode would need even less.
Ooooh, sorry to tell you, but you're wrong. I've tried swapping the software hive from a Vectra 400 to a d530, both from HP/Compaq. It kept giving blue screens.
The only way to do that is to put another drive in the machine and do a completely new install of Windows. Then you can copy the hive over.
Oh, but that is so much more work than with a Linux system.
And it still doesn't give you the system you had before. All of those apps with all of those registered
With Linux, that isn't ever a problem.
With Windows, you HOPE you have a current, working backup.
With Linux, all you need is a boot floppy/CD.
Nice of you to back up that claim.
If you need references for that statement, then you aren't at a level to comprehend that.
1. Boot to the aptly named Last Known Good Confinguration.
2. Run Recovery Console chkdsk - since it's usually a corrupt file.
3. Replace from my ERD, or the Repair folder.
4. Copy a software hive from another system.
etc., etc.
#1. I have never seen this work. Ever.
#2. In my experience it is usually a corrupt hive. Chkdsk won't fix it.
#3. And how many users have current backups? If they had a backup, I wouldn't be called in.
#4. This only works if the systems are almost identical. I've tried this on the same hardware with only a few apps difference and it still wouldn't work. Over time, crap ends up in the hives. The crap from one user won't match the crap from another user. If you want to do this, you'd do better re-installing the OS and apps on a different drive and copying the clean hive over. Too much work.
Particularly when you compare it to Linux where I can boot a CD or floppy and fix any file on the hard drive including the boot files.
While, with Windows, your only option is to have a current backup. Such a shame.
Actually, Linux has FEWER binary files necessary to boot and none of those binary files in Linux are difficult to completely recreate and re-install if that is necessary.
Without having a current backup.
Without re-installing the entire OS/apps.
Without needing a second machine similar enough to do an organ transplant.
Linux is easier than Windows.
Now go talk to those people. See how many of them blame Clinton for the recession and how many of them claim that the economy is improving now because of Bush. But whatever you do, don't vote for Kerry because he will only make it worse. Fear a Kerry administration.
And they blame Clinton and believe Bush will fix it. But whatever you do, don't vote for Kerry because he will only make it worse. Fear a Kerry administration.
It's all about the Fear.
The main issue that I see is that people are familiar with the architecture of Linux. The same situation with Linux is not difficult to repair. So they compare the two systems and find that Windows is very much lacking.
This is not about being ignorant of Windows.
This is about knowing other systems and seeing how those systems have resolved those problems.
Ugly is a matter of opinion.
The useless crap can be removed, UNLESS you're talking about IE which is a problem because it is bolted to the OS which makes the security problems in IE operating system holes.
The crashes can usually be mitigated by rebooting the system. Remember, Microsoft has issued a couple of service packs to deal with problems such as that. Until you get the service pack that fixes the crash bug you're experiencing, you don't have much in the way of options, do you?
What that actually means is that you've never triggered any of the crash bugs that Microsoft has admitted to.
If you don't use a sub-system that has a crash bug in it, is it because you know how to use Windows or because you are avoiding those bugs?
The problem with Windows is that it isn't designed for easy diagnostics. It is easier to just reboot it than to actually find the problem.
With Linux, the diagnostic process is easy.
Go ahead. Show that I'm wrong. What would you do if you were getting a blue screen on startup with a message about the software hive?
But they are only "energized" enough to look at one other candidate and not to start pushing a 3rd candidate.
I saw more energy then that with Dean's campaign PRIOR to the nomination.
How are the people so "energized" that they have to nominate someone who "de-energized" them and then complain about him?
I have problems with Comcast. But I only have to tell people to reset the cable modem. The firewall never has problems.
There's no need to "babysit" Linux. Once you've set it up correctly, it keeps running.
10:15:56 up 156 days, 19:54, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.02
There's a problem waiting to happen. Will you know if you've setup something wrong on your firewall and you get cracked?
Rather, you are a good example of why ISP's need to offer "managed" services. The Internet is not a safe place to connect a computer and too many people are unwilling to take the time to learn how to protect their systems.
They also have Libertarian, Green, Independant and many other choices.
Yet I have not seen much interest in other candidates aside from their usual supporters.
I find it difficult to believe that they are "energized" to fight Bush, but then give up after only looking at Kerry.
Those that have not woken up yet are not going to wake up.
Until it is them being abused, most people are more then happy to accept the government's claim that the people it is abusing are "bad" people who want to hurt the "good" people in this country.
It all comes down to emotion. Once you can get someone to react emotionally, they tend to turn off the logical portion of their brain. Find out what scares people and you can control them.
That's why Bush and Co are running those wolf ads in the swing states. The US citizens aren't getting any smarter but the political parties are getting smarter about packaging their candidates.
Actually, education does not help.
As long as the people willing to do the job for less money have the education sufficient to do that job, you having more education will not get that job for you.
I'd start by killing any "free trade" with any country that cannot meet or exceed our levels of worker and environmental protections (they move up, we don't move down). It isn't equal if they don't have the same protections. Then it is just a race to find the people with the fewest protections so they can be exploited.
So, let's compare the number of off-shored jobs to the total number of jobs in the US (including burger flippers and such).
Why, it will take 7,000 years to replace all of those jobs at the current rate of off-shoring.
Nevermind that we're not talking about off-shoring burger flipping, just manufacturing and software and such. You know, the jobs that pay better than burger flipping and coffee-serving.
Jeb Bush.
92% chance that he'll manage to give Florida to his brother.
Servers are supposed to be "boring", "dull", "mundane", "reliable", etc.
I run a few Debian servers and they never give me any problems. Patches go in without any problems. They never do down. They just keep serving.
Gentoo is great on a desktop. But a desktop has completely different requirements than a server. A desktop can get by with an unstable app.
A server should not be running anything it doesn't absolutely have to and everything it runs must be rock solid. Debian gives me all of that on a server.
Maybe.
Knoppix on the desktop is awesome and it is Debian. One Knoppix CD + a USB toy and you've got it all.
Debian on the server may not have all the Oracle support and such that Red Hat does, but it handles just about everything else.
Yep. Personally, I'd rather see a combination of instant counts, barcode/punch card, voucher used.
That way, the machines can instantly report the votes, the votes the machines reported can be checked by other computers via barcode/punch card on the voucher, and those numbers can be verified by people manually counting the vouchers.
Three levels of verification. With the human count validating the other two.
In the end, it all comes down to having a person being able to validate each, single vote.
And the easiest way I can think of doing that is with a nice, old fashined punch card.
The voter chooses at the computer, the computer records the vote electronically, punches the card, and prints the names of the candidate chosen on it.
That way, the voter looks at the card, checks whether the person they've selected is printed on it and then drops it in the box.
Each machine can be verified by matching:
#1. The electronic count to
#2. The punch cards to
#3. A hand count
It's quick and easy to tally punch cards if that's request and if a hand vote is necessary, it's just as easy (but not as quick).
That way, any problems can quickly be tracked to the machine(s).
Why would that be "contrary to popular belief"?
I don't care whether Diebold has someone else looking at the code or not.
I care what the code does and how secure the system is.
Without public review, there is no way to determine EITHER of those. You're just relying upon someone else's honesty and integrity (in an election no less).
As others have pointed out, it's useless for the individual voter to verify his/her vote.
Ummm, how BLATANT does the warning have to be before you would choose not to use their service?
Great. Really. And I suppose that having a retarded 10 year old as police chief is okay as long as he's trying to do the best he can.
"the best
What the fuck? They're building a system to record votes. How complicated can it be?
PAPER has worked for CENTURIES. They can't match the capabily of PAPER? They are either incompetent or have an agenda.
"worth considering"? People here have been harping on it for months!
If you cannot provide the same level of security and authentication and validation with a computerized ballot that you can get from a fucking 1 cent PAPER BALLOT then you need to either fire that firm (buh bye Diebold) or re-evaluate your rational for computerization.
As noted in TFA, slot machines are held to a higher standard than voting machines.
Yet thousands of people hammer on slot machines every day.
And here's the finish.
:D
:D
That was put in in 2003.
I wanted to see if you'd fall for it and you did.
Thanks for helping prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Iraq had WMD, according to U.S. law. Cheers!
What was shown was that the US re-wrote its own laws in 2003 to fit Iraq's capabilities into the terms used by Bush.
By that definition, the US has killed Iraqi citizens with "WMD's". Wasn't that one of the reasons we were going to war against Saddam? Because he used "WMD's" against civilians?
Rather, accourding to Title 18 of the United States Code, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2332 the definition is:
http://www.metrokc.gov/prepare/docs/HIVA_Terror
The sky is not blue, rather, it is lacking red and green! To most people, there's no necessary difference between the two.
You ask a woman out, she turns you down.
You ask a woman out, she says yes, you go out a few times and sleep with her.
Seems like an obvious difference to me.
Saddam did have ties to al Qaeda.
/.
1 0/ 22/1456213&tid=226
I find it strange that the 9/11 report from Congress does not include that then. How fascinating.
Maybe you'd be interested in this other story on
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/
Now some chemical agents show up in other parts of Europe that Iraq was supposed to have, and Iraq hasn't kept account of what happened to all of their chemical agents.
What are you talking about? And provide citations from established sources. No personal webpages.
An example: did Kerry call terrorists a "nuisance"? Yep. Sure did. Undeniable fact.
k er ry.terror/
No he did not. His exact words were:
"We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/bush.
If you want to parse that out, in the past, terrorists were a "nuisance". Currently, they are the "focus of our lives". In the future, they will be only a "nuisance" again.
Seems like you don't know what was actually said.
Never mind that I've taken this out of context in order to intentionally bias the question.
No. You cannot take something out of context and then claim that it is an "undeniable fact" that he said that.
None of the questions in that survey were done that way. They were all very explicit and complete.
That said: I was once a registered Democrat; I'm now a registered Republican, and I doubt that I'll ever go back to the Democratic ticket. Why? While I was a Democrat, I never had a Republican call me stupid.
I've always wondered about people like you. Why do you let other people control how you will vote?
Oh, right. The proof is in the article.
I never saw conservative think tanks come out with a study showing that my political affiliation implied that I was disconnected from reality.
Search amazon for Ann Coulter. Look for a boot titled "Treason".
I wish the converse were true; but it's not. As a known conservative, particularly in this election season, I have been on the receiving end of enough hatred, bigotry, and invective directed at me to last a lifetime.
Again, amazon.com, Ann Coulter.
Most of it has come from strangers who know nothing about me other than that I'm a registered Republican, which makes me an instant candidate for their own personal two-minute hate.
WTF? Do you have a bumperstick on your ass or something? How can a stranger tell that you're a "registered Republican"?
The only "fact" that matters to them is my party affiliation, which they apparently believes gives them the right to be abusive, insulting, and treat me as if I were some sort of sub-human.
Dude, you're walking around with a bumpersticker on your ass. That doesn't qualify you for the top of the evolutionary ladder.
So... even if I were convinced that Kerry was a better candidate than Bush, I would be voting against him, purely becuase of his association with such an arrogant, hateful, spiteful, and all-around viscious politcal party.
Again, you let other people control how you'll vote and then you complain about people treating you like a sub-human?
Puppets ARE sub-human.
However, the party in general - and the leadership in particular - has gotten progressively more hateful and viscious over the last 20 years.
4 years ago. Clinton. Starr. Now who's the problem?
Their "facts", opinions, and interpretations are useless to me, becuase before I can even enter into a debate about their validity, I have to at least implicitly agree to their negative characterization of me - because unless I do, they are unwilling to consider my "ignorant" and "uninformed" point of view.
You let them control how you will vote and you don't believe you're "ignorant"?
Until the actions of the Democratic party leadership and the rank and file show me that they've lost their penchant for assuming their own inherent superiority, relying on hate speech and ad homenin attacks rather than rational argument... well, I'm going to be ignoring them.
Rush Limbaugh.
Thanks for supporting the article's findings.