Arbitrary? Hardly. Charisma counts. Presence counts. Especially in a close election.
The point is not whether you or I believe that Gore was charismatic, the point is that it is not measurable. Remember after the debates of 2000, Bush had his people fan out after the debate and convince the media that Bush won the debate. Media and pundits, too lazy to think for themselves parroted the talking points Bush's people used after the debate. My point is that judgments of 'charisma' or 'presence' are arbitrary and personal. To push your personal judgments as if they are somehow universal or representative of a national trend is a fallacy.
You're right, some may have voted based upon whether they felt like they could have a beer with a candidate or felt like they 'liked' them more. I hope every single one of them remembers the 3699 soldiers who have died because of that choice.
And in An Inconvenient Truth he was preaching to the choir. Global warming is very fashionable with Hollywood. Big surprise that a very left-leaning institution chose to reward their own.
You Faux folx keep insisting that Hollywood is 'left-leaning.' Yet you always talk about how 'the market takes care of itself.' Your pejorative 'Hollywood' is a collection of businesses, and if you remember your high-school economics class, there needs to be a demand for a business to be able to sell its products. If a business doesn't cater to the widest possible clientele, or doesn't provide what most clients want then they will go out of business. So it would seem, if your Faux hero, Adam Smith is really right about the magical market, then Hollywood represents the mythical 'middle.'
Huh? Can you try to write your English a little more effectively? Maybe include fewer nutroots-on-the-inside phrases so people who write and speak normal English can understand you...
I'm sorry that hyphenated words confuse you so. The subject and the object of the sentence is there (unlike your 'grammer Nazi' sentence). If the context isn't enough for you to understand the meaning, then there's really not much else I can do for you. Maybe it's the acronym that's confusing to you—DLC. It seems more likely to me that this is a diversion from the point, which is that Gore was trying to be in the mythical middle. Whether or not he was in your Faux middle or not, he definitely wasn't over on the left with me and mine. You might like to think that way, because it fits in better with your theories of national sentiments, but it's just not true.
No, idiot, he veered left because he tracked left on issues. Gore the Senator, pro-life. Gore the VP and Presidential candidate: pro-abortion rights. Gore the Senator, pro-gun rights. Gore the VP and Presidential candidate: pro-gun control. Abortion and gun control alone probably cost him Tennessee. And those 11 electoral votes were enough to win, everything else being equal (including losing Florida).
Sorry, Faux 'analyst,' your thesis is dubious at the very least. More likely, Gore was swiftboated back when Rove could get away with it.
...maybe it's the relative increase of the people identifying themselves as Republicans during the 90s Now, I know that Republicans and conservatives aren't exact matches, but it's a good enough back of the envelope approximation.
From the linked article: At present, the American electorate is almost evenly divided in its partisan loyalties: in the 2004 American National Election Study (ANES), 32 percent of American adults identified with the Democratic Party while 29 percent identified with the Republican Party. The 3 point Democratic advantage in party identification was the smallest in the 52 year history of the ANES. So if we accept
Keep on trying, little one. Some day you might learn how to write a decent troll. Or maybe you'll find someone as vapid as you are to 'argue' with.
Don't you get it? Your half-wit insults don't prompt me to write; it's simply the fun of toying with someone as clueless as you. You're a character study of ignorance.
So why don't you fume for a while and write another pointless post saying the same thing again. Then pat yourself on the back, because no one else will; your posts are devoid of content or meaning. They are the half-wit angry ramblings of an insecure child.
You've shown everyone exactly what you are. Too childish to be interesting and too ignorant to troll.
Come on, big 'winner,' keep it up. You were almost entertaining there for a moment. Now you sound like just another sixth-grader. But between you and I, I'd quit now; each post makes you look more and more ridiculous.
And remember, boy genius, when you become too boring, I'll just move on. You'll still be stewing in your anger and utter lack of intellect.
Keep going, genius; you've started to become entertaining.
Or are you going to go away now, cry and lick your poor, wounded, tiny ego?
You won't respond--which if you had a brain at all, you'd know is the entire point of this diversion with you. I've gotten rid of you. And if you do reply, I'll be happy because I can laugh at your half-wit attempts to troll me.
Come on, I bet you've got some other really scintillating jewels hidden in that vapid grey crap in your head.
This post is a mighty load of crap regarding Al Gore. I don't really care how you feel, that's your business, but when you attempt to generalize some national sentiment based off of things like 'he didn't have Clinton's charm' you lose any credibility. I mean, do you work for Faux nooz or are you just really good at regurgitating the pontifications of half-wit 'analysts?'
Let's run through this real quick like and see if there's anything to these knots of Faux logic:
He didn't have ANY of Clinton's charm or charisma.
This is almost as arbitrary as, 'most people didn't like the way he said "lockbox."' I mean, really it's a true testament to the thesis of The Assult on Reason that this ever gets mentioned at all when talking about why an election is won or lost. In kind I'll use my own random and useless "I like Al Gore" fact: his charm and charisma landed him an oscar for a documentary of him essentially doing a filmed powerpoint presentation.
From 1992-2000, Gore veered to the left.
And in what ways does your 'revisionist' world view indicate that before the 2000 election, Gore was anything but a DLC stand-for-almost-nothing-in-the-'middle'-so-no-one -gets-mad puppet? Oh I get it, he veered to the left by choosing Leiberman as his VP, right? The same Lieberman we kicked out of the Democratic party because he's a better Republican than a Democrat?
Politically, he went from being a fairly conservative blue dog Democrat as a Tennessee Senator to being a left-wing idealogue VP.
And in what ways was Al Gore trying to push his own agenda? Oh yeah, it was by trying to get "Explicit lyrics" printed on music liners. All of you Faux folx were more interested in Al Gore attending a fundraiser that was thrown by some Chinese Bhuddist monks, or about the 'Chutzpah' it took to choose a Jewish VP and other such navel gazing. The only people portraying Al Gore as part of the left were Faux and Limbaugh.
This happened at the same time that the country, as a whole, was trending more conservative.
And whose statistics would give you that idea? Would it be the fact that Al Gore won the popular vote by hundreds of thousands of votes? Was it the fact that more people voted against George Bush in 2004 than have voted against anyone else, ever? Was it the fact that Al Gore actually got a higher percentage of the vote than Bill Clinton did in his elections?
Gore lost his home state of Tennessee to Bush in 2000...
That's because he went from being a 'blue dog' democrat to a left-wing idealogue, right? So you're going to tell me now that Harold Ford, Jr. (you remember, the Democratic senator from Tennessee who lost his seat in 2006), the same Harold Ford, Jr. that's now leading the get-in-the-middle-and-stand-for-nothing DLC, is a left-wing idealogue? Oh wait, I thought you said earlier that Gore lost because he stopped standing for nothing over at the DLC and started standing for something with the rest of us "left-wing ideaologues." Your logic is as confusing as:
The fact that Gore lost after a successful illustrates [ sic ] his overall weakness as a candidate.
And he lost after a what? A successful election where he won the popular vote? A successful appeal for a recount that was overruled when the supreme court gave the rest of us the middle finger and held their own election?
Good candidates win elections, bad candidates do not.
And since you've already said in a later post in this thread that George Bush wasn't a good candidate, you've already disqualified this statement as having anything but sensationalist value.
All these "Microsoft don't care where you run Windows" comments overlook the fact that a user switching already has a copy of Windows. One of the best parts of Parallels is that a user switching can simply run an application on their old system that will copy everyhing over to their Mac.
The OS All the applications All the settings All the data Everything.
Running the application to replicate the old environment is trivial. It's much easier than upgrading to Vista--or even another version of Windows XP. Think about it, how much time does it take for you to upgrade from one Windows system to another? How many hours spent re-installing the same crap over again, hoping that it works on the new system, that is, if you can even find the installation media anymore...
Parallels makes it trivial to switch without ever having to buy another Microsoft product.
That's what makes Parallels the killer app it is. That's why Microsoft should be scared of Macs.
The "right to self-defense" is not an "extension" (whatever that legerdemain of logic really means) of either life or liberty; the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are just that. They are not subject to your your personal "extensions."
And when someone attempts to violate those rights, one should expect that society will afford them the ability to defend themselves against that violation. But that doesn't mean that one should expect a gun to be the arbiter of that defense.
If you have guns & you like your guns, that's fine; I really don't care. It's just absolutely silly to posit that you are in any way more safe than anyone else.
Guns in the hands of civilians prevents insurgents(be they Iraqi, Iranian or whoever) from running roughshod over the general populace.
I don't know what you've had your head up for the past 3 years, but everyone, including the insurgents are running roughshod over the general populace.
And the response was utterly rediculous. I couldn't believe how blithe, how utterly senseless the response was, so it required "spelling it out."
Iraq is in chaos, in no small part, as a direct result of the number of small-arms currently in the country.
If guns made people safer, Iraq wouldn't be in the midst of a civil war.
I'm all for freedom. I really don't care whether you have a gun or not--that's your business. The problem I have is with people prescribing that carrying guns is a panacea, or a god-granted human-right. If the "right to self defense" was anything other than a thinly veiled desire to kill someone else and get away with it, I'd be right there defending it too.
It's more likely that Cisco's sword rattling didn't have the desired effect; Apple still went ahead without Cisco's "approval." The business leaders at Cisco let the trademark lapse. Even if Cisco still had rights to the trademark, the scope of the trademark is doubtful; it could be proved that an IP phone and a wireless phone are really in the same market at all.
Now I know you said I shouldn't be replying since I haven't had an opportunity to suffer Vista.
I know, what could a lowly idiot like me know... I've only had to deal with problems that make Vista incompatible with WEP Enterprise 802.11G wireless networks that work for every other OS that supports WEP Enterprise. I only work with OS X, Linux, BSD, as well as (unfortunately) Win 2k3 and XP on a daily basis... but I thought maybe, just maybe this was a good opportunity to play...
FUN WITH LOGIC
Apple iPod ejects safely with Brand OS X Apple iPod ejects safely with Brand RedHat Linux Apple iPod ejects safely with brand SuSE Linux Apple iPod ejects safely with brand Debian Linux Apple iPod ejects safely with brand FreeBSD Apple iPod ejects safely with brand OpenBSD Apple iPod ejects safely with brand Windows 95 Apple iPod ejects safely with brand Windows 98 Apple iPod ejects safely with brand Windows ME Apple iPod ejects safely with brand Windows NT Apple iPod ejects safely with brand Windows 2000 Apple iPod ejects safely with brand Windows 2003 Apple iPod ejects safely with brand Windows XP
Apple iPod doesn't eject safely with brand Windows Vista
(Oh, and by the way, FAT 32 Flash drives don't eject safely with brand Windows Vista)
<sarcasm>(just incase you need it spelled out) It must be Apple's fault that the iPod doesn't eject safely under Vista </sarcasm>
You "generation next" Green Day wannabe punk rock pussies crack me up.
As scary as it is with George 'Nookleer' Bush at the helm, you kids have it easy. You'll never know what it was like when things were really bad. You'll never understand what it was like when nuclear self-assured mutual destruction was a question of when not if.
Someone talks about impending doom 50 years down the road and you start feeling like you've got something to piss and wail about? Fuck, man we lived through Reagan, we lived through the disaster the first Bush was and now we're living through the disaster of his legacy. We lived through the fall of the Soviet Union and we'll probably live through the fall of the United States as we know it... But you know what, we have and we will keep on going. If your pussy hurts too much to keep going, well then sit down, shut the fuck up and die. The rest of us will keep on living life.
Is being an Apple weenie that much a part of your self-identity that you find the idea of a Mac virus toxic to the very heart of your being?
You know what, little friend, we are all laughing at the obvious irony and sheer vapidity of your posts. Maybe you should start worrying about how you spend your own brief moments here on earth rather than ranting about how someone else spends their time.
Isn't the problem with immigration that we have today due to those who enter our country illegally? How does this solve that problem?
I'd really like to understand what makes up this immagration "problem." The immagration "problem" is an invention of the right as a wedge issue for the 2006 elections--nothing more. It's a contrived emergency that will soon fade away after November of 2006.
To me, the only problem that exists is the inequaility upon which the current system depends; those workers... those people deserve the same rights we do. Bush, Clinton et. al wanted to open up the borders via NAFTA, so that business owners could reap the benefits of cheap labor outside the US, but when it comes to providing human rights for everyone in the us, no matter what their race, creed, religion, or place of origin, there's a "problem."
I thought the following paragraphs taken from the article are worth pointing out not only because they show how little "industry experts" seem to know about the lessons of the past, but they are a testament to the agility and benefit of using Open Source software.
It is also costly in terms of time, money and manpower. Where Microsoft has thousands of engineers on its Windows team, Apple has a lean development group of roughly 350 programmers and fewer than 100 software testers, according to two Apple employees who spoke on the condition that they not be identified.
And Apple had the advantage of building on software from university laboratories, an experimental version of the Unix operating system developed at Carnegie Mellon University and a free variant of Unix from the University of California, Berkeley. That helps explain why a small team at Apple has been able to build an operating system rich in features with nearly as many lines of code as Microsoft's Windows.
The author obviously doesn't know anything about a man month, and he proves he doesn't really have much of an understanding of how OS X is designed, but I take that as a good thing; because the author shows his ignorance of the all important details, he proves that the idea of integrating and using Open Source code is a benefit is becoming colloquial.
Conversely, with each missed deadline, Microsoft is proving to the industry just how little control they have over their own business. Apple refuses to sell an OS without hardware, so the alternative keeps looking better and better.
Something that really isn't accounted for in the study is the fact that virtualization is a viable alternative on the Linux platform, where on Windows, it's really not capable of providing the same kind of prerformance. "Server hardware" is not a viable method for ascertaining number of units actually running. It's good for the stockholders and MBAs, but doesn't provide an accurate picture of where the industry as a whole is headed.
We have upwards of 1200 Linux virtual private servers that we run for clients. We attempted to launch a VPS product for Windows that ultimately died because 1) it couldn't handle nearly the same density of clients, and 2) (the biggest reason) because it was just downright unstable and unreliable.
With upcoming hardware-based virtualization on the CPU level, this measurement will continue to become more and more irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is not whether you or I believe that Gore was charismatic, the point is that it is not measurable. Remember after the debates of 2000, Bush had his people fan out after the debate and convince the media that Bush won the debate. Media and pundits, too lazy to think for themselves parroted the talking points Bush's people used after the debate. My point is that judgments of 'charisma' or 'presence' are arbitrary and personal. To push your personal judgments as if they are somehow universal or representative of a national trend is a fallacy.
You're right, some may have voted based upon whether they felt like they could have a beer with a candidate or felt like they 'liked' them more. I hope every single one of them remembers the 3699 soldiers who have died because of that choice.
You Faux folx keep insisting that Hollywood is 'left-leaning.' Yet you always talk about how 'the market takes care of itself.' Your pejorative 'Hollywood' is a collection of businesses, and if you remember your high-school economics class, there needs to be a demand for a business to be able to sell its products. If a business doesn't cater to the widest possible clientele, or doesn't provide what most clients want then they will go out of business. So it would seem, if your Faux hero, Adam Smith is really right about the magical market, then Hollywood represents the mythical 'middle.'
I'm sorry that hyphenated words confuse you so. The subject and the object of the sentence is there (unlike your 'grammer Nazi' sentence). If the context isn't enough for you to understand the meaning, then there's really not much else I can do for you. Maybe it's the acronym that's confusing to you—DLC. It seems more likely to me that this is a diversion from the point, which is that Gore was trying to be in the mythical middle. Whether or not he was in your Faux middle or not, he definitely wasn't over on the left with me and mine. You might like to think that way, because it fits in better with your theories of national sentiments, but it's just not true.
Sorry, Faux 'analyst,' your thesis is dubious at the very least. More likely, Gore was swiftboated back when Rove could get away with it.
From the linked article:
At present, the American electorate is almost evenly divided in its partisan loyalties: in the 2004 American National Election Study (ANES), 32 percent of American adults identified with the Democratic Party while 29 percent identified with the Republican Party. The 3 point Democratic advantage in party identification was the smallest in the 52 year history of the ANES.
So if we accept
Keep on trying, little one. Some day you might learn how to write a decent troll. Or maybe you'll find someone as vapid as you are to 'argue' with.
Don't you get it? Your half-wit insults don't prompt me to write; it's simply the fun of toying with someone as clueless as you. You're a character study of ignorance.
So why don't you fume for a while and write another pointless post saying the same thing again. Then pat yourself on the back, because no one else will; your posts are devoid of content or meaning. They are the half-wit angry ramblings of an insecure child.
You've shown everyone exactly what you are. Too childish to be interesting and too ignorant to troll.
Come on, big 'winner,' keep it up. You were almost entertaining there for a moment. Now you sound like just another sixth-grader. But between you and I, I'd quit now; each post makes you look more and more ridiculous.
And remember, boy genius, when you become too boring, I'll just move on. You'll still be stewing in your anger and utter lack of intellect.
Keep going, genius; you've started to become entertaining.
Or are you going to go away now, cry and lick your poor, wounded, tiny ego?
You won't respond--which if you had a brain at all, you'd know is the entire point of this diversion with you. I've gotten rid of you. And if you do reply, I'll be happy because I can laugh at your half-wit attempts to troll me.
Come on, I bet you've got some other really scintillating jewels hidden in that vapid grey crap in your head.
Ooh, a Faux intellectual has come out to troll...
Yawn...
They just don't troll like they used to... or maybe you're just not capable of doing it right.
Try real hard, I bet you might be able to even write something that might even be entertaining.
Now, you're just boring the hell out of me.
Let's run through this real quick like and see if there's anything to these knots of Faux logic:
This is almost as arbitrary as, 'most people didn't like the way he said "lockbox."' I mean, really it's a true testament to the thesis of The Assult on Reason that this ever gets mentioned at all when talking about why an election is won or lost. In kind I'll use my own random and useless "I like Al Gore" fact: his charm and charisma landed him an oscar for a documentary of him essentially doing a filmed powerpoint presentation.
And in what ways does your 'revisionist' world view indicate that before the 2000 election, Gore was anything but a DLC stand-for-almost-nothing-in-the-'middle'-so-no-on
And in what ways was Al Gore trying to push his own agenda? Oh yeah, it was by trying to get "Explicit lyrics" printed on music liners. All of you Faux folx were more interested in Al Gore attending a fundraiser that was thrown by some Chinese Bhuddist monks, or about the 'Chutzpah' it took to choose a Jewish VP and other such navel gazing. The only people portraying Al Gore as part of the left were Faux and Limbaugh.
And whose statistics would give you that idea? Would it be the fact that Al Gore won the popular vote by hundreds of thousands of votes? Was it the fact that more people voted against George Bush in 2004 than have voted against anyone else, ever? Was it the fact that Al Gore actually got a higher percentage of the vote than Bill Clinton did in his elections?
That's because he went from being a 'blue dog' democrat to a left-wing idealogue, right? So you're going to tell me now that Harold Ford, Jr. (you remember, the Democratic senator from Tennessee who lost his seat in 2006), the same Harold Ford, Jr. that's now leading the get-in-the-middle-and-stand-for-nothing DLC, is a left-wing idealogue? Oh wait, I thought you said earlier that Gore lost because he stopped standing for nothing over at the DLC and started standing for something with the rest of us "left-wing ideaologues." Your logic is as confusing as:
And he lost after a what? A successful election where he won the popular vote? A successful appeal for a recount that was overruled when the supreme court gave the rest of us the middle finger and held their own election?
And since you've already said in a later post in this thread that George Bush wasn't a good candidate, you've already disqualified this statement as having anything but sensationalist value.
OpenVZ and Virtuozzo rely upon Linux kernel modifications; in other words, no FreeBSD, no Windows.
Replying to myself since I didn't put the link:
Parallels Transporter
All these "Microsoft don't care where you run Windows" comments overlook the fact that a user switching already has a copy of Windows. One of the best parts of Parallels is that a user switching can simply run an application on their old system that will copy everyhing over to their Mac.
The OS
All the applications
All the settings
All the data
Everything.
Running the application to replicate the old environment is trivial. It's much easier than upgrading to Vista--or even another version of Windows XP. Think about it, how much time does it take for you to upgrade from one Windows system to another? How many hours spent re-installing the same crap over again, hoping that it works on the new system, that is, if you can even find the installation media anymore...
Parallels makes it trivial to switch without ever having to buy another Microsoft product.
That's what makes Parallels the killer app it is. That's why Microsoft should be scared of Macs.
For anyone interested in an open source Navicat alternative, check out Yoursql.
For a Postgres GUI, check out pgAdmin (I've had some stability issues with this one, but there's not much else out there that's Free and Open.
I use iTerm for hours every day. It's much more stable than it was a couple years back, and has some cool new features.
command+enter gives a full screen of terminal. Combine that with Virtue desktops & I've got my "terminal" desktop.
Daylight Savings Time change is direct result of tourist lobbies on the 101st (Republican controlled) congress.
Just another short-sighted, profit-driven change made without taking into account the costs.
And when someone attempts to violate those rights, one should expect that society will afford them the ability to defend themselves against that violation. But that doesn't mean that one should expect a gun to be the arbiter of that defense.
If you have guns & you like your guns, that's fine; I really don't care. It's just absolutely silly to posit that you are in any way more safe than anyone else.
I don't know what you've had your head up for the past 3 years, but everyone, including the insurgents are running roughshod over the general populace.
And the response was utterly rediculous. I couldn't believe how blithe, how utterly senseless the response was, so it required "spelling it out."
Iraq is in chaos, in no small part, as a direct result of the number of small-arms currently in the country.
If guns made people safer, Iraq wouldn't be in the midst of a civil war.
I'm all for freedom. I really don't care whether you have a gun or not--that's your business. The problem I have is with people prescribing that carrying guns is a panacea, or a god-granted human-right. If the "right to self defense" was anything other than a thinly veiled desire to kill someone else and get away with it, I'd be right there defending it too.
Sorry, guess I need to spell it out:
<irony> Yeah, because this "right of self-defense" thing is really helping those people in Iraq. </irony>
Yeah, because this "right of self-defense" thing is really helping those people in Iraq.
It's more likely that Cisco's sword rattling didn't have the desired effect; Apple still went ahead without Cisco's "approval." The business leaders at Cisco let the trademark lapse. Even if Cisco still had rights to the trademark, the scope of the trademark is doubtful; it could be proved that an IP phone and a wireless phone are really in the same market at all.
Now I know you said I shouldn't be replying since I haven't had an opportunity to suffer Vista.
I know, what could a lowly idiot like me know... I've only had to deal with problems that make Vista incompatible with WEP Enterprise 802.11G wireless networks that work for every other OS that supports WEP Enterprise. I only work with OS X, Linux, BSD, as well as (unfortunately) Win 2k3 and XP on a daily basis... but I thought maybe, just maybe this was a good opportunity to play...
FUN WITH LOGIC
Apple iPod ejects safely with Brand OS X
Apple iPod ejects safely with Brand RedHat Linux
Apple iPod ejects safely with brand SuSE Linux
Apple iPod ejects safely with brand Debian Linux
Apple iPod ejects safely with brand FreeBSD
Apple iPod ejects safely with brand OpenBSD
Apple iPod ejects safely with brand Windows 95
Apple iPod ejects safely with brand Windows 98
Apple iPod ejects safely with brand Windows ME
Apple iPod ejects safely with brand Windows NT
Apple iPod ejects safely with brand Windows 2000
Apple iPod ejects safely with brand Windows 2003
Apple iPod ejects safely with brand Windows XP
Apple iPod doesn't eject safely with brand Windows Vista
(Oh, and by the way, FAT 32 Flash drives don't eject safely with brand Windows Vista)
<sarcasm>(just incase you need it spelled out)
It must be Apple's fault that the iPod doesn't eject safely under Vista
</sarcasm>
Sorry, no coffee yet.
Wake me up when we get there.
I'm reading this page in Safari. I came here through an RSS reader. No buttons are active except those which can be used.
The back button is greyed and can't be used.
The forward button is greyed and can't be used.
I can reload the page or add a bookmark to this page; those buttons are active and shown as available to use.
I'm afraid you're not a very good tester.
You "generation next" Green Day wannabe punk rock pussies crack me up.
As scary as it is with George 'Nookleer' Bush at the helm, you kids have it easy. You'll never know what it was like when things were really bad. You'll never understand what it was like when nuclear self-assured mutual destruction was a question of when not if.
Someone talks about impending doom 50 years down the road and you start feeling like you've got something to piss and wail about? Fuck, man we lived through Reagan, we lived through the disaster the first Bush was and now we're living through the disaster of his legacy. We lived through the fall of the Soviet Union and we'll probably live through the fall of the United States as we know it... But you know what, we have and we will keep on going. If your pussy hurts too much to keep going, well then sit down, shut the fuck up and die. The rest of us will keep on living life.
You know what, little friend, we are all laughing at the obvious irony and sheer vapidity of your posts. Maybe you should start worrying about how you spend your own brief moments here on earth rather than ranting about how someone else spends their time.
Good luck with that.
I'd really like to understand what makes up this immagration "problem." The immagration "problem" is an invention of the right as a wedge issue for the 2006 elections--nothing more. It's a contrived emergency that will soon fade away after November of 2006.
To me, the only problem that exists is the inequaility upon which the current system depends; those workers... those people deserve the same rights we do. Bush, Clinton et. al wanted to open up the borders via NAFTA, so that business owners could reap the benefits of cheap labor outside the US, but when it comes to providing human rights for everyone in the us, no matter what their race, creed, religion, or place of origin, there's a "problem."
I thought the following paragraphs taken from the article are worth pointing out not only because they show how little "industry experts" seem to know about the lessons of the past, but they are a testament to the agility and benefit of using Open Source software.
The author obviously doesn't know anything about a man month, and he proves he doesn't really have much of an understanding of how OS X is designed, but I take that as a good thing; because the author shows his ignorance of the all important details, he proves that the idea of integrating and using Open Source code is a benefit is becoming colloquial.
Conversely, with each missed deadline, Microsoft is proving to the industry just how little control they have over their own business. Apple refuses to sell an OS without hardware, so the alternative keeps looking better and better.
Something that really isn't accounted for in the study is the fact that virtualization is a viable alternative on the Linux platform, where on Windows, it's really not capable of providing the same kind of prerformance. "Server hardware" is not a viable method for ascertaining number of units actually running. It's good for the stockholders and MBAs, but doesn't provide an accurate picture of where the industry as a whole is headed.
We have upwards of 1200 Linux virtual private servers that we run for clients. We attempted to launch a VPS product for Windows that ultimately died because 1) it couldn't handle nearly the same density of clients, and 2) (the biggest reason) because it was just downright unstable and unreliable.
With upcoming hardware-based virtualization on the CPU level, this measurement will continue to become more and more irrelevant.