YOU read the second to last paragraph. And keep in mind this is in the opinion articles. The loaded language "under-the-radar procedural maneuvers" is not a comparison to a failure to vote on cloture in the full Senate. It is perfectly legit to kill nominations in committee and BOTH PARTIES have done it throughout time. I have no complaints about Democrats doing this in the past. Please US Constitution, Article 1, section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its proceedings"
At issue currently IS NOT ABOUT A COMITTEE PROCEDURE. That's the disconnect in logic in all the Democrat's arguments. You can't compare appointments killed in committee with refusal to vote on cloture in the full Senate. These two activities are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
It must be fun to mod me down for pointing out the real facts of this SIMPLE AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND case for not taking the Democrat's crap at face value. GO ahead and burn your mod points; my karma is still "excellent".
Bzzzt! Sorry, no points. I asked for a judge that the REPUBLICANS had fillibustered. Abe Fortras, Johnson's buddy who helped him rig the 1948 Texas Senate election, was fillibustered by BOTH parties to send a message to Johnson and future presidents that such cronyism to fill the Supremem Court wouldn't be tolerated. 24 Rs and 19 Ds voted against cloture; hardly a Republican fillibuster of a Democrat nominee who would otherwise pass.
No, it's republican's who "coined this idea" you're just a brainwashed idiot, apparently
Name one judge the republicans fillibustered. And make sure it's a fillibuster and not killed in committee in accordance with established rules. THERE'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE. The second is allowed by the Constitution, the first is not. But I guess you're too busy calling people "brainwashed idiots" to learn about the Constitution.
That'd be relevant if the Majority leader, Bill Frist, didn't filibuster a Clinton nominee
This is a bald-faced lie the Democrats want you to beleive. All the failed Clinton appointees were killed in committee in manners in accordance with established Congressional rules.
They didn't coin the idea of outright killing nominations in committee but they sure as heck have coined the idea of fillibustering nominations to avoid a vote.
See, it's the "foriegn country" bit that that kind of bugs us foriegners
Is your country's government actively involved in training suicide mission murders to come kill our citizens? If not, don't sweat it. If so, what else should you expect us to reasonably do? Well, OK, obviously if you were involved in training murderers then you'd be happier if we did nothing.
Like all good talking points, yours extract a pound of FUD from an ounce of truth.
1. I assume you're referring to that flap over Schiavo, in which case, the "laws that apply to single individual" was not reviewed because the SC said it WASN'T about one person. 2. These non-US citizens who were caught in a foriegn country while actively fighting uniformed US soldiers deserve exactly what kind of representation under what US law? 3. What the heck is this babbling about? Every law regarding spying on individuals, INCLUDING THE PATRIOT ACT, requires judicial oversight. 4. You seem unaware that federal cases have done away with both of these practices. 5. What is this, if slightly exaggerated, legitimate complaint doing in your rant of outright falsehoods? 6. Move to the average dictatorship and publicly proclaim the rest of the world would be better without it.
Of course that does not solve the issue of needing to maintain the new telescope
Actually, it goes a long way towards that goal. By discovering that parts X, Y, and Y are prone to breaking on the Hubble, those parts can be redesigned for a new model to be much more break resistant and longer lasting.
They are an independent and neutral arbiter of the law (although you might not know that with the recent calls of "judical activism" when a judge doesn't judge the way someone wants them to)
No, judicial activism is not when the judgement goes against your own opinion. It's when the judge, for example, orders a state legislature to come up with a law worded in a certain way, or when a judge orders new/different government programs that incur additional costs on the government in effect "legislating" a tax increase on the citizens.
Boeing wanted to relocate its headquarters anyway; they went to Chicago, not because they'd go out of business if they didn't get a break on the new HQ, but because the city and state governments there voluntarily offered a carrot. This is not the same as a subsidy.
If local citizens pressure the government to give them goodies then that's between the government and the citizens. When the government BUYS SOMETHING from Boeing, it isn't a subsidy. Boeing provides airplanes and services for which they get paid. Airbus gets money from the European governments and provides nothing in return.
Just in case you didn't get it the first time: A SUBSIDY IS MONEY FOR NOTHING; MONEY FOR A PRODUCT OR SERVICE IS A PURCHASE.
Boeing's commercial aircraft business is not effectively subsidized by their military business
This is not a logical assertion; Boeing would stop building commercial planes and focus solely on military sales if it were true. One unit of a company is subsidized by another if you can say that without the subsidizing unit, the dependent unit would fold. That just isn't true with Boeing.
Boeing is not subsidized. It recieves no free handouts of operating cash, no below market rate loans, etc from the government. If you think producing a product and selling it to the government at market (bid contract) prices is "subsidized" then you need to check your definitions. Airbus, on the other hand, is owned by its member governments, started with capital from those governments, and gets low/no interest and/or outright gift grants to develop new planes, including the 380. Boeing has to find its operations and its R&D with its own money it gets from selling its products and services.
You mean it's good for the people who work in the plants that produce it. Otherwise, Airbus as a company is, and has been ever since its inception, heavily subsidized so it sucks for all the other taxpayers who don't work on it.
The Recycle Bin icon casts a shadow to the left. All the other shadows, including RB's own text, casts shadows to the right. Is it because the RB is itself in a shadow world halfway between here and oblivion??? Such subtle metaphysical goings-on in Longhorn!
I guess it depends on how narrowly you define "traditional servers"
Indeed; the original question is how many PC's can a server replace but that's the wrong question. It should be "How many servers can a server replace?" Using VMWare, you can have what would otherwise be a rack full of little servers in one large machine. It costs less (when buying enterprise class hardware) and it's easier to manage. Dual core CPUs are a tremendous benefit when doing this.
Good - maybe we shouldn't use our age to discount opinions
I disagree; back when I was a teenager, I was a font of wisdom. Now I'm puzzled by quite a lot. We should definitely discount the opinions of middle aged and older people.
I've heard that Firefly is the Sci-fi fan's latest wet dream
Yes, because it is: 1. Black box. There is no rambling techno-babble. Fixing the ship in Firefly is no more technical than Han Solo wrestling with some kind of wrench in a bundle of wires while telling Chewie to put "that one here, that one there." 2. Same goes for driving the ship, how the ship gets from one solar system to another in a reasonable time frame, how one model ship goes faster than another, etc. The pilot just pushes on the controls and the characters just walk down the loading ramp on a new planet in the next scene. Sometimes the Captain worries about affording enough the (apropriately generic named) "fuel". 3. Good sci-fi is not about techno-babble in repairing the ship or moving the characters from one place to another. Good sci-fi is about human society in new situations. What other genres offers more variety of places in which to imagine humans trying to get along than sci-fi since the entire galaxy (universe) can be used? It's when sci-fi focuses on the people that it becomes excellent. There are no aliens, no bumpy forehead people, bored omnipotent beings, etc, etc in Firefly. Good sci-fi doesn't need those things, if done properly. And Firefly is exceptionally well written in that regard.
We had 120mb floppies years ago (google for 'LS120')
No, sorry, the LS120 was an ATAPI device that could read/write standard floppy disks as well as its own 120MB disks. It wasn't a 120MB floppy disk drive. There's a big difference from a technical standpoint as well as a support standpoint.
You misunderstand; I was *given* an Excel spreadsheet that had to be used. I didn't make it and it was too complex for me to simply dash off an emulated one with OO's macros.
Really want to seem some files that do not import correctly? What about macros?
I used OO at university without problems for a year until I had to take a class that used a macro-filled Excel file. Had to break down and buy the student version of Office. I think macros, especially for heavy Excel users, are the showstopper. A lot of people with complex spreadsheets (sometimes inherited from former employees) are going to be the biggest group of 'No' votes in the article poster's project.
Slashdot Mirror
Hah hah hah! Now we see your true colors; you just want to rant and bash the Republicans without addressing the merits of the case.
YOU read the second to last paragraph. And keep in mind this is in the opinion articles. The loaded language "under-the-radar procedural maneuvers" is not a comparison to a failure to vote on cloture in the full Senate. It is perfectly legit to kill nominations in committee and BOTH PARTIES have done it throughout time. I have no complaints about Democrats doing this in the past. Please US Constitution, Article 1, section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its proceedings"
At issue currently IS NOT ABOUT A COMITTEE PROCEDURE. That's the disconnect in logic in all the Democrat's arguments. You can't compare appointments killed in committee with refusal to vote on cloture in the full Senate. These two activities are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
It must be fun to mod me down for pointing out the real facts of this SIMPLE AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND case for not taking the Democrat's crap at face value. GO ahead and burn your mod points; my karma is still "excellent".
Bzzzt! Sorry, no points. I asked for a judge that the REPUBLICANS had fillibustered. Abe Fortras, Johnson's buddy who helped him rig the 1948 Texas Senate election, was fillibustered by BOTH parties to send a message to Johnson and future presidents that such cronyism to fill the Supremem Court wouldn't be tolerated. 24 Rs and 19 Ds voted against cloture; hardly a Republican fillibuster of a Democrat nominee who would otherwise pass.
Thanks, I could smell my /. karma burning as I wrote that but couldn't resist.
No, it's republican's who "coined this idea" you're just a brainwashed idiot, apparently
Name one judge the republicans fillibustered. And make sure it's a fillibuster and not killed in committee in accordance with established rules. THERE'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE. The second is allowed by the Constitution, the first is not. But I guess you're too busy calling people "brainwashed idiots" to learn about the Constitution.
That'd be relevant if the Majority leader, Bill Frist, didn't filibuster a Clinton nominee
This is a bald-faced lie the Democrats want you to beleive. All the failed Clinton appointees were killed in committee in manners in accordance with established Congressional rules.
They didn't coin the idea of outright killing nominations in committee but they sure as heck have coined the idea of fillibustering nominations to avoid a vote.
Reality, it turns out, is even funnier. The machine they gave them runs AIX.
And it would be true genius if said server's AIX didn't have a valid license and IBM sued SCO for running a pirated copy.
See, it's the "foriegn country" bit that that kind of bugs us foriegners
Is your country's government actively involved in training suicide mission murders to come kill our citizens? If not, don't sweat it. If so, what else should you expect us to reasonably do? Well, OK, obviously if you were involved in training murderers then you'd be happier if we did nothing.
Like all good talking points, yours extract a pound of FUD from an ounce of truth.
1. I assume you're referring to that flap over Schiavo, in which case, the "laws that apply to single individual" was not reviewed because the SC said it WASN'T about one person.
2. These non-US citizens who were caught in a foriegn country while actively fighting uniformed US soldiers deserve exactly what kind of representation under what US law?
3. What the heck is this babbling about? Every law regarding spying on individuals, INCLUDING THE PATRIOT ACT, requires judicial oversight.
4. You seem unaware that federal cases have done away with both of these practices.
5. What is this, if slightly exaggerated, legitimate complaint doing in your rant of outright falsehoods?
6. Move to the average dictatorship and publicly proclaim the rest of the world would be better without it.
The rise of Sarbanes-Oxley
You misspelled 'unholy birth'.
Of course that does not solve the issue of needing to maintain the new telescope
Actually, it goes a long way towards that goal. By discovering that parts X, Y, and Y are prone to breaking on the Hubble, those parts can be redesigned for a new model to be much more break resistant and longer lasting.
All your stupid jokes MONTHS after they stopped being funny are belong to /.
They are an independent and neutral arbiter of the law (although you might not know that with the recent calls of "judical activism" when a judge doesn't judge the way someone wants them to)
No, judicial activism is not when the judgement goes against your own opinion. It's when the judge, for example, orders a state legislature to come up with a law worded in a certain way, or when a judge orders new/different government programs that incur additional costs on the government in effect "legislating" a tax increase on the citizens.
Boeing wanted to relocate its headquarters anyway; they went to Chicago, not because they'd go out of business if they didn't get a break on the new HQ, but because the city and state governments there voluntarily offered a carrot. This is not the same as a subsidy.
If local citizens pressure the government to give them goodies then that's between the government and the citizens. When the government BUYS SOMETHING from Boeing, it isn't a subsidy. Boeing provides airplanes and services for which they get paid. Airbus gets money from the European governments and provides nothing in return.
Just in case you didn't get it the first time:
A SUBSIDY IS MONEY FOR NOTHING; MONEY FOR A PRODUCT OR SERVICE IS A PURCHASE.
Boeing's commercial aircraft business is not effectively subsidized by their military business
This is not a logical assertion; Boeing would stop building commercial planes and focus solely on military sales if it were true. One unit of a company is subsidized by another if you can say that without the subsidizing unit, the dependent unit would fold. That just isn't true with Boeing.
Boeing is not subsidized. It recieves no free handouts of operating cash, no below market rate loans, etc from the government. If you think producing a product and selling it to the government at market (bid contract) prices is "subsidized" then you need to check your definitions. Airbus, on the other hand, is owned by its member governments, started with capital from those governments, and gets low/no interest and/or outright gift grants to develop new planes, including the 380. Boeing has to find its operations and its R&D with its own money it gets from selling its products and services.
and good for the local economy
You mean it's good for the people who work in the plants that produce it. Otherwise, Airbus as a company is, and has been ever since its inception, heavily subsidized so it sucks for all the other taxpayers who don't work on it.
The Recycle Bin icon casts a shadow to the left. All the other shadows, including RB's own text, casts shadows to the right. Is it because the RB is itself in a shadow world halfway between here and oblivion??? Such subtle metaphysical goings-on in Longhorn!
I guess it depends on how narrowly you define "traditional servers"
Indeed; the original question is how many PC's can a server replace but that's the wrong question. It should be "How many servers can a server replace?" Using VMWare, you can have what would otherwise be a rack full of little servers in one large machine. It costs less (when buying enterprise class hardware) and it's easier to manage. Dual core CPUs are a tremendous benefit when doing this.
Good - maybe we shouldn't use our age to discount opinions
I disagree; back when I was a teenager, I was a font of wisdom. Now I'm puzzled by quite a lot. We should definitely discount the opinions of middle aged and older people.
I've heard that Firefly is the Sci-fi fan's latest wet dream
Yes, because it is:
1. Black box. There is no rambling techno-babble. Fixing the ship in Firefly is no more technical than Han Solo wrestling with some kind of wrench in a bundle of wires while telling Chewie to put "that one here, that one there."
2. Same goes for driving the ship, how the ship gets from one solar system to another in a reasonable time frame, how one model ship goes faster than another, etc. The pilot just pushes on the controls and the characters just walk down the loading ramp on a new planet in the next scene. Sometimes the Captain worries about affording enough the (apropriately generic named) "fuel".
3. Good sci-fi is not about techno-babble in repairing the ship or moving the characters from one place to another. Good sci-fi is about human society in new situations. What other genres offers more variety of places in which to imagine humans trying to get along than sci-fi since the entire galaxy (universe) can be used? It's when sci-fi focuses on the people that it becomes excellent. There are no aliens, no bumpy forehead people, bored omnipotent beings, etc, etc in Firefly. Good sci-fi doesn't need those things, if done properly. And Firefly is exceptionally well written in that regard.
We had 120mb floppies years ago (google for 'LS120')
No, sorry, the LS120 was an ATAPI device that could read/write standard floppy disks as well as its own 120MB disks. It wasn't a 120MB floppy disk drive. There's a big difference from a technical standpoint as well as a support standpoint.
You misunderstand; I was *given* an Excel spreadsheet that had to be used. I didn't make it and it was too complex for me to simply dash off an emulated one with OO's macros.
Really want to seem some files that do not import correctly? What about macros?
I used OO at university without problems for a year until I had to take a class that used a macro-filled Excel file. Had to break down and buy the student version of Office. I think macros, especially for heavy Excel users, are the showstopper. A lot of people with complex spreadsheets (sometimes inherited from former employees) are going to be the biggest group of 'No' votes in the article poster's project.