I swear I heard trumpets, harps, and the Angels singing. I got all glassy eyed and was begining to think the Messiah had returned and cmacb was his name.
And then I woke up.
Not since my sister uttered the words, "There is no Santa Claus" had five words crushed my hopes and dreams so utterly.
Its kind of hard to call it election-year politicing when the bill was proposed two years ago and he's been speaking out against the DMCA for longer than that.
Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of his constituents were against flag burning. Any poll I have ever seen about flag burning has never even come close to supporting it as political speech.
No, to be more precise. If you take certification classes, and that locks you into a particular distro, then you're an idiot.
The implication of the "Training Professional's" words are that if you get this certification you will be forever incapable of learning how to use other distributions.
THOSE BASTARDS! How dare they! Why when I got my Sun Certified System Adminisrator, I learned everything there was to know about managing HP-UX. My Oracle cert made me an expert in DB2. What cert should I get next? I bet an MCSE cert would help me master QNX? Maybe I'll get a CCNA to prove my mastery of Nortel switches.
One training expert, however, cautions that Red Hat certifications can lock administrators in to Red Hat-specific skills.
Oh, because once you learn how to do something the "Red Hat" way you wont be capable of learning how to manage other operating systems.
Med Student 1: Have you done your Cardiology internship yet? Med Student 2: No, I was afraid it would prevent me from learning Orthopaedics.
I'm running 4 Western Digital 80GB 2MB Cache drives in a RAID 0+1. I already had the drives and the RAID controller. Throwing them out, purchasing a $179 RAID controller and then replacing the hard drives with SATA drives didn't really seem economical. Instead I went out and spent that $200 on a DVD burner and do backup all that stuff to DVD, BUT it makes it a pain in the ass to dig out the DVD when I can keep it relatively safe on a rather inexpensive RAID array.
Also, my argument was NOT to use RAID 5 simply because its a little more expensive to implement for most home users. 70% of the motherboards on the market have built-in RAID functionality for RAID 1 at the bare minimum. This is clearly a better (aka economical) solution than going out and buying a dedicated RAID controller for the home.
For an enterprise application, $179 is dirt cheap. To store my MP3's, pictures, docs, etc its not exactly cheap. Even if you factor in the full price of my motherboard ($80), its still $100 less than a good RAID controller capable of RAID 5. When you would like to get a new TV or replace the tile in the bathroom, $179 is too much for home data storage.
That being said, I think I might pick one up for my workstation.:)
Ah, I don't believe its the complexity of the hardware that is to blame. No, its the value of the data on it. Put the company databases on a single 200GB IDE drive and it will fail.
In the computer age, the axiom should read, "Information wants to be lost."
Hey, nice links. I never realized that 10 and 0+1 were different. A very subtle difference, but a difference none the less.
At home, I run 0+1 on my file server, which is the best my onboard RAID controller can handle. I've never been a big fan of RAID 5 and given that most 'cheap' RAID controllers don't support it has always pushed me to RAID 1 or RAID 0+1.
Too true. I resent the fact that I can control nearly every aspect of our databases, but I'm locked out from some functions on my own laptop. The sad truth is no matter how competent the majority of the corporate users are, things need to be locked down to protect the network and services from the "dumbest corporate user".
I can't help but wonder about the sanitary aspects of it, nevermind the privacy concerns. I can't imagine that these 'nurses' are any more trained in the safe use of hypodermics than any other cocktail waitress.
The unclaimed funds should be given to the National Endowment of the Arts or some national children's music foundation instead of reverting to the good people of NY
Except the reason why it is going to the State of NY is for them to find the people it belongs to. In general, most states are pretty good at it, all things considered. The problem with RIAA keeping it, was that they really weren't even making an attempt. If someone in the 'biz' can't find Dave Matthews, P Diddy, or David Bowie they are seriously incompetent.
Where a company is 'based' is irrelevant. It all comes down to where the business is incorporated. Furthermore, Sony Music is a separate company than Sony Corporate. It has its own board (technically) etc. It is quite possible that the subsidiary was incorporated in New York.
That being said, where the contract was signed could easily play a role. Would have been nice if the article made that clear though.
Technically, there were no political parties at the time of the Constitutional Convention. Sure, they formed shortly afterwards and everyone kind of knew where each other stood, but it certainly was not created out of party politics.
As for the one candidate per party policy, that came almost entirely out of the 1824 election in which four prime candidates ran. Andrew Jackson secured 41% of the popular vote and John Quincy Adams had 30%. Neither candidate secured a majority of the electoral vote and the under the Constitution, the vote moved to the House in which each state had one vote to cast. Adams won the presidency and the lesson learned was the parties needed to get down to one candidate for the whole party across the whole nation to insure the vote would never go to the house again.
K, I think you dropped your foil hat. It is now clear to me that you have an axe to grind.
The definition for the boundaries for the State of California were not defined by the US Congress. The initial extents of the California territory were first defined by the government of Mexico. This included most of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. The borders defining the northern and southern edges of the annexed land were made official in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Shortly after gold was discovered the residents of California formed a convention to apply for statehood and completely skip the territory phase. The only border still not defined was the eastern border. The delegates of California unaminously decided on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada's. The US Government played absolutely no part in the decision. To further illustrate your fallacy for what it is, the smaller eastern states would have jumped at the chance to introduce more "Free" states and further marginalize the Southern influence in Congress. It should take you a total of 10 minutes to confirm everything I just said, but I doubt you will. You wouldn't want to risk piercing your little reality distortion bubble.
Here is the problem with your position. We are talking about the United States of America not the United Inhabitants of America. Your arguments are persuasive up until the point that you realize the entire foundation of this country was built on the theory that the nation is a federation of states. Nearly all of the Founding Fathers wanted it that way. They felt that the nation would be stronger if the states shared in the power more evenly. Could this be changed now? Possibly, but the "State's Rights" movement will have a cow, and they are a strong movement.
It's unfair for the west coast to have only 3 states, while the the east coast gets 15. That's a difference of (15-3)*2=12 bonus electoral votes given to easterners, just because of their boundary-lines.
First off there are approximately 44 million people living on the west coast and 109 million on the east coast and thats counting just the states that touch the Atlantic. Secondly, they didn't have to make California as big as they did and I suspect a fair portion of its inhabitants would be happy to see it split in half. Without the Electoral College the West Coast and the issues they feel are important would be marginalized as they relate to Presidential politics.
I'm not arguing that the system is perfect, just that it works pretty well even with the last election factored in. Personally, I think that all states should have to split up their Electors based on the popular vote in the state, but I think the number of Electors and the method for which it is determined is sound.
That thought process was running through my head at the time, but was not conveyed. You are absolutely correct and its a common issue in New York state. The most common complaint being that decisions are often made to the benefit of NYC and the detriment to those in upstate NY.
If there was no electoral college, he couldn't "carry Virginia". To "carry a state" means to win all its votes, which only happens as a consequence of winner-take-all Electoral College.
For the purpose of my argument "carrying" was meant to imply winning the majority of the vote. If you look closer at the numbers you will see that winning a 60% majority in VA is still greater than losing a 70% majority in almost all of the other states, I mentioned, combined. To put it more matter of factly, If a candidate wins a 60% majority in Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi,Louisiana, Tennessee and Florida, the entire Midwest is invalidated. New England (all 6 states combined) couldn't counter act a simple majority in Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi. Hell, they could barely contend with Florida alone.
In reality, removing the Electoral College would mean that canditates don't campaign by state anymore, but by region. They'd aim for big cities. Rhode Island is small but dense, so it'd be visited. Virginia has large cities which would attract attention, but the rural parts would be ignored.
You are half right. The denser parts of the country wouldn't really be impacted all that much. Even Virginia really wouldn't see much of a change. The midwest, however, would be completely left out in the cold. Who would go to the Dakotas or Wyoming or even Iowa? Not only do those states have a low population, but they aren't dense either.
Wrongo. The real reason the EC was created is that the logistics of counting 50 million nationwide votes in a short time was unmanagable in 1776. They needed to do things hierarchally.
Sorry, you are only partially correct. Election day wasn't always in November either. The Founding Fathers had the ability to pick any day they wanted as election day and give plenty of time in between for logistical purposes had that really been the issue. Furthermore, the Electors were chosen based on the outcome of the popular vote in the states so the votes were still counted and only once that was complete did the Electors cast their votes. It usually took about a month to determine who won in the NY Governor's race. Being the largest state at the time, it wouldn't have really been all that much of a hassle. That is hardly a quantum leap in logistical planning. If you go back and read a lot of the original accounts of the constitutional convention you will see that the Founding Fathers had a number of considerations in mind.
1.) First and foremost, the main concern was that the Federal goverment be representative of the state and not the citizens directly. This was the principle reasoning for the design of the Legislature, the approval process for constitutional amendments, and the Electoral College. 2.) The representatives from the smaller states like those in the south as well as Delaware, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island wanted to make sure that the law of the land would not be dictated by Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania alone. This very point was crucial to Matthew Thornton of New Hampshire and Thomas McKean of Delaware as well as the entire delegation from Georgia. 3.) Logistics as you pointed out was most definitely a factor in the design of the EC, but far from the principle one. One of the southern delegates, I don't recall which, had said something to the effect of not wanting the Governorhip of New York to be the stepping stone to the Presidency.
(The reason you give, "fairness to smaller states", is why Senators are nonproportional)
At some companies they will fire you if you don't. Exempt really does mean exempt from overtime and arbitrary numbers like a 40hr work week. If a salaried employee is asked to work 60 and they refuse they can be terminated with no recourse.
That being said, I agree with you in that if you're doing the job in 40, then they should be happy.
Slashdot Mirror
I swear I heard trumpets, harps, and the Angels singing. I got all glassy eyed and was begining to think the Messiah had returned and cmacb was his name.
And then I woke up.
Not since my sister uttered the words, "There is no Santa Claus" had five words crushed my hopes and dreams so utterly.
Yeah, as a journalist. Nuff said.
Because nobody is perfect.
Its kind of hard to call it election-year politicing when the bill was proposed two years ago and he's been speaking out against the DMCA for longer than that.
Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of his constituents were against flag burning. Any poll I have ever seen about flag burning has never even come close to supporting it as political speech.
No, to be more precise. If you take certification classes, and that locks you into a particular distro, then you're an idiot.
The implication of the "Training Professional's" words are that if you get this certification you will be forever incapable of learning how to use other distributions.
THOSE BASTARDS! How dare they! Why when I got my Sun Certified System Adminisrator, I learned everything there was to know about managing HP-UX. My Oracle cert made me an expert in DB2. What cert should I get next? I bet an MCSE cert would help me master QNX? Maybe I'll get a CCNA to prove my mastery of Nortel switches.
One training expert, however, cautions that Red Hat certifications can lock administrators in to Red Hat-specific skills.
Oh, because once you learn how to do something the "Red Hat" way you wont be capable of learning how to manage other operating systems.
Med Student 1: Have you done your Cardiology internship yet?
Med Student 2: No, I was afraid it would prevent me from learning Orthopaedics.
DOH! I have to type faster.
This certainly smells of election-year politicing
/., but I'm sure somebody probably already has since I started this post.
Normally, I'd be inclined to agree, but Rep. Boucher has been championing this issue for some time now.
Story 1
Story 2
Story 3
Story 4
Story 5
There are of course many more. This bill was originally introduced in 2002. This guy is the real deal.
I didn't go back far enough to get the link of his interview here on
I'm running 4 Western Digital 80GB 2MB Cache drives in a RAID 0+1. I already had the drives and the RAID controller. Throwing them out, purchasing a $179 RAID controller and then replacing the hard drives with SATA drives didn't really seem economical. Instead I went out and spent that $200 on a DVD burner and do backup all that stuff to DVD, BUT it makes it a pain in the ass to dig out the DVD when I can keep it relatively safe on a rather inexpensive RAID array.
Also, my argument was NOT to use RAID 5 simply because its a little more expensive to implement for most home users. 70% of the motherboards on the market have built-in RAID functionality for RAID 1 at the bare minimum. This is clearly a better (aka economical) solution than going out and buying a dedicated RAID controller for the home.
For an enterprise application, $179 is dirt cheap. To store my MP3's, pictures, docs, etc its not exactly cheap. Even if you factor in the full price of my motherboard ($80), its still $100 less than a good RAID controller capable of RAID 5. When you would like to get a new TV or replace the tile in the bathroom, $179 is too much for home data storage.
:)
That being said, I think I might pick one up for my workstation.
Ah, I don't believe its the complexity of the hardware that is to blame. No, its the value of the data on it. Put the company databases on a single 200GB IDE drive and it will fail.
In the computer age, the axiom should read, "Information wants to be lost."
1. RAID 5
2. dead member
3. software RAID
I'd consider any two of those three to cause serious performance degradation. Hope you don't lose another drive.
Hey, nice links. I never realized that 10 and 0+1 were different. A very subtle difference, but a difference none the less.
At home, I run 0+1 on my file server, which is the best my onboard RAID controller can handle. I've never been a big fan of RAID 5 and given that most 'cheap' RAID controllers don't support it has always pushed me to RAID 1 or RAID 0+1.
You might as well mod your dishwasher with a plexiglass window in front, and neon lights that catch the water sprays while it's running.
*runs and grabs dremel*
Too true. I resent the fact that I can control nearly every aspect of our databases, but I'm locked out from some functions on my own laptop. The sad truth is no matter how competent the majority of the corporate users are, things need to be locked down to protect the network and services from the "dumbest corporate user".
I can't help but wonder about the sanitary aspects of it, nevermind the privacy concerns. I can't imagine that these 'nurses' are any more trained in the safe use of hypodermics than any other cocktail waitress.
The unclaimed funds should be given to the National Endowment of the Arts or some national children's music foundation instead of reverting to the good people of NY
Except the reason why it is going to the State of NY is for them to find the people it belongs to. In general, most states are pretty good at it, all things considered. The problem with RIAA keeping it, was that they really weren't even making an attempt. If someone in the 'biz' can't find Dave Matthews, P Diddy, or David Bowie they are seriously incompetent.
Where a company is 'based' is irrelevant. It all comes down to where the business is incorporated. Furthermore, Sony Music is a separate company than Sony Corporate. It has its own board (technically) etc. It is quite possible that the subsidiary was incorporated in New York.
That being said, where the contract was signed could easily play a role. Would have been nice if the article made that clear though.
Not to mention by the time Longhorn actually ships that kind of system will be a boat anchor.
Hey c'mon now. We're atleast in a toddler bed.
Technically, there were no political parties at the time of the Constitutional Convention. Sure, they formed shortly afterwards and everyone kind of knew where each other stood, but it certainly was not created out of party politics.
As for the one candidate per party policy, that came almost entirely out of the 1824 election in which four prime candidates ran. Andrew Jackson secured 41% of the popular vote and John Quincy Adams had 30%. Neither candidate secured a majority of the electoral vote and the under the Constitution, the vote moved to the House in which each state had one vote to cast. Adams won the presidency and the lesson learned was the parties needed to get down to one candidate for the whole party across the whole nation to insure the vote would never go to the house again.
I see your Pox and raise you a horde of locusts.
K, I think you dropped your foil hat. It is now clear to me that you have an axe to grind.
The definition for the boundaries for the State of California were not defined by the US Congress. The initial extents of the California territory were first defined by the government of Mexico. This included most of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. The borders defining the northern and southern edges of the annexed land were made official in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Shortly after gold was discovered the residents of California formed a convention to apply for statehood and completely skip the territory phase. The only border still not defined was the eastern border. The delegates of California unaminously decided on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada's. The US Government played absolutely no part in the decision. To further illustrate your fallacy for what it is, the smaller eastern states would have jumped at the chance to introduce more "Free" states and further marginalize the Southern influence in Congress. It should take you a total of 10 minutes to confirm everything I just said, but I doubt you will. You wouldn't want to risk piercing your little reality distortion bubble.
Here is the problem with your position. We are talking about the United States of America not the United Inhabitants of America. Your arguments are persuasive up until the point that you realize the entire foundation of this country was built on the theory that the nation is a federation of states. Nearly all of the Founding Fathers wanted it that way. They felt that the nation would be stronger if the states shared in the power more evenly. Could this be changed now? Possibly, but the "State's Rights" movement will have a cow, and they are a strong movement.
It's unfair for the west coast to have only 3 states, while the the east coast gets 15. That's a difference of (15-3)*2=12 bonus electoral votes given to easterners, just because of their boundary-lines.
First off there are approximately 44 million people living on the west coast and 109 million on the east coast and thats counting just the states that touch the Atlantic. Secondly, they didn't have to make California as big as they did and I suspect a fair portion of its inhabitants would be happy to see it split in half. Without the Electoral College the West Coast and the issues they feel are important would be marginalized as they relate to Presidential politics.
I'm not arguing that the system is perfect, just that it works pretty well even with the last election factored in. Personally, I think that all states should have to split up their Electors based on the popular vote in the state, but I think the number of Electors and the method for which it is determined is sound.
That thought process was running through my head at the time, but was not conveyed. You are absolutely correct and its a common issue in New York state. The most common complaint being that decisions are often made to the benefit of NYC and the detriment to those in upstate NY.
If there was no electoral college, he couldn't "carry Virginia". To "carry a state" means to win all its votes, which only happens as a consequence of winner-take-all Electoral College.
For the purpose of my argument "carrying" was meant to imply winning the majority of the vote. If you look closer at the numbers you will see that winning a 60% majority in VA is still greater than losing a 70% majority in almost all of the other states, I mentioned, combined. To put it more matter of factly, If a candidate wins a 60% majority in Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi,Louisiana, Tennessee and Florida, the entire Midwest is invalidated. New England (all 6 states combined) couldn't counter act a simple majority in Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi. Hell, they could barely contend with Florida alone.
In reality, removing the Electoral College would mean that canditates don't campaign by state anymore, but by region. They'd aim for big cities. Rhode Island is small but dense, so it'd be visited. Virginia has large cities which would attract attention, but the rural parts would be ignored.
You are half right. The denser parts of the country wouldn't really be impacted all that much. Even Virginia really wouldn't see much of a change. The midwest, however, would be completely left out in the cold. Who would go to the Dakotas or Wyoming or even Iowa? Not only do those states have a low population, but they aren't dense either.
Wrongo. The real reason the EC was created is that the logistics of counting 50 million nationwide votes in a short time was unmanagable in 1776. They needed to do things hierarchally.
Sorry, you are only partially correct. Election day wasn't always in November either. The Founding Fathers had the ability to pick any day they wanted as election day and give plenty of time in between for logistical purposes had that really been the issue. Furthermore, the Electors were chosen based on the outcome of the popular vote in the states so the votes were still counted and only once that was complete did the Electors cast their votes. It usually took about a month to determine who won in the NY Governor's race. Being the largest state at the time, it wouldn't have really been all that much of a hassle. That is hardly a quantum leap in logistical planning. If you go back and read a lot of the original accounts of the constitutional convention you will see that the Founding Fathers had a number of considerations in mind.
1.) First and foremost, the main concern was that the Federal goverment be representative of the state and not the citizens directly. This was the principle reasoning for the design of the Legislature, the approval process for constitutional amendments, and the Electoral College.
2.) The representatives from the smaller states like those in the south as well as Delaware, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island wanted to make sure that the law of the land would not be dictated by Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania alone. This very point was crucial to Matthew Thornton of New Hampshire and Thomas McKean of Delaware as well as the entire delegation from Georgia.
3.) Logistics as you pointed out was most definitely a factor in the design of the EC, but far from the principle one. One of the southern delegates, I don't recall which, had said something to the effect of not wanting the Governorhip of New York to be the stepping stone to the Presidency.
(The reason you give, "fairness to smaller states", is why Senators are nonproportional)
The Senators don't elect the President.
At some companies they will fire you if you don't. Exempt really does mean exempt from overtime and arbitrary numbers like a 40hr work week. If a salaried employee is asked to work 60 and they refuse they can be terminated with no recourse.
That being said, I agree with you in that if you're doing the job in 40, then they should be happy.