Ah, but Sun promised they were factoring out the "Trusted" functionality of TS into a module with which OpenSolaris could be deployed.
A tall order, given how different TS and vanilla Solaris have been, but that's what Sun promised, over a year ago (delivery date in 2006Q4). Do you know if they delivered that? And how it could be used in a Debian Solaris, even if the TS components have to displace (or otherwise exclude) some GNU components? Which would require replacement with some GNU API and Trusted glue to allow apps dependent on the deprecated GNU components to work.
How about if AMD used its debt investments in new fabs in Germany and NY to accept outsourced fabrication for other companies it doesn't suffer from boosting? That would make a lot more sense than getting in debt to sell capital facilities at a loss of both investment and competitive control.
These analysts don't know anything. They just want every business to cut costs and debt while still producing the most revenue, for the most short-term profits, even if trying to do so is a stupid strategy that wrecks the company. When was the last time any published equities analyst was right about some surprising transformation of an industry leader? If they understood business strategy, they'd be running one, or privately advising one on equity development. These are people who can't even hold a job speculating in the market, so they try to make it speculating on the market.
What would it take to run the OpenSolaris kernel instead of the Linux kernel in, say, a "Debian" OS? How much of the apps, including the rest of that "Debian Solaris", would have to be revised to use the OpenSolaris kernel? How much revision (to the apps or the Debian bundle) would be required to run OpenSolaris apps on that Debian Solaris?
Political effectiveness, whether for the people or otherwise, depends on effectiveness of the politicians. And that politics, even to benefit the nonpolitician people, often depends on their politician opponents' ineffectiveness.
Like any competition, especially by proxy. Got it?
I replied to a comment that said that "leftists" compensate for slavery by favoring Black people. The other context is your creation. Mine was not a reference to Republican history, but to current events - so not historically inaccurate.
Your Y chromosome might be identical to your 3x-great grandfather. But it's different from mine, or they couldn't tell us apart, or that we have different 3x-great grandfathers.
Privacy "fanatics"? I bet you voted for Bush because he was a "centrist uniter".
You privacy naifs are the ones who don't understand technology. We privacy advocates are the ones who want better tech to protect us from people who know enough to exploit us.
Like I said, if you have to go back to the 1860s, you're ignoring the oppression. Talking about these parties as if they're anything like their century and a half old incarnations is a convenient way to ignore their history of the past several generations, and the next years which that history predicts.
And I didn't say that oppressive White jackasses are a specific feature of one party. I said that the Republican Party is a party of oppressive White jackasses. Which even you have not been able to deny. And the Republican Party most certainly has an advantage in that composition, even if it's no monopoly.
Gerrymandering isn't nearly drawn to disproportionately represent minority ghettoes at the expense of everyone else. It's nearly always drawn to perpetuate the political party in power at the time of the redrawing. Especially in the past 10-20 years, that redistricting has favored Republican majorities. Most recently in Texas, gerrymandering has explored the depths of partisan political disenfranchisement and system gaming.
If you want to call the mainly White Republican majorities the "Evil White Majority", I won't argue with you. We don't have to go back to slavery to find Republican oppression - Ohio 2004 was a pretty serious example, and there was probably another one this afternoon.
The fair redistricting would be independent of any party control. And with the trend towards nonpartisan registration/affiliation, there's little basis for fatalism about partisans monopolizing the districting. As the trend continues, accelerated by scams like gerrymandering, partisan registrations will eventually be the minority. Then there won't be the power to perpetuate partisan gerrymandering. The more prepared for that time we are with working plans, the sooner we'll get to implement them. And lock out that layer of partisan manipulation lest it rise again to control the country.
The only data more private than my DNA is my thoughts. I can't see why I would publish it.
I know that I leave DNA traces wherever I touch, and in an invisible cloud wherever I am. But sampling DNA expected to be private from public residue is at least debatable. Voluntarily publishing my complete genome, connected to my family data, seems worse than leaving my housekey hanging outside my door, or my bank PIN written on my local ATM.
Maybe there are system games to be had in rigging the postal grid on which the maps are drawn. There is already a legal system to allocate postal districts that is so far not influenced by any gains in gerrymandering. So first that system has to be nailed down to prevent its hijacking by gerrymandering endrunners. That phase would also iron out some likely latent problems in the postal "grid" itself, even in purely postal terms.
Why is leaving the districting in the hands of all the people equally, requiring their mutual association, a real problem? We could say the same about the election of officials within those districts. Democracy is not the most efficient way of selecting the best performing choice. But its deficiencies in "intelligence" are overcompensated by equity, and most importantly by buy in by the people who have to live with the results. The bigger half of government is consent of the governed. Government by the people is the key to government of the people, which is all government for the people.
OK, so you know a welfare cheat - unless you're wrong about her being crazy, and she really is unable to keep a job. You're wrong about corporate welfare: it's not designed to create jobs, it's designed to line executive pockets and perpetuate incumbent politicians, in a circular bribery racket.
You say
especially if you are from a race that the leftists think are born victims, such as anyone with dark skin
and then, when I call you on it with
I'm fascinated by how racist right-wingers denigrate the very word "folks" by using it to describe peoples they don't like (ie not their own).
you reply with
Where did racism come into this?
And when I ask
Do you have as much to say about rightwingers pumping $billions into corporate welfare (greater than individual welfare) and other wealth redistribution primarily to Republican states and their crony corporations?
You say
"corporate welfare" is at least designed to create jobs, while individual welfare is designed to keep you a ward of the state for life.
which not only promotes corporate welfare, but also ignores that America's welfare system was produced first by Clinton and 6 years of a Republican Congress, then revised and accepted by Bush and 6 more years of the Republican Congress in a party monopoly.
So I don't want to argue with you. Because it turns out that you're not that fascinating, after the initial marvel of an unsolicited racist not noticing their racism when called on it. I have nothing to learn from you, because your kind of willfully ignorant "Conservative" is a dime a dozen, even as you start to become scarce. We've got people with your hangups easier to study right here in NYC, though they're more funny than scary because they've already been appropriately scarce.
The best system for districting the US seems to me to be the one based on post offices. Each post office does define a community, especially in Federal services terms. It serves a small group of people who live very close, sharing mostly the same conditions other than those inside their private dwellings - which are also likely to be similar (and even homeless locals have the same access). It is the most common face of the Federal government, directly serving the community. And it already services election procedures like registration and delivery of election info.
I like the system where each person in a post office's service area (usually a ZIP code or two) selects the neighboring postal zones (up to the state border) to which they're most "connected" in order of "closeness" (as defined by the person selecting). Then all the responses are tabulated purely statistically to generate a map of the most interconnected regions, in a quantity equal to the number of representatives allowed in the state. There could be a second round to accommodate exceptions, like tiny islands (below some predetermined population size) or extremes of minimum/maximum populations in different districts, where the exceptional zones select their associations, as do the neighboring candidates for association to accept association with the exceptional zones.
We should choose our own fellow constituents who choose our mutual representatives. As long as the politicians themselves mediate the process with any discretion, the process will primarily serve them and their parties or other interest groups. We've got the stats and the sense of our neighbors to do it equitably and quickly. We should redistrict at least 10-20% of districts every odd-numbered year for reelection to the House of Representatives on the following year. After no more than a decade or two we should have equitable districts without a hasty conversion that will generate unmanageable sabotage from the existing order.
Competition creates minimum wages. The people create mandatory minimum wages to protect labor from exploitation. But all I did was ask why Americans couldn't compete with the Chinese, who are not governed by American minimum wages. Which has some real answers, not your confused shitstorm.
But you're such a stupid fucking shit that your terror of competition bleeds from your ragged brain. You can't see any question as anything but rhetorical, because you think you've got all the answers. Anonymous toilet Coward.
Americans won't see how obvious it is until the TV person to whom they've outsourced their political and moral judgements tells them over and over that they should be mad. But those corporate flacks are too busy telling them to be mad at Brittney and Paris to get around to the $60 TRILLION debt Bush has committed us to, or the $30 TRILLION other debt we've committed ourselves, business and personal, to. $100 TRILLION can be mentioned on TV only as leadin to "there's no way to understand it".
So it's easy enough to ignore it. Why not? The president is just the guy you'd like to have a beer with at a barbecue.
50M Americans voted for Bush twice, knowing either beforehand or pretty soon after that he was a disaster. But they were so stupid and evil to vote for him that they can't resist taking the easy way out and just pretend he's "almost gone".
Meanwhile, they're making it easy for the next president, probably a Democrat, to abuse all the Bush powers he created. Without taking blame for a perpetual (and profitable, to the "right" generous donors) Iraq, or any other obvious catastrophes. In other words, a "functional" tyranny that won't even have the talk we do now of impeachment.
And many Democratic voters think they shouldn't "rock the boat" because they're so sure the next president will be a Democrat whose Democratic Congress will make their own wildest dreams come true.
Meanwhile, party affiliation is headed for the biggest fraction to be nonpartisan by 2008. But more of those independents don't vote, without a party promotion machine or a media that reports on nonpartisan politics. However, by 2012, voting independents will likely have the power. And then we might actually impeach someone, if they piss off both parties enough.
What kind of a fool mods as "Troll" a post to which I had no idea what anyone would reply? TrollMods think they have all the answers, but they're all wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember the Marine Corps T-shirt that said "Kill 'em all... let god sort 'em out!"
They'll probably need to recharge their batteries rather than dedicate a lot of space to bigger ones.
When the Pentagon sends out little robots that feed on "battlefield casualty" bodies, we're all doomed.
Ah, but Sun promised they were factoring out the "Trusted" functionality of TS into a module with which OpenSolaris could be deployed.
A tall order, given how different TS and vanilla Solaris have been, but that's what Sun promised, over a year ago (delivery date in 2006Q4). Do you know if they delivered that? And how it could be used in a Debian Solaris, even if the TS components have to displace (or otherwise exclude) some GNU components? Which would require replacement with some GNU API and Trusted glue to allow apps dependent on the deprecated GNU components to work.
How about if AMD used its debt investments in new fabs in Germany and NY to accept outsourced fabrication for other companies it doesn't suffer from boosting? That would make a lot more sense than getting in debt to sell capital facilities at a loss of both investment and competitive control.
These analysts don't know anything. They just want every business to cut costs and debt while still producing the most revenue, for the most short-term profits, even if trying to do so is a stupid strategy that wrecks the company. When was the last time any published equities analyst was right about some surprising transformation of an industry leader? If they understood business strategy, they'd be running one, or privately advising one on equity development. These are people who can't even hold a job speculating in the market, so they try to make it speculating on the market.
Do you know what it would take to convert Nexenta to a "Trusted Solaris" with the GNU environment?
What would it take to run the OpenSolaris kernel instead of the Linux kernel in, say, a "Debian" OS? How much of the apps, including the rest of that "Debian Solaris", would have to be revised to use the OpenSolaris kernel? How much revision (to the apps or the Debian bundle) would be required to run OpenSolaris apps on that Debian Solaris?
Who cares why you flamed me? You're a stupid fucking shit. And you don't even know that I can't mod down a post in a thread in which I'm posting.
What a disgusting joke you are.
Political effectiveness, whether for the people or otherwise, depends on effectiveness of the politicians. And that politics, even to benefit the nonpolitician people, often depends on their politician opponents' ineffectiveness.
Like any competition, especially by proxy. Got it?
No, you are missing the point that the Y chromosome data is in fact distinct from most people, which is the essence of this service.
My attack was on your logic, which you persist in applying badly. And now your ability to read.
You infer, I did not imply.
I replied to a comment that said that "leftists" compensate for slavery by favoring Black people. The other context is your creation. Mine was not a reference to Republican history, but to current events - so not historically inaccurate.
Your Y chromosome might be identical to your 3x-great grandfather. But it's different from mine, or they couldn't tell us apart, or that we have different 3x-great grandfathers.
Privacy "fanatics"? I bet you voted for Bush because he was a "centrist uniter".
You privacy naifs are the ones who don't understand technology. We privacy advocates are the ones who want better tech to protect us from people who know enough to exploit us.
Like I said, if you have to go back to the 1860s, you're ignoring the oppression. Talking about these parties as if they're anything like their century and a half old incarnations is a convenient way to ignore their history of the past several generations, and the next years which that history predicts.
And I didn't say that oppressive White jackasses are a specific feature of one party. I said that the Republican Party is a party of oppressive White jackasses. Which even you have not been able to deny. And the Republican Party most certainly has an advantage in that composition, even if it's no monopoly.
Gerrymandering isn't nearly drawn to disproportionately represent minority ghettoes at the expense of everyone else. It's nearly always drawn to perpetuate the political party in power at the time of the redrawing. Especially in the past 10-20 years, that redistricting has favored Republican majorities. Most recently in Texas, gerrymandering has explored the depths of partisan political disenfranchisement and system gaming.
If you want to call the mainly White Republican majorities the "Evil White Majority", I won't argue with you. We don't have to go back to slavery to find Republican oppression - Ohio 2004 was a pretty serious example, and there was probably another one this afternoon.
The fair redistricting would be independent of any party control. And with the trend towards nonpartisan registration/affiliation, there's little basis for fatalism about partisans monopolizing the districting. As the trend continues, accelerated by scams like gerrymandering, partisan registrations will eventually be the minority. Then there won't be the power to perpetuate partisan gerrymandering. The more prepared for that time we are with working plans, the sooner we'll get to implement them. And lock out that layer of partisan manipulation lest it rise again to control the country.
The only data more private than my DNA is my thoughts. I can't see why I would publish it.
I know that I leave DNA traces wherever I touch, and in an invisible cloud wherever I am. But sampling DNA expected to be private from public residue is at least debatable. Voluntarily publishing my complete genome, connected to my family data, seems worse than leaving my housekey hanging outside my door, or my bank PIN written on my local ATM.
Sounds like Skinner's right, as usual. Just those lamebrained kids stuck in the past getting in the way of progress.
Or maybe we should redistrict in base 60.
Maybe there are system games to be had in rigging the postal grid on which the maps are drawn. There is already a legal system to allocate postal districts that is so far not influenced by any gains in gerrymandering. So first that system has to be nailed down to prevent its hijacking by gerrymandering endrunners. That phase would also iron out some likely latent problems in the postal "grid" itself, even in purely postal terms.
Why is leaving the districting in the hands of all the people equally, requiring their mutual association, a real problem? We could say the same about the election of officials within those districts. Democracy is not the most efficient way of selecting the best performing choice. But its deficiencies in "intelligence" are overcompensated by equity, and most importantly by buy in by the people who have to live with the results. The bigger half of government is consent of the governed. Government by the people is the key to government of the people, which is all government for the people.
Yes it is, though some effective politics depends on the ineffectiveness of your competition.
Giving up on politics only guarantees that those with the power will screw you without limit.
OK, now 1 second is 1 second long.
How insightful of you to notice that the redistricting plan I described would be that simple. But so much more effective.
You say
and then, when I call you on it with
you reply with
And when I ask
You say
which not only promotes corporate welfare, but also ignores that America's welfare system was produced first by Clinton and 6 years of a Republican Congress, then revised and accepted by Bush and 6 more years of the Republican Congress in a party monopoly.
So I don't want to argue with you. Because it turns out that you're not that fascinating, after the initial marvel of an unsolicited racist not noticing their racism when called on it. I have nothing to learn from you, because your kind of willfully ignorant "Conservative" is a dime a dozen, even as you start to become scarce. We've got people with your hangups easier to study right here in NYC, though they're more funny than scary because they've already been appropriately scarce.
The best system for districting the US seems to me to be the one based on post offices. Each post office does define a community, especially in Federal services terms. It serves a small group of people who live very close, sharing mostly the same conditions other than those inside their private dwellings - which are also likely to be similar (and even homeless locals have the same access). It is the most common face of the Federal government, directly serving the community. And it already services election procedures like registration and delivery of election info.
I like the system where each person in a post office's service area (usually a ZIP code or two) selects the neighboring postal zones (up to the state border) to which they're most "connected" in order of "closeness" (as defined by the person selecting). Then all the responses are tabulated purely statistically to generate a map of the most interconnected regions, in a quantity equal to the number of representatives allowed in the state. There could be a second round to accommodate exceptions, like tiny islands (below some predetermined population size) or extremes of minimum/maximum populations in different districts, where the exceptional zones select their associations, as do the neighboring candidates for association to accept association with the exceptional zones.
We should choose our own fellow constituents who choose our mutual representatives. As long as the politicians themselves mediate the process with any discretion, the process will primarily serve them and their parties or other interest groups. We've got the stats and the sense of our neighbors to do it equitably and quickly. We should redistrict at least 10-20% of districts every odd-numbered year for reelection to the House of Representatives on the following year. After no more than a decade or two we should have equitable districts without a hasty conversion that will generate unmanageable sabotage from the existing order.
Competition creates minimum wages. The people create mandatory minimum wages to protect labor from exploitation. But all I did was ask why Americans couldn't compete with the Chinese, who are not governed by American minimum wages. Which has some real answers, not your confused shitstorm.
But you're such a stupid fucking shit that your terror of competition bleeds from your ragged brain. You can't see any question as anything but rhetorical, because you think you've got all the answers. Anonymous toilet Coward.
Moderation 0
50% Insightful
50% Overrated
50M TrollMods can't be wrong, and 50M Democratic voters can't be right. This country's jokes write themselves.
Americans won't see how obvious it is until the TV person to whom they've outsourced their political and moral judgements tells them over and over that they should be mad. But those corporate flacks are too busy telling them to be mad at Brittney and Paris to get around to the $60 TRILLION debt Bush has committed us to, or the $30 TRILLION other debt we've committed ourselves, business and personal, to. $100 TRILLION can be mentioned on TV only as leadin to "there's no way to understand it".
So it's easy enough to ignore it. Why not? The president is just the guy you'd like to have a beer with at a barbecue.
50M Americans voted for Bush twice, knowing either beforehand or pretty soon after that he was a disaster. But they were so stupid and evil to vote for him that they can't resist taking the easy way out and just pretend he's "almost gone".
Meanwhile, they're making it easy for the next president, probably a Democrat, to abuse all the Bush powers he created. Without taking blame for a perpetual (and profitable, to the "right" generous donors) Iraq, or any other obvious catastrophes. In other words, a "functional" tyranny that won't even have the talk we do now of impeachment.
And many Democratic voters think they shouldn't "rock the boat" because they're so sure the next president will be a Democrat whose Democratic Congress will make their own wildest dreams come true.
Meanwhile, party affiliation is headed for the biggest fraction to be nonpartisan by 2008. But more of those independents don't vote, without a party promotion machine or a media that reports on nonpartisan politics. However, by 2012, voting independents will likely have the power. And then we might actually impeach someone, if they piss off both parties enough.
Moderation -1
100% Troll
What kind of a fool mods as "Troll" a post to which I had no idea what anyone would reply? TrollMods think they have all the answers, but they're all wrong.