Go read Freakonomics. While you do need to spend some amount of money to win an election, and while that money is probably somewhere above the one dollar range, outspending your opponent will not cause you to win the election.
It sounds real good as an excuse for the loser, but it's simply not true.
Do not confuse correlation with causation. The amount of money spent on a campaign is correlated somewhat to the odds of winning a campaign, but it is not the cause. Popular candidates win. Popular candidates manage to raise more money. People are hesitant to donate to a losing candidate, even one they otherwise support.
With the nomination of Alito the White House has asked all the conservative blogs out there for their help in shaping public opinion.
Wow. I didn't get that memo. Usually I get all my talking points from Georgie, but not this one. I wonder if I've fallen out of grace with Rush? While I did get the memo from Bush telling all us conservative bloggers to vociferously criticize Meiers, I simply do not recall the latest one telling us to shape public opinion around Alito. I'm checking my in-box now... Nope, not there.
Could you please forward me that memo? Or at the minimum provide a link to objective evidence that there ever was such a memo or order or command from the White House?
Imagine this bill wasn't about the internet, but about newspapers. Now let's rewrite that quote:
"The New York Times wrote in an editorial this week that "newsprint would become a free-fire zone without any limits on spending."
Why are blogs persecuted, but newspapers are not? What's to keep some Evil Republican from buying up the front pages of every newspaper Murdoch owns? Dammit, it's time we repealed the first ammendement! Think of the children!
There's a popular concept in America that money shouldn't win elections
Actually, money doesn't win elections in America. That's why we didn't get Perot as President. It's why Forbes didn't get the nomination.
Correlation does not imply causation. Read "Freakonomics". It covers this specifically in one section, and shows you the statistics. Money is not the cause of winning elections.
That's reason number 6 that I use FreeBSD instead of Linux. Most Linux distros and nearly all of Linux groupthink are geared towards the newbie or non-technical person. There is a balance to be made between the newbie and the expert, but too many distros are leaning way too far towards the newbie. In some cases this is deliberate, in other cases it's a side effect of one-size-fits-all thinking.
It's not the only reason I use FreeBSD, but it is nice to be able to use a system that isn't beholden to the whims of newbies. McDonalds is mainstrea. Budweiser and Coors are mainstream. Windows is mainstream. I don't want a mainstream OS.
Unix (and Linux) are like Perl. They give you more than one way to do something. But GUI of OSX keeps trying to channel you into one direction. For a lot of people that's perfect. But it's not for everyone. Computers are very complicated beasts, and hiding the complexity behind a simplistic interface doesn't make that complexity go away.
I'm sorry, I must have missed that announcement. I guess if you're going to saddle yourself with a runtime environment, you might as well have the runtime do all the work. But since C++ doesn't have a runtime environment I have to make the application do the work of the application.
Instead of using Widgets (or Forms or Windows), a framework could use a Container instead. In Qt terms, it could be a layout manager with a pure generic list of widgets residing in it. You would never need to subclass anything, just "drop" your widgets in the container. But what's the point? What practical benefit do you gain?
When I compare the "correctness" of GNUstep to the "practicality" of KDE, I'm going to put my money on the practicality.
Speaking from Qt Designer experience. The "Form" class needs to be subclassed, because you are EXTENDING it. You ARE adding functionality. You can't make a calculator app without at least thirteen buttons and a view window. You could make a generic collection class widget, but *somewhere* something has to deal with those fifteen collected widgets. Something has to deal with the events/signals from the buttons and something has to deal with updating the view. Something has to connect the buttons to the viewport. I don't know what handles this stuff in GORM, but something MUST be handling it. Why not simply do it in the collecting widget? Thus, the need to extend the Form class.
This is not an onerous way of doing things. It's quite simple actually. In fact, it's trivial. And lo and behold! The Form class the only damned thing you need to subclass!
"Extreme benefit"? Please define. The purpose of taxation is to fund the government, not to redistribute wealth or otherwise engineer society. A flat tax is a fair tax. Period. If you don't want the poor burdened with a tax liability, simply but in a flat standard deduction. In other words, help the poor, don't punish the rich.
I know it's not. I was just being facetious. My point was that if I don't have a problem with it in too-hard-for-mortals-to-use FreeBSD, then it shouldn't be a problem with one-click-to-install-and-configure EZLinuxDistro.
This prevents the OO-mocking approach of subclassing a Window class just to create your own instance--something that always makes me laugh but is ubiquitous in the Windows world and has been blindly copied by KDE and GNOME.
Okay, your object persistance model of development is interesting. But your last point is dead wrong. You don't have to subclass a class to instantiate it. That's stupid. No wonder you hate C++ if you think you have to do that.
I don't have to subclass a Button class to create a button. I merely declare one. Just like <gasp> Smalltalk and <gasp> Objective C, I only need to subclass when I need to extend the base class in certain ways.
I get the feeling that the vast majority of people on slashdot are computer geeks with no social skills, hence the inability to get a joke.
GNU has a very poor sense of humour. GNU takes everything way too seriously. GNUstep is a GNU project. Hence the assumption that it was not a deliberate attempt at humour.
Not really. While it is the "official" window manager of the GNUstep project, it itself does NOT use GNUstep, Objective C, or GORM. It is a standard X11 window manager written in plain old-fashioned C. Once GNUstep gets their own Object-C/GNUstep window manager, they'll drop WindowMaker as fast as GNOME dropped Enlightenment.
Maybe it's just a Linux problem, because the OpenOffice 2.0 on my FreeBSD/KDE workstation looks identical to the OpenOffice 2.0 on my Windows workstation. Including the fonts.
XFCE didn't copy Windows. It copied CDE. Most people think it's original because they've never seen CDE or they've never seen XFCE without a GTK theme.
He who uses it pays for it. I see nothing wrong with SBC/AT&T charging people for the use of their pipes. In fact, the spam problem wouldn't be nearly so bad if spammers actually had to pay for the bandwidth they used.
But Google isn't the user in this case. Whoever is accessing Google is. The idea that I should pay SBC for serving up my website to an SBC customer is repugnant to me. This is not the AT&T telephone network, it's the internet. It is the SBC user who is initiating the connection and all data transfers.
So appointing a judge that will respect someone's legal rights is justified, isn't it?
Not if those legal rights are not justified. Otherwise it would have been okay for nineteenth century judges to respect nineteenth century slaveowners legal rights.
Slashdot Mirror
[patiently waiting]
Go read Freakonomics. While you do need to spend some amount of money to win an election, and while that money is probably somewhere above the one dollar range, outspending your opponent will not cause you to win the election.
It sounds real good as an excuse for the loser, but it's simply not true.
Do not confuse correlation with causation. The amount of money spent on a campaign is correlated somewhat to the odds of winning a campaign, but it is not the cause. Popular candidates win. Popular candidates manage to raise more money. People are hesitant to donate to a losing candidate, even one they otherwise support.
Karl Rove of course!
With the nomination of Alito the White House has asked all the conservative blogs out there for their help in shaping public opinion.
Wow. I didn't get that memo. Usually I get all my talking points from Georgie, but not this one. I wonder if I've fallen out of grace with Rush? While I did get the memo from Bush telling all us conservative bloggers to vociferously criticize Meiers, I simply do not recall the latest one telling us to shape public opinion around Alito. I'm checking my in-box now... Nope, not there.
Could you please forward me that memo? Or at the minimum provide a link to objective evidence that there ever was such a memo or order or command from the White House?
Obviously the Democrats paid you to write that. I think I should make a phone call to the FEC and have them audit you.
Imagine this bill wasn't about the internet, but about newspapers. Now let's rewrite that quote:
"The New York Times wrote in an editorial this week that "newsprint would become a free-fire zone without any limits on spending."
Why are blogs persecuted, but newspapers are not? What's to keep some Evil Republican from buying up the front pages of every newspaper Murdoch owns? Dammit, it's time we repealed the first ammendement! Think of the children!
There's a popular concept in America that money shouldn't win elections
Actually, money doesn't win elections in America. That's why we didn't get Perot as President. It's why Forbes didn't get the nomination.
Correlation does not imply causation. Read "Freakonomics". It covers this specifically in one section, and shows you the statistics. Money is not the cause of winning elections.
That's reason number 6 that I use FreeBSD instead of Linux. Most Linux distros and nearly all of Linux groupthink are geared towards the newbie or non-technical person. There is a balance to be made between the newbie and the expert, but too many distros are leaning way too far towards the newbie. In some cases this is deliberate, in other cases it's a side effect of one-size-fits-all thinking.
It's not the only reason I use FreeBSD, but it is nice to be able to use a system that isn't beholden to the whims of newbies. McDonalds is mainstrea. Budweiser and Coors are mainstream. Windows is mainstream. I don't want a mainstream OS.
Unix (and Linux) are like Perl. They give you more than one way to do something. But GUI of OSX keeps trying to channel you into one direction. For a lot of people that's perfect. But it's not for everyone. Computers are very complicated beasts, and hiding the complexity behind a simplistic interface doesn't make that complexity go away.
It's a more "correct" way of doing things
I'm sorry, I must have missed that announcement. I guess if you're going to saddle yourself with a runtime environment, you might as well have the runtime do all the work. But since C++ doesn't have a runtime environment I have to make the application do the work of the application.
Instead of using Widgets (or Forms or Windows), a framework could use a Container instead. In Qt terms, it could be a layout manager with a pure generic list of widgets residing in it. You would never need to subclass anything, just "drop" your widgets in the container. But what's the point? What practical benefit do you gain?
When I compare the "correctness" of GNUstep to the "practicality" of KDE, I'm going to put my money on the practicality.
Speaking from Qt Designer experience. The "Form" class needs to be subclassed, because you are EXTENDING it. You ARE adding functionality. You can't make a calculator app without at least thirteen buttons and a view window. You could make a generic collection class widget, but *somewhere* something has to deal with those fifteen collected widgets. Something has to deal with the events/signals from the buttons and something has to deal with updating the view. Something has to connect the buttons to the viewport. I don't know what handles this stuff in GORM, but something MUST be handling it. Why not simply do it in the collecting widget? Thus, the need to extend the Form class.
This is not an onerous way of doing things. It's quite simple actually. In fact, it's trivial. And lo and behold! The Form class the only damned thing you need to subclass!
"Extreme benefit"? Please define. The purpose of taxation is to fund the government, not to redistribute wealth or otherwise engineer society. A flat tax is a fair tax. Period. If you don't want the poor burdened with a tax liability, simply but in a flat standard deduction. In other words, help the poor, don't punish the rich.
It's not a Linux problem, either. Not really.
I know it's not. I was just being facetious. My point was that if I don't have a problem with it in too-hard-for-mortals-to-use FreeBSD, then it shouldn't be a problem with one-click-to-install-and-configure EZLinuxDistro.
This prevents the OO-mocking approach of subclassing a Window class just to create your own instance--something that always makes me laugh but is ubiquitous in the Windows world and has been blindly copied by KDE and GNOME.
Okay, your object persistance model of development is interesting. But your last point is dead wrong. You don't have to subclass a class to instantiate it. That's stupid. No wonder you hate C++ if you think you have to do that.
I don't have to subclass a Button class to create a button. I merely declare one. Just like <gasp> Smalltalk and <gasp> Objective C, I only need to subclass when I need to extend the base class in certain ways.
I get the feeling that the vast majority of people on slashdot are computer geeks with no social skills, hence the inability to get a joke.
GNU has a very poor sense of humour. GNU takes everything way too seriously. GNUstep is a GNU project. Hence the assumption that it was not a deliberate attempt at humour.
the StepTalk one demonstrate a creation of a simple calculator *entirely* in Gorm
BFD. I can do the same thing entirely in Qt Designer.
Precisely. If you wanted an pervasively object oriented desktop for *users*, OS/2 Warp was it. But just like NeXT, the customer wanted something else.
WindowMaker was also a GNUStep project
Not really. While it is the "official" window manager of the GNUstep project, it itself does NOT use GNUstep, Objective C, or GORM. It is a standard X11 window manager written in plain old-fashioned C. Once GNUstep gets their own Object-C/GNUstep window manager, they'll drop WindowMaker as fast as GNOME dropped Enlightenment.
Interesting is, that the application could never be done in C++, check out why.
There's no bigot like a language bigot. Qt/C++ does everything GORM/ObjC does. But since it isn't GORM/ObjC, it of course doesn't count.
Maybe it's just a Linux problem, because the OpenOffice 2.0 on my FreeBSD/KDE workstation looks identical to the OpenOffice 2.0 on my Windows workstation. Including the fonts.
XFCE didn't copy Windows. It copied CDE. Most people think it's original because they've never seen CDE or they've never seen XFCE without a GTK theme.
This is Slashdot, where rule #3 says "All evil is caused by George W. Bush."
He who uses it pays for it. I see nothing wrong with SBC/AT&T charging people for the use of their pipes. In fact, the spam problem wouldn't be nearly so bad if spammers actually had to pay for the bandwidth they used.
But Google isn't the user in this case. Whoever is accessing Google is. The idea that I should pay SBC for serving up my website to an SBC customer is repugnant to me. This is not the AT&T telephone network, it's the internet. It is the SBC user who is initiating the connection and all data transfers.
So appointing a judge that will respect someone's legal rights is justified, isn't it?
Not if those legal rights are not justified. Otherwise it would have been okay for nineteenth century judges to respect nineteenth century slaveowners legal rights.
If it's a law that they can't, then of course it's political. Duh.