It's one of the few langauges you can walk away from to get a soda, come back, and have no idea what you were doing...:)
Haven't I seen this before?
on
Is UNIX An OS?
·
· Score: 5
Last time I saw this kinda thing, it was the same arguements - that Unix wasn't an OS because it wasn't bloated all to hell with stuff that I consider optional in a computer, but that he considers mandatory.
Of course, that's not saying that I'm right either. Stuff I consider mandatory in an OS may be optional as far as other are concerned. After all, as one of the graphics freaks, I think CMYK and Pantone support should be part of the base system, but others would disagree.
An OS is, and should be, what a computer needs to work. It doesn't need Internet support, so that isn't part of an OS. Sure, it's nice, and most people are going to add it right away, but it's hardly necessary. Whereas memory management, device handling (drives, vidio, printers), etc, are required.
(1) The US was founded by a bunch of people furious over taxation without representation, among other things. That's what you're talking about. Simply taking money from the rich because they have it and you can "vote it away" is a sort of tyranny of the masses which essentially violates people's right to own property.
Point here. The taxation without representation was, IIRC, less than 1/2 of one percent.
Now, with representation, I pay about 22.9 percent...
I don't know about you, but going back to no representation looks awfully good at times!:)
I can't remember where I heard this, but it was a few years back... Heck, I'm not even sure it's true, but it's funny.:)
When one group of settlers was looking for a place to build their town, they asked a local Indian tribe about what they thought was a fairly good area across a nearby river.
The Indians told them that they did not want to live there; that land was cursed.
The settlers, of course, ignored this advice, and built there anyway.
That was Nashville, the home of country music, which is obviously the curse the Indians spoke of...:)
OK, computer basics, lesson #1: PC is a hardware platform, Linux is an operating system. Replace 'PC' with 'Win9x', and you'll be right.
Yeah, that's what I get for posting to/.-politics before the tech stuff. Must reboot brain. Thankfully, I didn't load any crappy MS products so it will be pretty quick...:)
Why would a techie support Gore? I like this planet. Bush is beholden to big oil for his campaign chest, so he won't look at any energy source the oil companies can't somehow control.
Gore has money in 'big oil' as well. However, he seems willing to ignore that, as he has repeatedly called for an increase in gas taxes.
Under Reagan and Bush the deficit soared. Under Clinton and Gore it is going down. This keeps the economy booming.
Why are presidents always given the credit/blame for the work of others?
Please remember that the House of Representatives writes the budget, the president has some say in it, but quite often things are included that he doesn't like. The House, during the Reagan/Bush years was predominantly Democrat; thus they are primarily responsible for the huge deficits generated during those years. Yes, the president could have vetoed the budgetary package, but there is no guarentee what would have been returned afterwards would have been any better.
Clinton and Gore have had to deal with a predominantly Republican House and Senate, and under them the defecit has gone down, and indeed, a surplus is projected.
But I don't quite get the point. See, I don't keep up with all the Linux stuff, but are there really any games out there that have been released for Linux that aren't on the PC already?
Is a game produced in this manner more 'stable' than the same game straight for the PC?
And would this count as a Linux 'emulator'?
It is extremely unlikely that the candidates, or at least Bush, really wrote those statements.
Agreed. Or rather, I think that they wrote them, just that someone else told them what to write. The difference is, Gore has always come across to me as someone who thinks he knows everything, whereas Bush is like Reagan in that he knows what he doesn't know, so he gets good people to help him. (Cheney for foreign policy, for instance.)
I find it highly unlikely that the Governer knows what peer-to-peer file sharing means.
Agreed, but I don't think Gore would necessarily know what it is either. Bush, at least, had someone nearby to explain what the whole issue was.
Both of them conveniently ignore the RIAA, MPAA, and other huge lobbying organizations.
Of course they did... There is still possibly a donation there....
Essentially, they organize it in two axis-- personal and economic "self-governance". They are, not coincidentally, the virtuous maximum point on both scales, according to themselves. They also come out as being "dead center".
Er, which is it? Is it "the maximum point on both scales" or is it "dead center"??
What he's trying to say is that while they consider themselves to be at the top, their poll/survey defines where you are in relation to their views. They place themselves at the center for convienence.... Mostly theirs.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a libertarian. With that said...
Even the Scientology personality test looks scientific in comparison to the Libertarian's little test.
Now that's harsh... I didn't see a single potentiameter (sp?) on the Libertarian site.:) (Happy little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!)
Sorry. Couldn't help that. That was a dig at the El Ronners, for those who didn't know.
They are, not coincidentally, the virtuous maximum point on both scales, according to themselves.
This comes as a surprise? Most, if not all, political organizations think that they are the best. A few admit that they could do better, but they all say that the opposition is wrong.
They also come out as being "dead center".
Well, they are defining things in relation to their own position, so where would you have them put themselves?
Also, note how their diamond graph excludes ideologies from the political landscape. The most blatant exclusions is anarchists, who believe in maximizing personal and economic self-government, but reject capitalism as counter to these goals.
Well, they are defining other political/governmental models to their own. Since anarchists don't want any government at all, where would you put them? (We'll just ignore the fact that there are as many, if not more flavours of anarchists as there are other type of political theorists.)
This is self-evidently stupid, prejudiced and self-serving.
I'll agree with the self-serving part. Of course it's self serving... It's their test. Did you honestly think it wouldn't be?
Most political polls are selve serving, as they are usually run by an agency with some sort of agenda.
Now, Gore and Nader both subscribe to what can be loosely described as 'liberal' policies.
That just might be the most clueless statement I've ever heard. You apparently have no idea WHAT a liberal is.
Sorry, I should have written that as 'liberal' social policies.
Democrats have traditionally been described as liberals and on the left, politically, and Republicans as conservatives, and on the right.
With that in mind, Nader is left of Gore, who is left of Bush, who is left of Buchannan.
Yes, Bush and Gore are both fairly middle of the road; they have to be to have a chance at winning a national election.
Just because they differ on non-issues like abortion
*sigh* Abortion may be a 'non-issue' to you, but to many people out there, liberal and conservative alike, it is an issue.
The fact that the Gun Rack crowd here is trotting out the Communist epithet against Nader means that he's different; he is certainly NOT a liberal in the Rush Limbaugh-sense of the word.
Well, let's face it. Most of the conservatives aren't taking the Nader bid seriously, as it isn't hurting them. He's going to get anywhere from 3 to 9 (higher in Berkeley, CA) percent of the vote, mostly from those who would have voted for Gore. It's actually in their best interest to have him around.
Conversely, the same isn't true for Buchanan. His statements and views have managed to alienate half of his own party, and are only going to draw those from the extreme right.
Actually, he suggested cutting some fairly big ticket items, such as the Agriculture, certain chucks of foreign affairs, Social Security (through means tests) and the National Guard. Plus a bunch of stuff I can't remember off the top of my head. It was by no means a 'fair' cut, but it was, as he described, fun.
The test he used was 'Would you kill your saintly, grey-haired grandmother for this government program?"
Some things passed, such as National Defense (we need someone to protect us from those Canadian Hordes waiting to invade and force us to eat funny round bacon), and others didn't, such as National Parks (under the idea that people who can afford Winnabegos can afford park fees).
The entire essay, and in fact, the entire book, is extremely tongue in cheek. Not for the faint of mind.:)
how can votes for 1 candidate hurt another? The way I see it this can only be because there is a choice of 2 parties, and all other parties weaseled their way into the political system.
Ok, first of all, while the American political system is refered to as a 'two-party' system, there are actually more than that. It's just that there are two major parties that pretty much control everything.
Now, as how Nader takes votes away from Gore...
Since most people who actually vote will select one of the two major party candidates, they can be divided into the groups of "those who will vote for Gore" and "those who will vote for Bush".
The introduction of a third (or more) candidate will take votes from one of these two camps, as members of that camp decide that this candidate fits their views better than the "mainstream" candidate.
Now, Gore and Nader both subscribe to what can be loosely described as 'liberal' policies. Thus, while Nader might pull a few votes from the Bush camp, the vast majority of people voting for him will have been pulled from the Gore camp.
The same thing, although probably in a far lesser manner, will happen with Buchannan concerning the Bush camp.
Surely Ralph knows that federal law prohibits the use of the SSN as an identifier for any purpose other than Social Security benefits? Surely he knows this law is completely disregarded? Surely he's not proposing more legislation instead of enforcing the laws we already have?
You sure about that law still being on the books?
The reason I ask is because while my father's Social Security Card has a disclaimer saying it can't be used for ID purposes, mine does not.
Now, the government being what it is, they wouldn't have changed the cards unless the law changed, allowing them to be used for identifcation purposes.
Ummm, are you aware that the Green Party was the Communist Party a few years back?
Having seen what that political system did to the people, economy, and environment of Russia and Eastern Europe, I don't plan on voting for anyone endorsed by that party...
The US is the only major country that doesn't run off of a coalition government. Practically all the power is held by the 'two major' parties, which have gotten so expansive that they have their own factions.
Fairly soon, probably within the next decade, these factions will crystalize, fragmenting these two parties, and we will finally have a multiparty system.
Slashdot Mirror
Lisp kills brain cells.
:)
It's one of the few langauges you can walk away from to get a soda, come back, and have no idea what you were doing...
Last time I saw this kinda thing, it was the same arguements - that Unix wasn't an OS because it wasn't bloated all to hell with stuff that I consider optional in a computer, but that he considers mandatory.
Of course, that's not saying that I'm right either. Stuff I consider mandatory in an OS may be optional as far as other are concerned. After all, as one of the graphics freaks, I think CMYK and Pantone support should be part of the base system, but others would disagree.
An OS is, and should be, what a computer needs to work. It doesn't need Internet support, so that isn't part of an OS. Sure, it's nice, and most people are going to add it right away, but it's hardly necessary. Whereas memory management, device handling (drives, vidio, printers), etc, are required.
Right. It all comes down to who decides what is obscene. Or as Tom Lehrer said in 1965:
All books can be indecent books,
The recent books are bolder.
For filth, I'm glad to say,
Is in the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
And the Wizard of Oz, he's a dirty old man!
- Smut, Tom Lehrer
and his wife Tipper is even worse. True, she won't have any real power if Gore is elected, but she will have way too much pull.
Kinda like Hillary had no power?
(1) The US was founded by a bunch of people furious over taxation without representation, among other things. That's what you're talking about. Simply taking money from the rich because they have it and you can "vote it away" is a sort of tyranny of the masses which essentially violates people's right to own property.
:)
Point here. The taxation without representation was, IIRC, less than 1/2 of one percent.
Now, with representation, I pay about 22.9 percent...
I don't know about you, but going back to no representation looks awfully good at times!
Gore applied the question to Tennessee
:)
:)
I can't remember where I heard this, but it was a few years back... Heck, I'm not even sure it's true, but it's funny.
When one group of settlers was looking for a place to build their town, they asked a local Indian tribe about what they thought was a fairly good area across a nearby river.
The Indians told them that they did not want to live there; that land was cursed.
The settlers, of course, ignored this advice, and built there anyway.
That was Nashville, the home of country music, which is obviously the curse the Indians spoke of...
Some company uses this to search for prior art for their own stuff? Seems to me it might be cheaper than highering a couple of patent lawyers...
OK, computer basics, lesson #1: PC is a hardware platform, Linux is an operating system. Replace 'PC' with 'Win9x', and you'll be right.
/.-politics before the tech stuff. Must reboot brain. Thankfully, I didn't load any crappy MS products so it will be pretty quick... :)
Yeah, that's what I get for posting to
Why would a techie support Gore? I like this planet. Bush is beholden to big oil for his campaign chest, so he won't look at any energy source the oil companies can't somehow control.
Gore has money in 'big oil' as well. However, he seems willing to ignore that, as he has repeatedly called for an increase in gas taxes.
Under Reagan and Bush the deficit soared. Under Clinton and Gore it is going down. This keeps the economy booming.
Why are presidents always given the credit/blame for the work of others?
Please remember that the House of Representatives writes the budget, the president has some say in it, but quite often things are included that he doesn't like. The House, during the Reagan/Bush years was predominantly Democrat; thus they are primarily responsible for the huge deficits generated during those years. Yes, the president could have vetoed the budgetary package, but there is no guarentee what would have been returned afterwards would have been any better.
Clinton and Gore have had to deal with a predominantly Republican House and Senate, and under them the defecit has gone down, and indeed, a surplus is projected.
But I don't quite get the point. See, I don't keep up with all the Linux stuff, but are there really any games out there that have been released for Linux that aren't on the PC already?
Is a game produced in this manner more 'stable' than the same game straight for the PC?
And would this count as a Linux 'emulator'?
It is extremely unlikely that the candidates, or at least Bush, really wrote those statements.
Agreed. Or rather, I think that they wrote them, just that someone else told them what to write. The difference is, Gore has always come across to me as someone who thinks he knows everything, whereas Bush is like Reagan in that he knows what he doesn't know, so he gets good people to help him. (Cheney for foreign policy, for instance.)
I find it highly unlikely that the Governer knows what peer-to-peer file sharing means.
Agreed, but I don't think Gore would necessarily know what it is either. Bush, at least, had someone nearby to explain what the whole issue was.
Both of them conveniently ignore the RIAA, MPAA, and other huge lobbying organizations.
Of course they did... There is still possibly a donation there....
Essentially, they organize it in two axis-- personal and economic "self-governance". They are, not coincidentally, the virtuous maximum point on both scales, according to themselves. They also come out as being "dead center".
Er, which is it? Is it "the maximum point on both scales" or is it "dead center"??
What he's trying to say is that while they consider themselves to be at the top, their poll/survey defines where you are in relation to their views. They place themselves at the center for convienence.... Mostly theirs.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a libertarian. With that said...
:)
Even the Scientology personality test looks scientific in comparison to the Libertarian's little test.
Now that's harsh... I didn't see a single potentiameter (sp?) on the Libertarian site.
(Happy little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!)
Sorry. Couldn't help that. That was a dig at the El Ronners, for those who didn't know.
They are, not coincidentally, the virtuous maximum point on both scales, according to themselves.
This comes as a surprise? Most, if not all, political organizations think that they are the best. A few admit that they could do better, but they all say that the opposition is wrong.
They also come out as being "dead center".
Well, they are defining things in relation to their own position, so where would you have them put themselves?
Also, note how their diamond graph excludes ideologies from the political landscape. The most blatant exclusions is anarchists, who believe in maximizing personal and economic self-government, but reject capitalism as counter to these goals.
Well, they are defining other political/governmental models to their own. Since anarchists don't want any government at all, where would you put them? (We'll just ignore the fact that there are as many, if not more flavours of anarchists as there are other type of political theorists.)
This is self-evidently stupid, prejudiced and self-serving.
I'll agree with the self-serving part. Of course it's self serving... It's their test. Did you honestly think it wouldn't be?
Most political polls are selve serving, as they are usually run by an agency with some sort of agenda.
You had upper case letters? I would have loved to have had letters, I had to make do with holes in punch cards.
:)
Punch cards? You had punch cards? We had to carve holes in sheets of slate!
Now, Gore and Nader both subscribe to what can be loosely described as 'liberal' policies.
That just might be the most clueless statement I've ever heard. You apparently have no idea WHAT a liberal is.
Sorry, I should have written that as 'liberal' social policies.
Democrats have traditionally been described as liberals and on the left, politically, and Republicans as conservatives, and on the right.
With that in mind, Nader is left of Gore, who is left of Bush, who is left of Buchannan.
Yes, Bush and Gore are both fairly middle of the road; they have to be to have a chance at winning a national election.
Just because they differ on non-issues like abortion
*sigh* Abortion may be a 'non-issue' to you, but to many people out there, liberal and conservative alike, it is an issue.
The fact that the Gun Rack crowd here is trotting out the Communist epithet against Nader means that he's different; he is certainly NOT a liberal in the Rush Limbaugh-sense of the word.
Well, let's face it. Most of the conservatives aren't taking the Nader bid seriously, as it isn't hurting them. He's going to get anywhere from 3 to 9 (higher in Berkeley, CA) percent of the vote, mostly from those who would have voted for Gore. It's actually in their best interest to have him around.
Conversely, the same isn't true for Buchanan. His statements and views have managed to alienate half of his own party, and are only going to draw those from the extreme right.
Hello?!? I don't know where these graduates get their new math, but where do these flunkies get off saying, "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush"?
Because the people who would vote for Nader would probably vote for Gore if Nader were not in the race.
For example, without Nader, the vote could be split in a given state by 52% Gore vs 48% Bush.
However, when you add Nader to the mix, it becomes 47% Gore vs 48% Bush vs 5% Nader.
Again, this is because Nader is drawing his voting block from people who would otherwise select Gore.
Actually, he suggested cutting some fairly big ticket items, such as the Agriculture, certain chucks of foreign affairs, Social Security (through means tests) and the National Guard. Plus a bunch of stuff I can't remember off the top of my head. It was by no means a 'fair' cut, but it was, as he described, fun.
:)
The test he used was 'Would you kill your saintly, grey-haired grandmother for this government program?"
Some things passed, such as National Defense (we need someone to protect us from those Canadian Hordes waiting to invade and force us to eat funny round bacon), and others didn't, such as National Parks (under the idea that people who can afford Winnabegos can afford park fees).
The entire essay, and in fact, the entire book, is extremely tongue in cheek. Not for the faint of mind.
She's a known deadhead
:)
Actually, Al's the one who listened to the Dead...
Tipper's the one who formed the PMRC after catching her daughter listening to a Prince song.
Of course, Frank Zappa effectively shut that down...
Read PJ O'Rourke's book "Parliment of Whores". He's got a lot of this kinda stuff in there in the budget section.
I trust NecroPuppy can't really believe this.
The part about the ecological and economic damage that socialist polcies did to Eastern Europe, yes, I believe.
The Green Party was the Communist party part was told to me by a Gore supporter, on of the few truely liberal people I know.
how can votes for 1 candidate hurt another? The way I see it this can only be because there is a choice of 2 parties, and all other parties weaseled their way into the political system.
Ok, first of all, while the American political system is refered to as a 'two-party' system, there are actually more than that. It's just that there are two major parties that pretty much control everything.
Now, as how Nader takes votes away from Gore...
Since most people who actually vote will select one of the two major party candidates, they can be divided into the groups of "those who will vote for Gore" and "those who will vote for Bush".
The introduction of a third (or more) candidate will take votes from one of these two camps, as members of that camp decide that this candidate fits their views better than the "mainstream" candidate.
Now, Gore and Nader both subscribe to what can be loosely described as 'liberal' policies. Thus, while Nader might pull a few votes from the Bush camp, the vast majority of people voting for him will have been pulled from the Gore camp.
The same thing, although probably in a far lesser manner, will happen with Buchannan concerning the Bush camp.
Hope that helps.
Surely Ralph knows that federal law prohibits the use of the SSN as an identifier for any purpose other than Social Security benefits? Surely he knows this law is completely disregarded? Surely he's not proposing more legislation instead of enforcing the laws we already have?
You sure about that law still being on the books?
The reason I ask is because while my father's Social Security Card has a disclaimer saying it can't be used for ID purposes, mine does not.
Now, the government being what it is, they wouldn't have changed the cards unless the law changed, allowing them to be used for identifcation purposes.
Ummm, are you aware that the Green Party was the Communist Party a few years back?
Having seen what that political system did to the people, economy, and environment of Russia and Eastern Europe, I don't plan on voting for anyone endorsed by that party...
The US is the only major country that doesn't run off of a coalition government. Practically all the power is held by the 'two major' parties, which have gotten so expansive that they have their own factions.
Fairly soon, probably within the next decade, these factions will crystalize, fragmenting these two parties, and we will finally have a multiparty system.
Won't be soon enough for me.
Anyone besides me read Tom Clancy?
In one of his books, one of the characters mentions a solution that would probably work rather well...
Punish the drug users, particularly the middle and upper class ones, through shame. Make them do community service, cleaning streets, parks, etc.
If you make using drugs less 'fun', then people stop doing them. And that would drive the dealers out of business faster than anything.
Of course, this probably makes too much sense to actually be implemented.