Polipundit.com, a Republican leaning blog has been promoting Dean as the candidate they want the Democrats to run.
Back in June, 2003 they told readers to donate to Dean. http://www.polipundit.com/2003_06_15_polipu ndit_ar chive.html#200428465
I don't know what to make of it, not sure what impact this has had. The right-wing media has been given marching orders to talk about Dean's inevitable nomination, because apparently that's who the GOP wants to run against.
"Actually the Democrats have more money from large organizations such as unions and PACs than any other party. Truth be known the Republicans have more small donations."
No, it's not at all true, and I have facts to back up my argument... http://www.opensecrets.org/presidenti al/donordems. asp
The impact of unions and PACs has been negated by the McCain-Feingold prohibition against soft money donations to candidates and parties.
Can you tell us what school you went to, so we can avoid it? Thinking mySQL is a "Real Database" is worse than teaching relational database concepts on Access.
The big mistake of Gore detractors is that they keep trying to claim Gore said something he didn't.
The fact is that Gore did take the initiative in creating the Internet as we know it today by sponsoring a bill that funded it's expansion in the US college system in 1986.
You go back and read interviews with Vint Cerf and other fathers of the Internet and they agree that Al Gore was the only legislator who was taking them seriously and was interested in helping them.
"The ICC has already shown its true colors in attempting to charge various U.S. citizens for "warcrimes" in the U.S.-led action in Iraq - exactly to what advantage of the U.S. citizen is it if the U.S. would need to subjucate itself to such a body before taking actions it feels are necessary for its defense? Mother-May-I was a stupid children's game in the fist place - a sovereign nation certainly sholdn't play it. "
Absolutely.
Now if only the invasion of Iraq had had something to do with America's defense.
"Changing your position when it suits you is intellectually dishonest and is known as hypocrisy. Have the balls to hold your position. "
Ok, I firmly believe that the UN should be engaged in both Iraq and the Internet.
"The UN has no business in anything. "
The UN provides the basis for International Law, the ability for countries to come together and formulate treaties explaining how they shall treat one another. I see no other UN involvement in the Internet other than that, but it is a necessary level created by Globalization of our world economies.
UN involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq, primarily in regards to humanitarian and civic services would have given credibility to the US occupation. Unfortunately now as the coalition falls apart, it's looking more and more like a US Imperialist excursion, which is the last thing we needed for US foreign policy.
"Intelligent people can look at their track record and come to the conclusion that they are more fucked up than a football bat."
If there is any failure with the UN, it is because of the lack of leadership and involvement by the Bush administration. It's amazing to me how little Republicans understand about representative democracy.
The UN isn't some third party entity, nor is the US govt. As the citizens of the United States are to the US govt, the member nations are to the United Nations. If there are any failures, it is because of our own inability or unwillingness to exert leadership.
See how easy it was to be logically consistent and bash Bush at the same time?
"Does the UN routinely "bash" Israel? It passes motions condemning its human rights abuses, just as it does for all human rights abusers, but it is hardly anti-semitic."
I think the fact that the UN has issued statements condemning Israel, while repeatedly failing to condemn human rights abuses propogated by the Palestinian Authority, tends to show a pattern of anti-Israeli attitude.
I agree that the United Nations has lost much of it's relevance in this world.
However, I also agree in part that the failure for that is due to a lack of leadership from the United States.
ballmer screams "developers! developers!" like a cocaine-feulled monkey. steve jobs is well known for his temper tantrums and "reality distortion field". darl and the sco crew are running around like paranoid schizophrenics with delusions of grandeur (or even just plain adequacy)... ...
and the open source people are "immature and insecure"?
Looking back at the way you phrased your question, specifically the use of the various words in describing the actions of Ballmer and Jobs, and the answer is unequivocably...
They are not a neutral party and it is in their interest for people to believe that IIS is more common, whether or not that is actually the case.
Come on, let's get real here. Is the only reason you're willing to lap up the Netcraft numbers is because they support your preconceived opinions?
Let's face the facts...
Netcraft doesn't ask the right questions to accurately determine which product has the larger market share in the business environment.
I don't exactly blame them for trying to spin the "facts" in their favor but following the money does hurt their credibility in this matter.
And what is it you think you are doing by pushing the Netcraft numbers. Don't you also have some sort of stake in this game? Aren't you trying to promote Apache for a reason.
What it all comes down to is what question you are asking. If you're looking to pick a solution for your business, then the Netcraft survey results are completely meaningless in representing marketshare unless you are an ISP hosting parked domains.
I work for a major corporate america company. We have close to 4000 servers handling our "web" environment.
Yep, and as far as Netcraft is concerned those 4000 servers count as ONE if they are a single domain. Furthermore Netcraft can't count the millions of servers which sit behind firewalls housing intranet applications and websites.
The Netcraft study is an interesting data point, but it is completely meaningless as an indicator of market strength because it asks the wrong questions.
But on the DATABASE backend there is much more UNIX to Windows.
That's changing, we're moving more and more of our stuff to SQL Server from Oracle these days.
If there's nobody to point a finger at when something goes wrong, it will not get installed.
I've been in corporate IT for 10 years, not once has this been a consideration. Corporations don't give a shit about pointing fingers, they just want someone to call and take responsbility for helping them get the system back up. The size and strength of a company is a number one concern with us doing business with them, because we want to know they'll be around in 3 years time.
Until Redhat started selling Linux for $5k corporate america wouldn't even bat an eye at it.
It had nothing to do with the cost. We just wanted to know that this company was still going to be around in 3-5 years.
#1. Microsoft actually paid to write the software they are selling, so it's obviously why they would need to recoup costs.
#2. Microsoft does provide support, or are you not aware of support.microsoft.com and Windowsupdate. They provide the support that everybody needs as part of the product price, the support that is not included is the speciality situations where something bizarre happens as a result of the particulars of your environment.
Redhat provides zero support unless you buy a support license. Except for Fedora, where they'll make updates available, just no tool to automate the deployment.
No, I understand why Redhat is doing what they are doing, and I simply point out that it is no different or any less moral or ethical than what Microsoft does.
This isn't a strawman, this is pure hypocrisy on the party of Linux supporters.
You're right, listening to slashdot praise Redhat for charging money in a subscription based scam is like listening to President Bush praising how wonderful he is because he just increased the size of the federal government by more than any other Administration since Lyndon B. Johnson.
It's one of those things that makes you wonder if we're in that parallel universe where Spock has a beard.
I have a closet, and I put in wire shelving and then use some plastic drawers that I got at Target. Not sterlite, but something close.
I organize by function, one for power, one for cooling, one for network, one for sound/video, etc. I just toss things in there.
One key thing, though, I go through once a year and toss stuff out that I clearly just have no use for and have no sentimental value. So recently I cleared out all serial and parallel cables, except for one null-modem cable just in case.
In the past I've thrown out most of my old SCSI-2 cables, old RG58 10base2 networking cables, 28.8k modems, ISA cards, etc. Out they go, no use for them...
I toss out old software boxes, usually keep the manuals and discs in a manilla envelope in a file cabinet.
Even then I'm still not impeccably organized, I still haven't figured out the best way to handle receipts and such. I just throw them in a shoebox for now.
Our company President tends to have something of a saying...
Given the choice of spending $10 million on a project which fixes the existing system, streamlining efficiency and saving us $15 million a year...
or spending $10 million on a project which brings us into a new market that has a potential of pulling in $100 million a year.
He'll spend the money on the new project rather than fixing the old system.
Our company has grown from like 200 people 10 years ago to around 5000 today. The business that we used to do 10 years ago which accounted for 95% of our income now accounts for around 5%.
You don't grow a company by being afraid of trying new things.
Without the latest "toys" to play with, many IT workers won't enjoy their work.
It's not about the toys... It's about the challenges.
I wouldn't stay at a company if I was designated the resident FoxPro expert and was placed in charged of maintaining a 10 year old database program on a desktop.
You're right, I don't want to be stuck in a deadend job.
Slashdot Mirror
Polipundit.com, a Republican leaning blog has been promoting Dean as the candidate they want the Democrats to run.
Back in June, 2003 they told readers to donate to Dean.
http://www.polipundit.com/2003_06_15_polip
I don't know what to make of it, not sure what impact this has had. The right-wing media has been given marching orders to talk about Dean's inevitable nomination, because apparently that's who the GOP wants to run against.
"Actually the Democrats have more money from large organizations such as unions and PACs than any other party. Truth be known the Republicans have more small donations."
i al/donordems. asp
No, it's not at all true, and I have facts to back up my argument...
http://www.opensecrets.org/president
The impact of unions and PACs has been negated by the McCain-Feingold prohibition against soft money donations to candidates and parties.
mySQL is a "Real Database"?
Can you tell us what school you went to, so we can avoid it? Thinking mySQL is a "Real Database" is worse than teaching relational database concepts on Access.
Give me you're email address and I'll be glad to send you a link.
Mouse training starts tomorrow.
Use google to find gotdotnet
Then use the gotdotnet search to find what I mentioned.
Do I have to show you how to use a mouse as well?
Give me your email address, and I'll send you a link.
Otherwise learn how to fucking use google, I already told you where to look.
Sigh...
It's sad how desperate Republicans have become that they are not even willing to acknowledge credit where credit is due.
Instead they try to spin a yarn about how the opponents are lying by telling the truth.
It's seriously like reading George Orwell.
"I hardly think"
You probably should have stopped there.
"We might be able to blame it on the United States leadership that puts other priorities above the UN's..."
Who is the UN? Who hosts the UN? Who founded the UN? Which country should be leading what the UN sets as priorities?
We've given up, because it's hard. Yeah, Democracy is hard, it sucks, it means you have to go out there and convince people.
"Hell, we effectively eliminated one of the biggest dictators in the world thanks to the leadership of the US (right?). "
It's just unfortunate the Republicans didn't have the moral courage to do it back in 1988 when Hussein was actually a threat to the world.
The big mistake of Gore detractors is that they keep trying to claim Gore said something he didn't.
The fact is that Gore did take the initiative in creating the Internet as we know it today by sponsoring a bill that funded it's expansion in the US college system in 1986.
You go back and read interviews with Vint Cerf and other fathers of the Internet and they agree that Al Gore was the only legislator who was taking them seriously and was interested in helping them.
This attack on your part shows desperation.
"The ICC has already shown its true colors in attempting to charge various U.S. citizens for "warcrimes" in the U.S.-led action in Iraq - exactly to what advantage of the U.S. citizen is it if the U.S. would need to subjucate itself to such a body before taking actions it feels are necessary for its defense? Mother-May-I was a stupid children's game in the fist place - a sovereign nation certainly sholdn't play it. "
Absolutely.
Now if only the invasion of Iraq had had something to do with America's defense.
Where were the Republicans when Al Gore and Jesse Helms pushed for the End Genocide Act of 1988?
President Reagan threatened to veto it, so it didn't pass in the House.
I find this hypocrisy rather disgusting.
"Changing your position when it suits you is intellectually dishonest and is known as hypocrisy. Have the balls to hold your position. "
Ok, I firmly believe that the UN should be engaged in both Iraq and the Internet.
"The UN has no business in anything. "
The UN provides the basis for International Law, the ability for countries to come together and formulate treaties explaining how they shall treat one another. I see no other UN involvement in the Internet other than that, but it is a necessary level created by Globalization of our world economies.
UN involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq, primarily in regards to humanitarian and civic services would have given credibility to the US occupation. Unfortunately now as the coalition falls apart, it's looking more and more like a US Imperialist excursion, which is the last thing we needed for US foreign policy.
"Intelligent people can look at their track record and come to the conclusion that they are more fucked up than a football bat."
If there is any failure with the UN, it is because of the lack of leadership and involvement by the Bush administration. It's amazing to me how little Republicans understand about representative democracy.
The UN isn't some third party entity, nor is the US govt. As the citizens of the United States are to the US govt, the member nations are to the United Nations. If there are any failures, it is because of our own inability or unwillingness to exert leadership.
See how easy it was to be logically consistent and bash Bush at the same time?
That was fun! Let's do it again!
"Does the UN routinely "bash" Israel? It passes motions condemning its human rights abuses, just as it does for all human rights abusers, but it is hardly anti-semitic."
I think the fact that the UN has issued statements condemning Israel, while repeatedly failing to condemn human rights abuses propogated by the Palestinian Authority, tends to show a pattern of anti-Israeli attitude.
I agree that the United Nations has lost much of it's relevance in this world.
However, I also agree in part that the failure for that is due to a lack of leadership from the United States.
Where? I'm calling you out. I'm betting we don't see anything ...
sbDNNModules under GotDotNet workspaces for one...
Interesting...
...
ballmer screams "developers! developers!" like a cocaine-feulled monkey. steve jobs is well known for his temper tantrums and "reality distortion field". darl and the sco crew are running around like paranoid schizophrenics with delusions of grandeur (or even just plain adequacy)...
and the open source people are "immature and insecure"?
Looking back at the way you phrased your question, specifically the use of the various words in describing the actions of Ballmer and Jobs, and the answer is unequivocably...
YES
Before clicking through, you should know about a little bit of background information.
Interesting, your response was anticipated by Point #4 of the article... "In the Open Source Community, you're either "with us or against us""
You're absolutely right that there's absolutely nothing wrong with Open Source.
The problem is with some of the people advocating that Open Source be something that it's not designed to be.
I like to develop Open Source software on Windows and am constantly baffled by the people advocating Linux.
Yes, that is what I'm saying. Over 95% of the software distributed by Redhat was not written by Redhat.
Kernel, all the GNU tools, KDE, GNOME, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
They are not a neutral party and it is in their interest for people to believe that IIS is more common, whether or not that is actually the case.
Come on, let's get real here. Is the only reason you're willing to lap up the Netcraft numbers is because they support your preconceived opinions?
Let's face the facts...
Netcraft doesn't ask the right questions to accurately determine which product has the larger market share in the business environment.
I don't exactly blame them for trying to spin the "facts" in their favor but following the money does hurt their credibility in this matter.
And what is it you think you are doing by pushing the Netcraft numbers. Don't you also have some sort of stake in this game? Aren't you trying to promote Apache for a reason.
What it all comes down to is what question you are asking. If you're looking to pick a solution for your business, then the Netcraft survey results are completely meaningless in representing marketshare unless you are an ISP hosting parked domains.
I work for a major corporate america company. We have close to 4000 servers handling our "web" environment.
Yep, and as far as Netcraft is concerned those 4000 servers count as ONE if they are a single domain. Furthermore Netcraft can't count the millions of servers which sit behind firewalls housing intranet applications and websites.
The Netcraft study is an interesting data point, but it is completely meaningless as an indicator of market strength because it asks the wrong questions.
But on the DATABASE backend there is much more UNIX to Windows.
That's changing, we're moving more and more of our stuff to SQL Server from Oracle these days.
If there's nobody to point a finger at when something goes wrong, it will not get installed.
I've been in corporate IT for 10 years, not once has this been a consideration. Corporations don't give a shit about pointing fingers, they just want someone to call and take responsbility for helping them get the system back up. The size and strength of a company is a number one concern with us doing business with them, because we want to know they'll be around in 3 years time.
Until Redhat started selling Linux for $5k corporate america wouldn't even bat an eye at it.
It had nothing to do with the cost. We just wanted to know that this company was still going to be around in 3-5 years.
Two differences...
#1. Microsoft actually paid to write the software they are selling, so it's obviously why they would need to recoup costs.
#2. Microsoft does provide support, or are you not aware of support.microsoft.com and Windowsupdate. They provide the support that everybody needs as part of the product price, the support that is not included is the speciality situations where something bizarre happens as a result of the particulars of your environment.
Redhat provides zero support unless you buy a support license. Except for Fedora, where they'll make updates available, just no tool to automate the deployment.
No, I understand why Redhat is doing what they are doing, and I simply point out that it is no different or any less moral or ethical than what Microsoft does.
This isn't a strawman, this is pure hypocrisy on the party of Linux supporters.
Umm, yeah, but, uhhh... well you see, uhhh...
Linux good, Microsoft sux!?
You're right, listening to slashdot praise Redhat for charging money in a subscription based scam is like listening to President Bush praising how wonderful he is because he just increased the size of the federal government by more than any other Administration since Lyndon B. Johnson.
It's one of those things that makes you wonder if we're in that parallel universe where Spock has a beard.
I do something like this.
I have a closet, and I put in wire shelving and then use some plastic drawers that I got at Target. Not sterlite, but something close.
I organize by function, one for power, one for cooling, one for network, one for sound/video, etc. I just toss things in there.
One key thing, though, I go through once a year and toss stuff out that I clearly just have no use for and have no sentimental value. So recently I cleared out all serial and parallel cables, except for one null-modem cable just in case.
In the past I've thrown out most of my old SCSI-2 cables, old RG58 10base2 networking cables, 28.8k modems, ISA cards, etc. Out they go, no use for them...
I toss out old software boxes, usually keep the manuals and discs in a manilla envelope in a file cabinet.
Even then I'm still not impeccably organized, I still haven't figured out the best way to handle receipts and such. I just throw them in a shoebox for now.
Our company President tends to have something of a saying...
Given the choice of spending $10 million on a project which fixes the existing system, streamlining efficiency and saving us $15 million a year...
or spending $10 million on a project which brings us into a new market that has a potential of pulling in $100 million a year.
He'll spend the money on the new project rather than fixing the old system.
Our company has grown from like 200 people 10 years ago to around 5000 today. The business that we used to do 10 years ago which accounted for 95% of our income now accounts for around 5%.
You don't grow a company by being afraid of trying new things.
Without the latest "toys" to play with, many IT workers won't enjoy their work.
It's not about the toys... It's about the challenges.
I wouldn't stay at a company if I was designated the resident FoxPro expert and was placed in charged of maintaining a 10 year old database program on a desktop.
You're right, I don't want to be stuck in a deadend job.