Afghanistan. That there hasn't been another terrorist attack on American soil.
John Kerry has killed a man with his own hands.
non sequitur.
If I was choosing someone who understood the rigors of warfare, I would choose Kerry, not Bush.
Actions thirty years ago in an individual combat situation do not necessarily translate to good performance as overall manager of a conflict. Jimmy Carter was a war hero, and he was a lousy president, especially militarily (google for "Desert One"). FDR had no military background, but he understood the threat facism posed.
He recognized it for the bullshit we all agree on now.
What's this "we?" Do you have a tapeworm? I don't agree that it was "bullshit." The US could have won in Vietnam, but people like John Kerry made it impossible following the mess Johnson made.
He returned to America and criticized the war.
And participated in an organization that discussed assassinating US Senators. There is question as to whether he was acutally at the meeting or not. I think a further release of FBI documents could probably clear it up.
How is that seditious?
See above.
Am I committing sedition by criticizing W now?
No. There's a difference between dissent and sedition. Unless you're plotting acts against the goverment, of which I am unaware.
Do soldiers returning from war lose their right to free speech?
No, of course not. But it's still a breech of trust to make blanket statements against the people with whom you fought. Bob Kerrey was on CNN about a week ago, and said that Kerry had gone too far during his testimony before Congress.
Would it be seditious to publish photos of the flag-draped coffins arriving at Dover Air Force base?
No, but it doesn't serve any purpose to do so, other than to inflame emotion. There are many people who desperately want to re-live Vietnam. But the action would have to go on until approximately 2082 at the current casualty rate.
We certainly have found ourselves in a Brave New World.
True, mostly. One of my biggest quarrels with Bush and the Republican Party is their free-spending as of late. The "Republican Revolution" of 1994 is just an echo from the past. I consider myself a Federalist, and would like to see the Federal Government stripped of much of its size. I really don't care what people within the individual states want to do. I can always move somewhere else if I don't like what's going on within my state.
I am for less government intrusion in our lives and I support Bush.
True. I think many of the domestic measures taken in regards to the war on terror are of marginal effectiveness, while increasing government intrusion. On the foreign front, as far as attacking organized terror worldwide, he is the only viable candidate. This is the reason I've reluctantly decided to support him.
I am against using our tax dollars for foreign nation building and I support Bush.
Mostly False. In the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq, nation-building is a byproduct of necessary foreign policy actions on our part.
I read the newspaper and I support Bush.
True. Not only do I read the newspaper, I am a reporter by trade. Not in the print media, mind you, but a reporter nonetheless.
I hate draft dodgers and I support Bush.
False. I really don't have a problem with people who evaded service, or people who served. Bush served honorably in the National Guard. Al Gore went to Vietnam in a non-combatant role for a truncated tour. I don't have a quarrel with either man's service. I don't have a problem that Bill Clinton didn't serve. Or that John Edwards didn't serve. My issue with Kerry are his seditious acts and words following the war, and his not-yet-thoroughly-investigated links with radical groups. Was Kerry involved in the murder plots against pro-war Senators? He's denied it, but I am not sure I believe it. There's evidence that says he was present during some of those meetings. I would like to see more FBI information released.
I am very suspicious of people who actively participated in radical causes during the late 60's and early 70's. On both sides of the aisle. Hello, Tom Hayden. Hello, Jane Fonda. Hello, John Kerry. Michael Savage, what were you doing in Berkeley in 1970. I know you were there, but you don't talk about that part of your life very much.
I recommend reading David Horowitz's book, Radical Son for an interesting inside view.
If someone had told me in 2000, that I would be supporting Dubya for Pres in 2004, I would have said, "you're nuts." But in my view, today, his is the only viable option to continue purusing the terrorists. And that's the most important issue in this election.
A HUGE majority of the people of Europe were against it, that includes your newfound allies (such as Poland). They need american money, would you honestly trust them more than France?
Ah, so you're an advocate of mob rule. Why am I not suprised? Anyhow, I do understand that "public opinion" tended agains the war in many of the European countries who supported us, but the governments supported us anyway. Why? Because by looking at the intelligence, it was the right thing to do. As for trusting them more than France; France has proven itself to be untrustworthy time and time again, starting with their withdrawl from the military part of NATO. I do understand why they didn't support the operation, but their reasons were purely for self-preservation. Exposure of their ties, as well as the potential Islamic backlash from elements within their country affected the decision.
Clue: Many of those new allies are eastern countries that used to be under the yoke of the USSR, of course they could'nt be alongside the US during Gulf War I.
Thirteen out of Thirty. And some of those were part of the USSR.
Btw Bush is against abortion, so he does wish to take away some women's rights. Isn't that enough?
Do you honestly think that abortion is going to be illegal anytime soon? It will take a Constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion, and I think even the most fervent pro-lifers understand that. I am pro-choice, for myriad reasons. But I do understand that at some point compelling government interest attaches, and abortion-at-any-juncture is not in step with Roe v. Wade. I assume you've actually read and studied that case, no?
Oh and he's a religious nut by modern standards,
I'm an atheist, and I support Bush.
but I'm ready to bet you consider abstinence an effective STD prevention method anyway.
Um, it is 100% effective. If you choose to be sexually active, you should take proper precautions. But it's really not an issue for the government to be involved with.
I espouse celibacy for people who aren't in committed relationships. Controlling animalistic urges isn't that difficult.
I agree, though. Saudi Arabia is a bigger problem than Iraq, and it's one that I don't think they've fully figured out how to solve. If anything, though, with attacks against Saudis by Al Qaeda, the Saudi government seems to be getting tough on those organizations. The question is whether they're going to get tough on all terrorist organizations, including those operating outside Saudi Arabia, not targeting Saudi interests.
Until they commit to targeting all terrorism, and are serious about it (this includes ceasing to fund the PLO and Hamas), I will have my issues with the Saudis.
In any case how about: the right to a trial (Jose Padilla)
Has been litigated, and charges are forthcoming. Yasir Esam Hamdi has a hearing about ten miles from where I am now on Tuesday, and will probably be released...next?
the right to call witnesses (the so-called 20th hijacker),
He has the right to call witnesses. He does not have the right to seek unlimited depositions from prisoners who are held outside the United States.
the right to hear evidence presented by the prosecution (the Gitmo detainees),
They're enemy combatants, and are being held outside the United States. The US courts do not have jurisdiction over the matter. I do have a problem with the military tribunals, but note, those aren't civil liberties lost by US citizens. I don't like the situation at gitmo, but the defense department now seems to be taking steps to swiftly resolve the issue. Many of the detainees have already been released. The ones who are still detained were most likely actively taking action against coalition forces in Afghanistan.
the right to not have the government know what you read (at least not without getting a warrant; Patriot Act),
Don't get your reading materials from the government, and you won't have a problem. I don't check out books from libraries, so I don't have to worry about it. (I do dislike this provision of the Patriot Act, on principle. But at the same time, any time you deal with the state you have to assume that you will be violated.)
freedom of assembly and to protest (e.g. in Central Park).
The City of New York denied the permits, not President Bush. It would probably be a different situation if protestors were, you know, actually peaceful. But you've got all these Michael Moore-loving college students who love to protest because their professors and parents told them how cool it was in the 1960's. And they get out of control and break things. It happens all the time. NYC isn't putting them in a cage like Boston did. But simply being denied a permit to protest in Central Park is not a big deal.
But my point is exposing the mindless rhetoric for exactly what it is.
He claims that he has lost civil liberties. If you're going to make assertions, be prepared to back them up. It's my standard response to many unsupported assertions. "But Microsoft innovates!" Name five Microsoft innovations.
I am uncomfortable with some provisions of the USAPATRIOT Act, but, unlike the OP, I've actually studied it. I've read the ACLU's analysis, as well as the analyses of some other legal organizations. Has it affected me, personally? No, not particularly. But then, I lead a life where I minimize places where the government can intrude into my life, in any aspect.
The poor don't pay income taxes, pretty much, as a rule. The top 25% of taxpayers pay 83% of the taxes. How do you lower taxes on people who don't pay any taxes, or, in the case of people who get child credits and the EITC, get government subsidies?
or reduced our civil liberties...
Name five you've lost.
or alienated our allies...
Coalition to fight in Iraq included more countries this time than in '91. France and Germany had reasons to support Saddam's regime, namely, they were profiting from the oil-for-food fiasco. While that hasn't been thoroughly investigated yet, it's not going to be a pretty picture for our European "allies."
or wish to take away women's rights...
Again, name five.
or had a term with negative job growth.
And how many of the past presidents were in the midst of a recession when a major act of terrorism struck?
The job losses were a continuing effect of the dot-com bubble, which burst in spring 2000, as well as some bad fiscal policy from the Fed in preparation for Y2K. If you think it's President Bush's fault that people lost jobs, I have some Flooz I'm looking to sell.
I saw a quote in an AP article yesterday, I think, that was from an unemployed guy supporting Kerry, because he thought Kerry was going to create jobs. If you actually think politicians create jobs, there's a reason you're unemployed -- you're stupid. Yes, the Republicans spout the same rhetoric, but it's fiction. If you don't know that, keep drinking the Kool-Aid, my friend. You sir, are the perfect Democrat voter.
I lived in Europe for six years.....there's a vast amount of that raised-bubble stuff, um, everywhere. It seemed to be kind of the preferred floor covering for public high-traffic areas. They use it in places where you'd more often see tile in the US.
I'm having a flashback to pushing an AV cart down a long hallway...
It's actually not bad stuff, if you're not pushing a cart. Seems to last a long time, and when it does start to get worn, you pull it up just like linoleum, throw down a fresh layer of glue, and roll out a new section.
Loser pays is not even a partial answer. While it would discourage some frivolous suits, it also serves as an impetus for large organizations to litigate against weaker parties.
Imagine your credit card company taking you to court in their jurisdiction....they can throw as many attorneys as they want at it, and well, you're already broke, you can't afford to amount a defense. They get a court judgment against you for the money, plus the inordinate amount of legal fees they've accrued.
Because there is no loser pays, litigation for the plaintiff is also expensive. So the credit card company requires you to agree to binding arbitration with an arbitrator they select. Nothing out of your pocket, and a fixed fee for them if you become deliquent.
Agnostics are intellectual cowards. Reason tells you that there is no god.
Take evolution for example....
If you've ever taken a college biology class, you would be able to see that evolution occurs. Comparative Morphology, predictible genetic mutation, etc. etc. It's backed by years of scientific research.
Then you have the Genesis Myth. God created the earth in seven days, and the whole thing is ohh, about six thousand years old.
The agnostic, by his refusal to choose, gives each equal creedance. It's insanity, really. But it's a convienient position for armchair philosophers to take, because it placates people. Think of it as the John Kerry position.
I am an atheist. Period. To steal a phrase, I want to believe. A mountain of evidence prevents me from doing so. Douglas Adams had a rather compelling piece on it in his final book. Some of Ayn Rand's writings on the subject are also interesting.
The first step is admitting you have a problem. If you ask "journalists" whether they have biases, they'll reflexively deny it. Then ask if they've got opinions, oh, you bet!
There is always a speaker's bias. The key is to recognize that and guard against it. Now they don't even recognize that one exists, believing it was trained-out in college. Sort of like being housebroken.
I'm biased. You're biased. Dan Rather is biased. If someone listens to the three of us report the same story, he can probably get pretty close to the truth.
Re:Now that would be an interesting change!
on
We the Media
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
But see, put on your analytical cap for a second, and consider the author. He writes about technical issues, but he's not one who develops in the field. In fact, I'd venture to say that his audience is quite narrow, being mainly restricted to the people who have an interest in the technology field.
Ever read an agribusiness periodical? I often don't have a clue what they're talking about. Am I a proficient enough reporter to be able to grasp the issues after research, and write a story? You bet. But the farmer in the field, and the guy in the seed store would still know more than I do, and if I make a mistake, they'd nail me on it quickly.
Your training, as most "journalism" (a term I despise, actually) programs do, focused on the mass-media side of things. The arrogance that exists, and you now see stems from the idea that the media is a) omniscent, and b) totally objective. Neither is true. Once you jettison those two dated notions, you can get down to real quality reporting. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you can't paint the full picture of a story with the information you have available. "Journalists" seem awfully reluctant to do that. So they reach and draw conclusions that can't be supported (gotta answer the "why" question, even if you don't know). If you do that too often, and your readers have a clue, you won't have a job very long.
You miss my point -- the whole "Open Source" movement clouds the definitions. OSI embraced the original APSL, which in many ways was more restrictive than the DJB licenses.
There are many things that are open source and not free. DJB's stuff. Quite a bit of UW mail software, etc. etc. You can't distribute a patched version of pine, either, without UW's permission.
OSI obfuscates these issue because the trolls don't get along with RMS.
Incorrect, it is open source. It isn't GPL. There's a big difference.
Yes, but the trolls have redubbed anything to which you can read the code "Open Source." It confuses the argument, but it makes PHB's feel better about using software not developed by a money-grubbing company (the kind they were taught to like while they were earning their MBAs).
DJB's software is Open Source. It is free-as-in-beer, not free-as-in-speech, perhaps. That said, just because something is Free Software does not make it superior, or secure. Freshmeat is kind of a misnomer -- there are lots of maggot-infested GPL'd programs out there. DJBDNS I don't use, mainly because I don't like it. But judging by the security record of qmail, and the attention he pays to his coding (although some of it, while increasing security, is just plain wrong....i.e. tcpserver's command-line resource limits), DJBDNS is probably very secure.
BIND's record is as bad as Sendmail's. MS's DNS, itself, isn't bad, but Win2xxx is. You can do some things to make BIND more secure like chroot and BSD jails, but it's still not totally fool-proof. The article has some suggestions as to how you'd make the network more secure here, and they don't look very difficult. I will be writing rules for just this when I go to work later.
Presumably DRM'd iTunes, with your phone functioning like an iPod. And since most macs come with bluethooth these days, as other people have mentioned, just transfer things across with bluetooth.
Before IBM started drinking Linux kool-aid those machines were running AIX new. Eew. (Of course, I'd say the same thing about PA-RISC running HP-UX)
That said, there are a few of them around, but they seem to go for more money than similarly-performing Sun or DEC/Compaq gear.
Despite the Gentoo chorus as the answer for everything, they're way behind on PPC. Debian is years ahead, package-wise. I ran Debian Unstable on my old iBook just fine. Besides, compiling tons and tons of packages on a 366 iBook with a slow disk and 320M of ram is torture. On my new iBook, I had Gentoo for awhile, because they had new X packages that support the Radeon 9200. I finally ditched it because there's no Airport Extreme drivers for Linux in sight. Still, for about every third package, I'd have to do ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~ppc".
When NeXTStep was written, single-server was fashionable. It was also a quick way to get a Unix environment, while having a system that didn't necessarily depened on Unix in a non-networked environment.
As I said in the last post, MkLinux sprung up because Linux didn't run natively on PPC -- and Mach did. At the time, the PPC machines were fast enough that a PPC running MkLinux was performance-comparable to an x86 machine running Linux on the hardware. The project didn't last very long, however. And MkLinux, depending on who you talk to, is a lot better than AIX, which is what they'd been selling before that (yes, real AIX, not A/UX -- that only runs on m68k machines).
Darwin isn't really mach anymore. It's mach + Free/NetBSD stuff running in the same address space, as well as oskit for the driver framework (native mach drivers are gone).
Halfway tounge-in-cheek suggestion there. I know Linus' thoughts on microkernels. I also know that Mach sucks. Running a monolithic kernel image on top of Mach sucks even more, and there's no good reason to do it. There wasn't really a good reason to do it with the BSDLites. The reason MkLinux sprung up was because a good Mach existed for PPC, and the native Linux port wasn't complete.
It'd be better to build mach IPC into a monolithic kernel (or at least emulate them) than run something on top of Mach. That's what NetBSD did for its Darwin/OSX emulation.
But the point remains -- there are other binary formats that can be used.
Make binary compatibility easier with Darwin, anyway.
This affects everyone, including the BSD's. And, of course, they're full of shit, once again. ELF is not the mortar that binds the OS together. Linux started with a.out, and can probably function just fine with some other binary format.
He's right, but most people don't understand how administrative law works. Congress passes a law with provision like this....
The FCC shall, upon passage of this bill, ensure that the broadcast airwaves are filled with programming meeting community standards.
Then, once the bill is passed into a public law, the FCC makes a rule which seeks to meet the rather vauge requirement set forth by Congress. These proposed rules are published in the Federal Register, and have a mandatory comment period. During that time, the people affected by the rules are free to comment. Congress can, as well, take a look and express their views on the rule. If the rule is out-of-step with what Congress intended, normally the rule is retracted. If the commission continues anyway, Congress simply passes an amended bill that forces the agency's hand. Or, someone files a lawsuit, and brings the legislative history up during the trial.
Bureaucracy is nasty, and most people don't have the slightest clue how it works.
No, of course they're not totally independent, but they do have autonomy separate from both branches. They're a tool of neither, certainly not the executive branch.
And the FCC's rulemaking is all based on the laws passed by Congress. If Congress decided today that hardcore porno was okay on broadcast television, about 90 days from now, there'd be FCC regs allowing that.
The Supreme Court has nothing to do with it, unless someone challenges the laws and subsequent rules in court. It's how the system works. It sucks, yes, but there isn't a better way, really.
Slashdot Mirror
And what are Bush's qualifications for this?
Demonstrated performance.
What are his demonstrated successes?
Afghanistan. That there hasn't been another terrorist attack on American soil.
John Kerry has killed a man with his own hands.
non sequitur.
If I was choosing someone who understood the rigors of warfare, I would choose Kerry, not Bush.
Actions thirty years ago in an individual combat situation do not necessarily translate to good performance as overall manager of a conflict. Jimmy Carter was a war hero, and he was a lousy president, especially militarily (google for "Desert One"). FDR had no military background, but he understood the threat facism posed.
John Kerry volunteered to fight in Vietnam.
Bush also volunteered for overseas service in Asia, which could have been Vietnam, while he was in the National Guard. His request was refused.
He recognized it for the bullshit we all agree on now.
What's this "we?" Do you have a tapeworm? I don't agree that it was "bullshit." The US could have won in Vietnam, but people like John Kerry made it impossible following the mess Johnson made.
He returned to America and criticized the war.
And participated in an organization that discussed assassinating US Senators. There is question as to whether he was acutally at the meeting or not. I think a further release of FBI documents could probably clear it up.
How is that seditious?
See above.
Am I committing sedition by criticizing W now?
No. There's a difference between dissent and sedition. Unless you're plotting acts against the goverment, of which I am unaware.
Do soldiers returning from war lose their right to free speech?
No, of course not. But it's still a breech of trust to make blanket statements against the people with whom you fought. Bob Kerrey was on CNN about a week ago, and said that Kerry had gone too far during his testimony before Congress.
Would it be seditious to publish photos of the flag-draped coffins arriving at Dover Air Force base?
No, but it doesn't serve any purpose to do so, other than to inflame emotion. There are many people who desperately want to re-live Vietnam. But the action would have to go on until approximately 2082 at the current casualty rate.
We certainly have found ourselves in a Brave New World.
There you go again....
Speak for yourself, please.
much obliged....
I am for small government and I support Bush.
True, mostly. One of my biggest quarrels with Bush and the Republican Party is their free-spending as of late. The "Republican Revolution" of 1994 is just an echo from the past. I consider myself a Federalist, and would like to see the Federal Government stripped of much of its size. I really don't care what people within the individual states want to do. I can always move somewhere else if I don't like what's going on within my state.
I am for less government intrusion in our lives and I support Bush.
True. I think many of the domestic measures taken in regards to the war on terror are of marginal effectiveness, while increasing government intrusion. On the foreign front, as far as attacking organized terror worldwide, he is the only viable candidate. This is the reason I've reluctantly decided to support him.
I am against using our tax dollars for foreign nation building and I support Bush.
Mostly False. In the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq, nation-building is a byproduct of necessary foreign policy actions on our part.
I read the newspaper and I support Bush.
True. Not only do I read the newspaper, I am a reporter by trade. Not in the print media, mind you, but a reporter nonetheless.
I hate draft dodgers and I support Bush.
False. I really don't have a problem with people who evaded service, or people who served. Bush served honorably in the National Guard. Al Gore went to Vietnam in a non-combatant role for a truncated tour. I don't have a quarrel with either man's service. I don't have a problem that Bill Clinton didn't serve. Or that John Edwards didn't serve. My issue with Kerry are his seditious acts and words following the war, and his not-yet-thoroughly-investigated links with radical groups. Was Kerry involved in the murder plots against pro-war Senators? He's denied it, but I am not sure I believe it. There's evidence that says he was present during some of those meetings. I would like to see more FBI information released.
I am very suspicious of people who actively participated in radical causes during the late 60's and early 70's. On both sides of the aisle. Hello, Tom Hayden. Hello, Jane Fonda. Hello, John Kerry. Michael Savage, what were you doing in Berkeley in 1970. I know you were there, but you don't talk about that part of your life very much.
I recommend reading David Horowitz's book, Radical Son for an interesting inside view.
If someone had told me in 2000, that I would be supporting Dubya for Pres in 2004, I would have said, "you're nuts." But in my view, today, his is the only viable option to continue purusing the terrorists. And that's the most important issue in this election.
A HUGE majority of the people of Europe were against it, that includes your newfound allies (such as Poland). They need american money, would you honestly trust them more than France?
Ah, so you're an advocate of mob rule. Why am I not suprised? Anyhow, I do understand that "public opinion" tended agains the war in many of the European countries who supported us, but the governments supported us anyway. Why? Because by looking at the intelligence, it was the right thing to do. As for trusting them more than France; France has proven itself to be untrustworthy time and time again, starting with their withdrawl from the military part of NATO. I do understand why they didn't support the operation, but their reasons were purely for self-preservation. Exposure of their ties, as well as the potential Islamic backlash from elements within their country affected the decision.
Clue: Many of those new allies are eastern countries that used to be under the yoke of the USSR, of course they could'nt be alongside the US during Gulf War I.
Thirteen out of Thirty. And some of those were part of the USSR.
Btw Bush is against abortion, so he does wish to take away some women's rights. Isn't that enough?
Do you honestly think that abortion is going to be illegal anytime soon? It will take a Constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion, and I think even the most fervent pro-lifers understand that. I am pro-choice, for myriad reasons. But I do understand that at some point compelling government interest attaches, and abortion-at-any-juncture is not in step with Roe v. Wade. I assume you've actually read and studied that case, no?
Oh and he's a religious nut by modern standards,
I'm an atheist, and I support Bush.
but I'm ready to bet you consider abstinence an effective STD prevention method anyway.
Um, it is 100% effective. If you choose to be sexually active, you should take proper precautions. But it's really not an issue for the government to be involved with.
I espouse celibacy for people who aren't in committed relationships. Controlling animalistic urges isn't that difficult.
Saddam supported terrorists by paying the families of suicide bombers and giving sanctuary to terrorists like Abu Abbas.
I agree, though. Saudi Arabia is a bigger problem than Iraq, and it's one that I don't think they've fully figured out how to solve. If anything, though, with attacks against Saudis by Al Qaeda, the Saudi government seems to be getting tough on those organizations. The question is whether they're going to get tough on all terrorist organizations, including those operating outside Saudi Arabia, not targeting Saudi interests.
Until they commit to targeting all terrorism, and are serious about it (this includes ceasing to fund the PLO and Hamas), I will have my issues with the Saudis.
In any case how about: the right to a trial (Jose Padilla)
Has been litigated, and charges are forthcoming. Yasir Esam Hamdi has a hearing about ten miles from where I am now on Tuesday, and will probably be released...next?
the right to a lawyer (Shoe-bomber dude),
Reid had lawyers, and plead guilty.
the right to call witnesses (the so-called 20th hijacker),
He has the right to call witnesses. He does not have the right to seek unlimited depositions from prisoners who are held outside the United States.
the right to hear evidence presented by the prosecution (the Gitmo detainees),
They're enemy combatants, and are being held outside the United States. The US courts do not have jurisdiction over the matter. I do have a problem with the military tribunals, but note, those aren't civil liberties lost by US citizens. I don't like the situation at gitmo, but the defense department now seems to be taking steps to swiftly resolve the issue. Many of the detainees have already been released. The ones who are still detained were most likely actively taking action against coalition forces in Afghanistan.
the right to not have the government know what you read (at least not without getting a warrant; Patriot Act),
Don't get your reading materials from the government, and you won't have a problem. I don't check out books from libraries, so I don't have to worry about it. (I do dislike this provision of the Patriot Act, on principle. But at the same time, any time you deal with the state you have to assume that you will be violated.)
freedom of assembly and to protest (e.g. in Central Park).
The City of New York denied the permits, not President Bush. It would probably be a different situation if protestors were, you know, actually peaceful. But you've got all these Michael Moore-loving college students who love to protest because their professors and parents told them how cool it was in the 1960's. And they get out of control and break things. It happens all the time. NYC isn't putting them in a cage like Boston did. But simply being denied a permit to protest in Central Park is not a big deal.
But my point is exposing the mindless rhetoric for exactly what it is.
He claims that he has lost civil liberties. If you're going to make assertions, be prepared to back them up. It's my standard response to many unsupported assertions. "But Microsoft innovates!" Name five Microsoft innovations.
I am uncomfortable with some provisions of the USAPATRIOT Act, but, unlike the OP, I've actually studied it. I've read the ACLU's analysis, as well as the analyses of some other legal organizations. Has it affected me, personally? No, not particularly. But then, I lead a life where I minimize places where the government can intrude into my life, in any aspect.
the Democrats wouldn't have invaded Iraq?
John Kerry would have.
Or lowered taxes for the rich...
The poor don't pay income taxes, pretty much, as a rule. The top 25% of taxpayers pay 83% of the taxes. How do you lower taxes on people who don't pay any taxes, or, in the case of people who get child credits and the EITC, get government subsidies?
or reduced our civil liberties...
Name five you've lost.
or alienated our allies...
Coalition to fight in Iraq included more countries this time than in '91. France and Germany had reasons to support Saddam's regime, namely, they were profiting from the oil-for-food fiasco. While that hasn't been thoroughly investigated yet, it's not going to be a pretty picture for our European "allies."
or wish to take away women's rights...
Again, name five.
or had a term with negative job growth.
And how many of the past presidents were in the midst of a recession when a major act of terrorism struck?
The job losses were a continuing effect of the dot-com bubble, which burst in spring 2000, as well as some bad fiscal policy from the Fed in preparation for Y2K. If you think it's President Bush's fault that people lost jobs, I have some Flooz I'm looking to sell.
I saw a quote in an AP article yesterday, I think, that was from an unemployed guy supporting Kerry, because he thought Kerry was going to create jobs. If you actually think politicians create jobs, there's a reason you're unemployed -- you're stupid. Yes, the Republicans spout the same rhetoric, but it's fiction. If you don't know that, keep drinking the Kool-Aid, my friend. You sir, are the perfect Democrat voter.
I lived in Europe for six years.....there's a vast amount of that raised-bubble stuff, um, everywhere. It seemed to be kind of the preferred floor covering for public high-traffic areas. They use it in places where you'd more often see tile in the US.
I'm having a flashback to pushing an AV cart down a long hallway...
It's actually not bad stuff, if you're not pushing a cart. Seems to last a long time, and when it does start to get worn, you pull it up just like linoleum, throw down a fresh layer of glue, and roll out a new section.
Loser pays is not even a partial answer. While it would discourage some frivolous suits, it also serves as an impetus for large organizations to litigate against weaker parties.
Imagine your credit card company taking you to court in their jurisdiction....they can throw as many attorneys as they want at it, and well, you're already broke, you can't afford to amount a defense. They get a court judgment against you for the money, plus the inordinate amount of legal fees they've accrued.
Because there is no loser pays, litigation for the plaintiff is also expensive. So the credit card company requires you to agree to binding arbitration with an arbitrator they select. Nothing out of your pocket, and a fixed fee for them if you become deliquent.
Agnostics are intellectual cowards. Reason tells you that there is no god.
Take evolution for example....
If you've ever taken a college biology class, you would be able to see that evolution occurs. Comparative Morphology, predictible genetic mutation, etc. etc. It's backed by years of scientific research.
Then you have the Genesis Myth. God created the earth in seven days, and the whole thing is ohh, about six thousand years old.
The agnostic, by his refusal to choose, gives each equal creedance. It's insanity, really. But it's a convienient position for armchair philosophers to take, because it placates people. Think of it as the John Kerry position.
I am an atheist. Period. To steal a phrase, I want to believe. A mountain of evidence prevents me from doing so. Douglas Adams had a rather compelling piece on it in his final book. Some of Ayn Rand's writings on the subject are also interesting.
Or you could just run NetBSD, and have binary emulation with very little speed overhead.
The first step is admitting you have a problem. If you ask "journalists" whether they have biases, they'll reflexively deny it. Then ask if they've got opinions, oh, you bet!
There is always a speaker's bias. The key is to recognize that and guard against it. Now they don't even recognize that one exists, believing it was trained-out in college. Sort of like being housebroken.
I'm biased. You're biased. Dan Rather is biased. If someone listens to the three of us report the same story, he can probably get pretty close to the truth.
But see, put on your analytical cap for a second, and consider the author. He writes about technical issues, but he's not one who develops in the field. In fact, I'd venture to say that his audience is quite narrow, being mainly restricted to the people who have an interest in the technology field.
Ever read an agribusiness periodical? I often don't have a clue what they're talking about. Am I a proficient enough reporter to be able to grasp the issues after research, and write a story? You bet. But the farmer in the field, and the guy in the seed store would still know more than I do, and if I make a mistake, they'd nail me on it quickly.
Your training, as most "journalism" (a term I despise, actually) programs do, focused on the mass-media side of things. The arrogance that exists, and you now see stems from the idea that the media is a) omniscent, and b) totally objective. Neither is true. Once you jettison those two dated notions, you can get down to real quality reporting. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you can't paint the full picture of a story with the information you have available. "Journalists" seem awfully reluctant to do that. So they reach and draw conclusions that can't be supported (gotta answer the "why" question, even if you don't know). If you do that too often, and your readers have a clue, you won't have a job very long.
You miss my point -- the whole "Open Source" movement clouds the definitions. OSI embraced the original APSL, which in many ways was more restrictive than the DJB licenses.
There are many things that are open source and not free. DJB's stuff. Quite a bit of UW mail software, etc. etc. You can't distribute a patched version of pine, either, without UW's permission.
OSI obfuscates these issue because the trolls don't get along with RMS.
Incorrect, it is open source. It isn't GPL. There's a big difference.
Yes, but the trolls have redubbed anything to which you can read the code "Open Source." It confuses the argument, but it makes PHB's feel better about using software not developed by a money-grubbing company (the kind they were taught to like while they were earning their MBAs).
DJB's software is Open Source. It is free-as-in-beer, not free-as-in-speech, perhaps. That said, just because something is Free Software does not make it superior, or secure. Freshmeat is kind of a misnomer -- there are lots of maggot-infested GPL'd programs out there. DJBDNS I don't use, mainly because I don't like it. But judging by the security record of qmail, and the attention he pays to his coding (although some of it, while increasing security, is just plain wrong....i.e. tcpserver's command-line resource limits), DJBDNS is probably very secure.
BIND's record is as bad as Sendmail's. MS's DNS, itself, isn't bad, but Win2xxx is. You can do some things to make BIND more secure like chroot and BSD jails, but it's still not totally fool-proof. The article has some suggestions as to how you'd make the network more secure here, and they don't look very difficult. I will be writing rules for just this when I go to work later.
You are correct, sir. They were the room-heaters of their day. I have one that still works, but it's nowhere near as hot as my athlon-xp.
Presumably DRM'd iTunes, with your phone functioning like an iPod. And since most macs come with bluethooth these days, as other people have mentioned, just transfer things across with bluetooth.
Before IBM started drinking Linux kool-aid those machines were running AIX new. Eew. (Of course, I'd say the same thing about PA-RISC running HP-UX)
That said, there are a few of them around, but they seem to go for more money than similarly-performing Sun or DEC/Compaq gear.
Despite the Gentoo chorus as the answer for everything, they're way behind on PPC. Debian is years ahead, package-wise. I ran Debian Unstable on my old iBook just fine. Besides, compiling tons and tons of packages on a 366 iBook with a slow disk and 320M of ram is torture. On my new iBook, I had Gentoo for awhile, because they had new X packages that support the Radeon 9200. I finally ditched it because there's no Airport Extreme drivers for Linux in sight. Still, for about every third package, I'd have to do ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~ppc".
Stallman did quite a bit of work on the Objective C compiler. As is mentioned in this article on GNUStep.
When NeXTStep was written, single-server was fashionable. It was also a quick way to get a Unix environment, while having a system that didn't necessarily depened on Unix in a non-networked environment.
As I said in the last post, MkLinux sprung up because Linux didn't run natively on PPC -- and Mach did. At the time, the PPC machines were fast enough that a PPC running MkLinux was performance-comparable to an x86 machine running Linux on the hardware. The project didn't last very long, however. And MkLinux, depending on who you talk to, is a lot better than AIX, which is what they'd been selling before that (yes, real AIX, not A/UX -- that only runs on m68k machines).
Darwin isn't really mach anymore. It's mach + Free/NetBSD stuff running in the same address space, as well as oskit for the driver framework (native mach drivers are gone).
Halfway tounge-in-cheek suggestion there. I know Linus' thoughts on microkernels. I also know that Mach sucks. Running a monolithic kernel image on top of Mach sucks even more, and there's no good reason to do it. There wasn't really a good reason to do it with the BSDLites. The reason MkLinux sprung up was because a good Mach existed for PPC, and the native Linux port wasn't complete.
It'd be better to build mach IPC into a monolithic kernel (or at least emulate them) than run something on top of Mach. That's what NetBSD did for its Darwin/OSX emulation.
But the point remains -- there are other binary formats that can be used.
Make binary compatibility easier with Darwin, anyway.
This affects everyone, including the BSD's. And, of course, they're full of shit, once again. ELF is not the mortar that binds the OS together. Linux started with a.out, and can probably function just fine with some other binary format.
My best friend came to visit one time, and he said, "I didn't know you have a sister."
:-)
I replied, dumbfounded, "Uhh, I don't."
"That was nice of her to let you borrow her computer," he said, pointing at my iBook.
He's just jealous.
He's right, but most people don't understand how administrative law works. Congress passes a law with provision like this....
The FCC shall, upon passage of this bill, ensure that the broadcast airwaves are filled with programming meeting community standards.
Then, once the bill is passed into a public law, the FCC makes a rule which seeks to meet the rather vauge requirement set forth by Congress. These proposed rules are published in the Federal Register, and have a mandatory comment period. During that time, the people affected by the rules are free to comment. Congress can, as well, take a look and express their views on the rule. If the rule is out-of-step with what Congress intended, normally the rule is retracted. If the commission continues anyway, Congress simply passes an amended bill that forces the agency's hand. Or, someone files a lawsuit, and brings the legislative history up during the trial.
Bureaucracy is nasty, and most people don't have the slightest clue how it works.
No, of course they're not totally independent, but they do have autonomy separate from both branches. They're a tool of neither, certainly not the executive branch.
And the FCC's rulemaking is all based on the laws passed by Congress. If Congress decided today that hardcore porno was okay on broadcast television, about 90 days from now, there'd be FCC regs allowing that.
The Supreme Court has nothing to do with it, unless someone challenges the laws and subsequent rules in court. It's how the system works. It sucks, yes, but there isn't a better way, really.