And one of his platforms during the campaign was nominating solidly conservative justices. Additionally, the GOP gained seats in the Senate in the last election. Seems like the people have spoken. Bush should be able to nominate the jutices he wants, and get an up-or-down vote, not be dictated to by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Moveon.org.
Dictated? Coming to a compromise is not "dictating." Democraces are built upon compromise, and the tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Why shouldn't he appoint someone who both sides agree upon, instead of trying to comletely silence fully half of the country? Sen. Reid, the leading Democrat in the Senate, has already offered up a list of Republican candidates who they would be willing to negotiate over. But the usual tactic for Republicans is to give a rats ass about actually being democratic, so I'm sure they'll attempt to run roughshod over the American public again.
What are you talking about?? Clinton administration policy was for regime change in Iraq, Gore is on record before 2000 calling for regime change in Iraq,
A) They were wrong. B) You're taking what they said out of context. C) Bush has been such a stubborn ass that he won't change any policy, no matter how badly it fails. D) Repeating lies don't make it true.
and most importantly it's been shown that Bush would have ultimately won any Florida recount anyway!
That is a lie. Also, anyone -- anyone -- who supports unverifiable electronic voting should be shot.
With regards to question of scaling..lately companies like IBM have been working towards creating optimized JIT compilers for Java.. I had benchmarked one during my internship at IBM Research.. and it gave nearly similar performance to native C/C++ apps.
Honestly, it surprises me that people are still surprised by this. In any non-trivial application, the compiler -- whether run-time or JIT -- is going to be better able to grasp how the program behaves than a programmer is. JIT compilers have the added benefit of being able to collect statistics over time, and adjust execution paths, stack ordering, etc., accordingly. It just makes sense. One of the early arguments against virtual machines was that they were "slow", but this objection has repeatedly been debunked.
I'm glad you see it, I just don't understand why so many people do not.
Because mixing technologies increases development and maintenance costs and decreases performance. Java communicating with a PHP layer will always be slower than intra-JVM communication.
And as a Unitarian I say to you godspeed. I rue Billy Graham's retirement as a voice of true compassion and reason, and I hope that the Christians of your temperament grow in strength, numbers, wealth, and influence. Good luck.
I'd have to say the real problem is no matter what someone is caught at, if he/she has a high profile government job, there will be no punishment. Bill Clinton got away with Grand Purgery, he even admitted that he lied before a court afterwards, and he's still touring the country selling books, making $40k/night on speeches, etc.
Yeah man, cuz lying about sex under pressure from psychotically obsessed partisans is an absolute and unarguable "high crime." Screw that. Clinton lied about a blow job. You can try and lay your fake sanctimony out all over again, but no one is buying it.
Clinton makes good money because he's a GOOD SPEAKER who did GOOD THINGS for the United States of America.
Maybe it was better when Nixon got impeached and pressured out of office for doing nothing.
Clinton lied about a private sexual affair and you're all pissy, but Nixon heads up a felony break in, using government resources, and this is "nothing" to you? You fucking lying hypocrite. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Nixon was a goddamn criminal. And don't give me any shit about Clinton, because absolutely NO ONE suffered injury or loss of property because of what he did. Nixon was undermining the democratic process, and this is "nothing" to you?
Fuck you, you spineless, partisan, fascist-enabling sack of shit.
After having dealt with the stock market for over 10 years now, I can say with absolute certainty that the only certainty is that their are idiots who try and say with certainty what is going to happen to a given stock.
No one knows. I know it's fun to think that we can, and that we have the answers, and that things simply MUST be that way because the reasons are so obvious. But the market regularly makes prognosticators look like utter fools.
You may be right, you may be wrong, but there is no way for you to know for sure.
You know, at some point you just kinda figure that they'd get all these critical holes in their flagship software. I mean, call me crazy, but if you have $60+billion in cash in the bank and an army of tens of thousands, you'd THINK you could get the major problems taken care of.
You'd think.
It's crap like this that makes me wonder at the possibility of Apple eating Microsoft's lunch on the OS front.
I agree. All this fortune telling, while fun to watch and participate in, is ultimately pointless. There is simply no way anyone can know what the shape of the hardware landscape will be 5 years from now. Perhaps by then Apple will make up 80% of the desktop market, perhaps they will have faded into complete oblivion. This prognostication is pointless.
The problem, however, is that it's no fun to just sit back and say "I have no idea." That doesn't make a very good story. And while I think it's pointless, that doesn't mean I don't read articles such as this. I may rationally understand the futility, but I'm still human.:)
Wow, so Microsoft is responsible for the lack of human rights in China? But China is awesome right? I mean, they use linux, how can they be bad?
Are you completely fucking stupid? MS is a player in a system, and their actions are helping to make the perpetuation and expansion of that system possible. Are they the ONLY player? Duh, no. Are they still cozying up to a totalitarian state? Yuppers.
Any business that actively provides support to that system should be vilified, whether it is Wal-Mart, Nike, or freakin' Google.
No, because you know what? I don't even know if it is or isn't. I'm not a constitutional lawyer. But your original claim had DICK to do with the constitutionality of the law, and everything to do with smearing the ACLU as undemocratic. That's a lie and I'm not going to fucking tolerate that shit any longer from "conservative" dipshits like yourself.
The fact is that the ACLU believes the law to be unconstitutional. They hold the Constitution in high enough regard that they put their money where their mouth is and took the state of Utah to court. Bravo for them. That takes balls.
Oh and hey, stop with the personal attacks now and the cursing is not needed. I am simply expressing some observations I have made. This is my right under the constitution, especially if it doesn't agree with yours.
And I have the right to ridicule you mercilessly and call you on your lies. Deal.
Seems to be the trend on/. recently, which makes it less interesting for me to read.
Oh no, ANOTHER conservative threatening to take his toys and go home. Wah wah wah. Just add everyone who you don't like to your enemies list and then change your prefs so that they get an automatic -5. Then you'll never have to hear another viewpoint you disagree with!
However, despite whether you may think this is a left vs right issue or whatever, I find it highly disturbing that the more liberal groups continue their attempts to strip the rights of states to have their own laws, especially in a representative government.
They believe the law is unconstitutional. They hold the constitution in higher regards than "states rights", namely because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. So NATCH if they think the law is unconstitutional, they'll challenge it. As they should.
Remember, our representatives are put into their positions in order to act on our behalf. Who is to say the people of Utah do not want this law? Maybe they do.
And maybe it's unconstitutional. If it's unconstitutional, it doesn't matter jack SHIT what the people of Utah want. If they want the law, they'll have to change the constitution. Did you fail civics, or do you just not care about little details like this?
Now I don't necessarily agree with this law and I don't necessarily dislike the ACLU, but this rabid attack on how the "right" is bad and the "left" is good is really starting to get simply immature and sickening.
Fuck you and your fake sanctimony. Your transparent attempt to smear the ACLU as anti-democratic is pathetic and deceptive. Go tell it to Limbaugh or Hannity where bullshit rhetoric like that is encouraged. Hell, they might make you a guest host if you get good enough at it.
A real conservative would think that government should stay out of this sort of thing and that forcing ISPs to restrict content is absurd.
I hate to break this to you -- and I'm not saying that with any sarcasm whatsoever, because I find it sad as well -- but you are not a conservative in the modern context. Modern conservatives are Christian conservatives/theocrats, and the old-school Barry Goldwater conservatives have lost, lost, lost. It's sad, because while I frequently disagreed with Goldwater conservatives, I could at least respect them. The GOP under Bush/DeLay/Dobson, though... they seem to wish nothing less than a complete bankrupting of the secular state.
The fact that this CLI will take so long to develop means that either they don't take it seriously and won't invest big bucks, or means that they take it very seriously and don't want to screw it up again. but even in the last case : the proposed planning is a very careful one
I also just don't think that Microsoft is a very good maker of software. Obvious, I know. But given their size and the amount of resources they have available to throw at various projects, it still surprises me after all these years. Microsoft has a hard time writing software that is worth a crap, and I wonder if their size isn't a hindrance instead of a benefit. Apple is able to churn out extremely good software (albeit less titles), and they're much smaller.
They're not just changing suppliers though, they're changing the whole damn thing. The switch to a painful (they say painless, I say bullshit) transition to a new arch is nothing less than failure in engineering on Apple, IBM and Motorola's part.
Well, it's a failure, but I'm not sure how much I would lay this at Apple's feet. They're not the ones engineering and manufacturing the chips. If anything, they played their hand smart by preparing their OS for just such a possibility 5 years ago. That's a lifetime in this industry.
I'm not saying dropping IBM wasn't justified, I'm saying it was a little (just a little) premature to drop PowerPC.
Maybe. It's certainly arguable. But I for one think that Apple's hand was somewhat forced here. If IBM had been able to deliver either faster or cooler chips I don't think Apple would have done this. But they were unable to do either, and that's a big problem when a company is dependent upon advances in both in order to be competitive.
Gee, your two criticisms have been "your image looks bad" and "you're stupid." Huh. How FASCINATING. And, well, typical.
No thinking? Tell you what, chubby, why don't you think on this: Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have been an incredible propaganda tool for al Qaeda and have caused untold damage to our chances of success in Iraq and against terrorism in general. Or this: dominionist Christians are in positions of high power in the GOP, and are doing everything in their power to turn America into a theocracy. Or this: Newsweek was lambasted by the right wing anti-free speech brigade, but it was Newsweek that was utterly correct. Or this: Ditto Dan Rather. Or this: the Pentagon lies with regularity; supporting the military does not mean believing the lies the Pentagon tells. Or this: two wrongs don't make a right. Or this: you've been brainwashed by right-wing propagandists who would rather you hate than think critically.
Don't fuck with me. I've shit bigger turds than you.
Instead, we get this typical Apple SURPRISE guerilla style bullshit. I've been an Apple supporter for almost two years now when I switched but now... their arrogance is really starting to wear on me and quite frankly I'm tired of them making sweeping decisions that affect the userbase and taking for granted that consumers will put up with the hassle.
First off, how do you see this this as being arrogant? Companies are supposed to make the best product they can. If you make a product and one of your suppliers is falling down on the job, then you change suppliers. That's not arrogant, it's good (and necessary) business. Because of IBM's inability to push the G5 faster and cooler, Apple has started to fall behind technologically. Given this it would have been worse if Apple had stuck with them. This was a bold but completely understandable decision. When you conider the fact that Apple's premier products, their laptops, haven't had a significant speed boost in a couple of years this makes even more sense. This is, as far as I can tell, completely IBM's fault.
This isn't even taking into consideration the reported supply problems Apple has had with IBM.
Second, I think we should all wait and see exactly what form this will take before making any judgements, pro or con. It's still very early.
Oh shit, I'm a bad advertiser. I weep, I moan, I bitch incessantly, I don't care what I say or do as long as I can maintain my image. Gee, I guess not, because that'd make me a conservative.
Can't express yourself without calling someone else a "stupid fuck"? How typical.
Typical? Yes, I'm typical. Typically pissed off at the apologetics and lies. Typically infuriated that people are too goddamn stupid to realize that they're being fucking lied to. Or, worse, they KNOW they're being lied to, but perpetuate the lies because hey, it's just how the world works, you know? It's all about image for conservatives. "Look at how bad you make your image look! How typical!" Yeah? FUCK image. Fuck George Bush, fuck the Republicans, and fuck YOU if you pretend they're anything other than shit sucking theocrats that they are.
Know what? Fuck you. Rather was right. Bush went AWOL, and you fucking well know it, and furthermore you don't give a fuck. CBS got punk'd, but that in NO WAY means that they were wrong. There is too goddamed much corroborating evidence for that shit, not to mention the fact that Bush is about as brave as a colostomy bag.
So screw your slander against a damn fine and respectable reporter. Go peddle your apologetics somewhere else.
Gotta keep the population a'skeered so that they'll support at them beelyuns in military spending. Hell no it ain't news. It's obvious. It's also probably a boldfaced lie. Getting truth out of the military is like squeezing blood from a turnip.
Slashdot Mirror
You can express yourself all you want. But when you endorse treason against the democracy, you should be prepared for the consequences.
It doesn't, necessarily. But eleectronic voting was widespread in both Florida and Ohio. Nevertheless, the statement is true nonetheless.
And one of his platforms during the campaign was nominating solidly conservative justices. Additionally, the GOP gained seats in the Senate in the last election. Seems like the people have spoken. Bush should be able to nominate the jutices he wants, and get an up-or-down vote, not be dictated to by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Moveon.org.
Dictated? Coming to a compromise is not "dictating." Democraces are built upon compromise, and the tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Why shouldn't he appoint someone who both sides agree upon, instead of trying to comletely silence fully half of the country? Sen. Reid, the leading Democrat in the Senate, has already offered up a list of Republican candidates who they would be willing to negotiate over. But the usual tactic for Republicans is to give a rats ass about actually being democratic, so I'm sure they'll attempt to run roughshod over the American public again.
What are you talking about?? Clinton administration policy was for regime change in Iraq, Gore is on record before 2000 calling for regime change in Iraq,
A) They were wrong. B) You're taking what they said out of context. C) Bush has been such a stubborn ass that he won't change any policy, no matter how badly it fails. D) Repeating lies don't make it true.
and most importantly it's been shown that Bush would have ultimately won any Florida recount anyway!
That is a lie. Also, anyone -- anyone -- who supports unverifiable electronic voting should be shot.
With regards to question of scaling..lately companies like IBM have been working towards creating optimized JIT compilers for Java.. I had benchmarked one during my internship at IBM Research.. and it gave nearly similar performance to native C/C++ apps.
Honestly, it surprises me that people are still surprised by this. In any non-trivial application, the compiler -- whether run-time or JIT -- is going to be better able to grasp how the program behaves than a programmer is. JIT compilers have the added benefit of being able to collect statistics over time, and adjust execution paths, stack ordering, etc., accordingly. It just makes sense. One of the early arguments against virtual machines was that they were "slow", but this objection has repeatedly been debunked.
I'm glad you see it, I just don't understand why so many people do not.
Because mixing technologies increases development and maintenance costs and decreases performance. Java communicating with a PHP layer will always be slower than intra-JVM communication.
And as a Unitarian I say to you godspeed. I rue Billy Graham's retirement as a voice of true compassion and reason, and I hope that the Christians of your temperament grow in strength, numbers, wealth, and influence. Good luck.
I'd have to say the real problem is no matter what someone is caught at, if he/she has a high profile government job, there will be no punishment. Bill Clinton got away with Grand Purgery, he even admitted that he lied before a court afterwards, and he's still touring the country selling books, making $40k/night on speeches, etc.
Yeah man, cuz lying about sex under pressure from psychotically obsessed partisans is an absolute and unarguable "high crime." Screw that. Clinton lied about a blow job. You can try and lay your fake sanctimony out all over again, but no one is buying it.
Clinton makes good money because he's a GOOD SPEAKER who did GOOD THINGS for the United States of America.
Maybe it was better when Nixon got impeached and pressured out of office for doing nothing.
Clinton lied about a private sexual affair and you're all pissy, but Nixon heads up a felony break in, using government resources, and this is "nothing" to you? You fucking lying hypocrite. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Nixon was a goddamn criminal. And don't give me any shit about Clinton, because absolutely NO ONE suffered injury or loss of property because of what he did. Nixon was undermining the democratic process, and this is "nothing" to you?
Fuck you, you spineless, partisan, fascist-enabling sack of shit.
No one knows. I know it's fun to think that we can, and that we have the answers, and that things simply MUST be that way because the reasons are so obvious. But the market regularly makes prognosticators look like utter fools.
You may be right, you may be wrong, but there is no way for you to know for sure.
You'd think.
It's crap like this that makes me wonder at the possibility of Apple eating Microsoft's lunch on the OS front.
The problem, however, is that it's no fun to just sit back and say "I have no idea." That doesn't make a very good story. And while I think it's pointless, that doesn't mean I don't read articles such as this. I may rationally understand the futility, but I'm still human. :)
Wow, so Microsoft is responsible for the lack of human rights in China? But China is awesome right? I mean, they use linux, how can they be bad?
Are you completely fucking stupid? MS is a player in a system, and their actions are helping to make the perpetuation and expansion of that system possible. Are they the ONLY player? Duh, no. Are they still cozying up to a totalitarian state? Yuppers.
Any business that actively provides support to that system should be vilified, whether it is Wal-Mart, Nike, or freakin' Google.
Show me where this is unconstitutional?
No, because you know what? I don't even know if it is or isn't. I'm not a constitutional lawyer. But your original claim had DICK to do with the constitutionality of the law, and everything to do with smearing the ACLU as undemocratic. That's a lie and I'm not going to fucking tolerate that shit any longer from "conservative" dipshits like yourself.
The fact is that the ACLU believes the law to be unconstitutional. They hold the Constitution in high enough regard that they put their money where their mouth is and took the state of Utah to court. Bravo for them. That takes balls.
Oh and hey, stop with the personal attacks now and the cursing is not needed. I am simply expressing some observations I have made. This is my right under the constitution, especially if it doesn't agree with yours.
And I have the right to ridicule you mercilessly and call you on your lies. Deal.
Seems to be the trend on /. recently, which makes it less interesting for me to read.
Oh no, ANOTHER conservative threatening to take his toys and go home. Wah wah wah. Just add everyone who you don't like to your enemies list and then change your prefs so that they get an automatic -5. Then you'll never have to hear another viewpoint you disagree with!
However, despite whether you may think this is a left vs right issue or whatever, I find it highly disturbing that the more liberal groups continue their attempts to strip the rights of states to have their own laws, especially in a representative government.
They believe the law is unconstitutional. They hold the constitution in higher regards than "states rights", namely because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. So NATCH if they think the law is unconstitutional, they'll challenge it. As they should.
Remember, our representatives are put into their positions in order to act on our behalf. Who is to say the people of Utah do not want this law? Maybe they do.
And maybe it's unconstitutional. If it's unconstitutional, it doesn't matter jack SHIT what the people of Utah want. If they want the law, they'll have to change the constitution. Did you fail civics, or do you just not care about little details like this?
Now I don't necessarily agree with this law and I don't necessarily dislike the ACLU, but this rabid attack on how the "right" is bad and the "left" is good is really starting to get simply immature and sickening.
Fuck you and your fake sanctimony. Your transparent attempt to smear the ACLU as anti-democratic is pathetic and deceptive. Go tell it to Limbaugh or Hannity where bullshit rhetoric like that is encouraged. Hell, they might make you a guest host if you get good enough at it.
A real conservative would think that government should stay out of this sort of thing and that forcing ISPs to restrict content is absurd.
I hate to break this to you -- and I'm not saying that with any sarcasm whatsoever, because I find it sad as well -- but you are not a conservative in the modern context. Modern conservatives are Christian conservatives/theocrats, and the old-school Barry Goldwater conservatives have lost, lost, lost. It's sad, because while I frequently disagreed with Goldwater conservatives, I could at least respect them. The GOP under Bush/DeLay/Dobson, though... they seem to wish nothing less than a complete bankrupting of the secular state.
Boo-hoo, go whine to mommy. Your fake sanctimony fools absolutely no one.
The fact that this CLI will take so long to develop means that either they don't take it seriously and won't invest big bucks, or means that they take it very seriously and don't want to screw it up again. but even in the last case : the proposed planning is a very careful one
I also just don't think that Microsoft is a very good maker of software. Obvious, I know. But given their size and the amount of resources they have available to throw at various projects, it still surprises me after all these years. Microsoft has a hard time writing software that is worth a crap, and I wonder if their size isn't a hindrance instead of a benefit. Apple is able to churn out extremely good software (albeit less titles), and they're much smaller.
They're not just changing suppliers though, they're changing the whole damn thing. The switch to a painful (they say painless, I say bullshit) transition to a new arch is nothing less than failure in engineering on Apple, IBM and Motorola's part.
Well, it's a failure, but I'm not sure how much I would lay this at Apple's feet. They're not the ones engineering and manufacturing the chips. If anything, they played their hand smart by preparing their OS for just such a possibility 5 years ago. That's a lifetime in this industry.
I'm not saying dropping IBM wasn't justified, I'm saying it was a little (just a little) premature to drop PowerPC.
Maybe. It's certainly arguable. But I for one think that Apple's hand was somewhat forced here. If IBM had been able to deliver either faster or cooler chips I don't think Apple would have done this. But they were unable to do either, and that's a big problem when a company is dependent upon advances in both in order to be competitive.
Gee, your two criticisms have been "your image looks bad" and "you're stupid." Huh. How FASCINATING. And, well, typical.
No thinking? Tell you what, chubby, why don't you think on this: Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have been an incredible propaganda tool for al Qaeda and have caused untold damage to our chances of success in Iraq and against terrorism in general. Or this: dominionist Christians are in positions of high power in the GOP, and are doing everything in their power to turn America into a theocracy. Or this: Newsweek was lambasted by the right wing anti-free speech brigade, but it was Newsweek that was utterly correct. Or this: Ditto Dan Rather. Or this: the Pentagon lies with regularity; supporting the military does not mean believing the lies the Pentagon tells. Or this: two wrongs don't make a right. Or this: you've been brainwashed by right-wing propagandists who would rather you hate than think critically.
Don't fuck with me. I've shit bigger turds than you.
Instead, we get this typical Apple SURPRISE guerilla style bullshit. I've been an Apple supporter for almost two years now when I switched but now... their arrogance is really starting to wear on me and quite frankly I'm tired of them making sweeping decisions that affect the userbase and taking for granted that consumers will put up with the hassle.
First off, how do you see this this as being arrogant? Companies are supposed to make the best product they can. If you make a product and one of your suppliers is falling down on the job, then you change suppliers. That's not arrogant, it's good (and necessary) business. Because of IBM's inability to push the G5 faster and cooler, Apple has started to fall behind technologically. Given this it would have been worse if Apple had stuck with them. This was a bold but completely understandable decision. When you conider the fact that Apple's premier products, their laptops, haven't had a significant speed boost in a couple of years this makes even more sense. This is, as far as I can tell, completely IBM's fault.
This isn't even taking into consideration the reported supply problems Apple has had with IBM.
Second, I think we should all wait and see exactly what form this will take before making any judgements, pro or con. It's still very early.
What a ringing endorsement for your link, Air America Radio.
Oh shit, I'm a bad advertiser. I weep, I moan, I bitch incessantly, I don't care what I say or do as long as I can maintain my image. Gee, I guess not, because that'd make me a conservative.
Can't express yourself without calling someone else a "stupid fuck"? How typical.
Typical? Yes, I'm typical. Typically pissed off at the apologetics and lies. Typically infuriated that people are too goddamn stupid to realize that they're being fucking lied to. Or, worse, they KNOW they're being lied to, but perpetuate the lies because hey, it's just how the world works, you know? It's all about image for conservatives. "Look at how bad you make your image look! How typical!" Yeah? FUCK image. Fuck George Bush, fuck the Republicans, and fuck YOU if you pretend they're anything other than shit sucking theocrats that they are.
So screw your slander against a damn fine and respectable reporter. Go peddle your apologetics somewhere else.
One of the reasons we removed Saddam from power was to prevent him from getting nuclear weapons and becoming another Kim Jong-il.
Wow, aren't you naive. Or stupid, take your pick. It's such a fine line.
As each year passes, the world advances and becomes richer while NK stays stuck in 1950 forever. We can afford to wait this one out.
While they sell nukes to God only knows how many people. Yeah man, that's real smart. Christ you're a stupid fuck.
Gotta keep the population a'skeered so that they'll support at them beelyuns in military spending. Hell no it ain't news. It's obvious. It's also probably a boldfaced lie. Getting truth out of the military is like squeezing blood from a turnip.
Well, first of all: The CIA isn't tasked with electronic/computerised intelligence/counterintelligence; that's the NSA's job.
I'm pretty sure that the CIA's job these days is just to tell Bush whatever it is he wants to hear.