An island with wonderful beaches and good healthy food on one side, lots of fattening food and horrible beaches on the other and a wasteland in the middle. There are people living all the way around the island. Closer to the wonderful beaches all the people are slim and tan (all the swimming and healthy living) closer to the fattening food they are all heavy and pale. We find that the neighbors can and do interbreed, but you take the good looking, tan people to the fat ugly side and they don't interbreed.
So the electricity for electric cars will, in effect, come from the next cleanest source. For example burning Oil, or Natural Gas.
Actually, since electric cars are an additional load on the grid, the electricity for electric cars will come from the dirtiest source. This means during the summer, when the additional load from Air Conditioners, etc. is on the grid, electric cars are really running on coal produced electricity. (Coal fired plants are more expensive/restricted so they are generally only used to meet the increased demand during the summer when all other plants are at capacity. Electric cars increase this load, not decrease it.) This means that during the summer months, gasoline cars are cleaner than electric cars. Why don't we ever see this brought up? This is a good reason to push for more Nuclear plants.
That being said, I think electric cars are still worth the research/development because they do something that gas powered cars cannot. Electric cars move the polution out of the big city to rural locations that do not have as severe a problem with it. Also, as much as environmentalists hate even thinking about it, big companies (like those that run power plants) are a lot better at keeping their power plants (ie engines) running effeciently then average people. If you don't believe this, check out a smog check station in California. Most of those cars that fail their smog check have been running badly for months. If the owner is paying attention to gas mileage, they know there is a problem. (ex. Car was getting 30 MPG, now getting 27) Why didn't they fix it before their every 2 year smog check? Because fixing it now might cost $200. If a power plant had a 10% reduction in effeciency, the owner would notice immediately and would fix it. That's a 10% hit to profitability and because of our weird tax laws, the repair cost is a write-off which makes it profit too! That gets fixed!
This is the kind of thing that is thrown around a lot with no proof. It is true that quite a few first month Wal-Mart employees are on welfare. All that proves is that Wal-Mart is willing to hire people that are on welfare. Isn't that a good thing? The question is, how many 1 year or longer employees are still on welfare? For some reason you never hear that statistic even though the numbers are known (just as easy as determining how many 1st month Wal-Mart employees are on welfare).
I'll leave the answer to that question as an exercise for the student.
I work in an environment that is this restrictive. I estimate that it costs me 3 to 4 hours a week of productive time to work around the security restrictions.
1)The checks to make sure my machine is secure before I can connect it to the corporate infrastructure alone take 10 - 15 minutes a day every day that I take the work laptop home. And I have to take it home everyday because I am frequently called at home to check/fix something. This is an hour a week of lost time waiting to even be able to open email first thing in the morning.
2) I do not have access permissions to install any software, which also means software I write on company time to do company tasks. What this ends up meaning is a one to two week delay in deploying softare I write to speed up my job to my own machine, let alone the other team mates.
3) All internet access is restricted. If I need to download a patch that can't be sent to me via email I have to do it somewhere other than the company network.
4) I am unable to send email to any internet address that is not specifically white-listed by management. This means even sending logs to a 3rd party for analysis requires me to send to a white-listed external address with a request for them to forward it to the person I need it to go to.
5) My system is scanned for unauthorized software on a regular basis, unauthorized sofware is removed even from an external storage device. This means any executable file that I create to automate some task is removed without warning. Until I realized this was happening I wasted many hours automating several tasks only to lose all of that work when the file was removed.
Basically it is a nightmare environment to work in, and I am positive the workstation support personnel that implement this do not have the same restrictions.
If you want to implement draconian restrictions, implement them for everyone with no exemptions. Every security restriction plan needs a documented process to handle exceptions to the default, everyone must follow this process. When the manager of the security team gets an onslaught of emails with exceptions for his own team he will understand how the restriction affects most other teams. Unless your company is filled with large groups that do exactly the same thing you cannot make a single image/list of applications that will work for everyone. Even the secretary group will have one-off needs. (One secretary needs access to MS Project, another to Visio, another to internet-travel sites, etc)
My other piece of advice, fire the power-hungry sysadmin. And if that is you, remember this: "Why do we need you if the system is so bulletproof now? And if it isn't bulletproof, why do I put up with all the restrictions!"
"Those that give up work-flexibility for network security get neither"
guess what: languages evolve and the exact meaning of words can change.
That's because moron's start using them incorrectly and that new usage sticks. (BTW: I am intentionally using the "new" definition of moron, stupid person, not the psychological definition, A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years.) These are both instances where a word has a very specific (ie decimation being 10% destruction, moron being mental age of 7 to 12) meaning yet incorrect usage catches on and the word loses all meaningful definition.
Wasn't he convicted of a felony? This whole "get out the vote" campaign he's on seems a little odd. He looks to me like the poster boy for the "to indifferent to vote" crew or the "to stupid to edumacate myself about nothin'" at least. This is sadly all to common nowadays.
Actually no, neither will raise or lower taxes. Congress will (or will not).
You're right. The person we elect will not make any difference at all. I'm not sure why we even vote for anyone in the executive branch. They are all simply puppets to the legislative branch. They have no real power.
they will only submit butgets and approve or veto what congress passes.
Kerry will raise taxes for the next 4 years. Bush will cut taxes for the next 4 years.
That is what they have said they will do, and that is what they will do. It is a difference and it is important. Before I get attacked by either side, let me point out that Finkployd asked the question and I answered it. I am not saying that raising/cutting taxes is a good/bad/fantastic/idiotic idea. I am simply saying Kerry will raise taxes (In the debates he said he will, wants to, and getting elected will get him the clout to do it) and Bush will cut taxes (He already has, said in the debates he wants more cuts, and being reelected will get him the clout to do it). If you can see no other differences between the two (there are quite a few others) and believe one or the other will be elected then you can be a single issue voter.
What did he say that made him a traitor? If he said "there are a lot of war crimes being committed in Vietnam" as an argument for ending the war, well, it was true (Lt. Calley, etc.), and a good argument. I can't imagine he said "all soldiers in Vietnam are committing war crimes" because that's silly.
Kerry actually said he himself committed these war crimes. He said that in an interview April 18, 1971. He testified to it in congressional hearings. I would post a link here but no matter what news organization I was to link to I would be accused of bias. (Link to Fox and I'm a Republican operative, link to NPR and I'm some Nader supporter, would CNN be better?) Simply searching for "Kerry war crimes Senate" and add your favorite news source and you will see commentary with your preferred spin. I would recommend reading several articles and look for articles that have the full transcript not excerpts. (For obvious reasons, some pro-Kerry sites have removed Kerry's "confession", some anti-Kerry sites for equally obvious reasons have over-emphasized it.) While you are searching you might come across the fact that Kerry's picture is hanging in a Vietnam museum (formerly called the "war crimes museum") and is recognized as a contributor to the communist win of the Vietnam War. I am not comfortable calling Kerry a traitor to his country, but I do understand how his fellow veterans, and especially former POWs, might feel strongly about it. His testimony about "atrocities" and "genocide" committed by the US was used against them during their torture. Aid and comfort to the enemy is treason. Perhaps his testimony, that he is now backing away from, could be considered to be aid. It certainly was used as an aid torturing American POWs.
Here is a quote simply to aid in your search. I have taken this "out of context" and again I recommend you read the entire transcript. John Kerry (1971) - "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers"
jumped all over this. The article is very specific, One important way people today are learning these success habits, believe it or not, is by playing computer and video games on Windows and game consoles! Only Windows or game consoles. Those of us that use Linux for our games are not effective at all. (Actually, the time sink factor does go into that, so it might be true.)
That has been the closest that scientists have gotten in fulfilling their previous promises. I am not an embryonic stem cell researcher so I don't even pretend to know. But I do know that we have put more government money into embryonic stem cell research than adult stem cell research. Now the medical companies that want to make money off of these discoveries are concentrating on adult stem cell research. I wonder why that is. My guess, they have decided there is a greater chance of a breakthrough with adult stem cells. Why not equalize the funding?
I have the answer to that. Politics. George Bush has banned ALL embryonic stem cell research done anywhere in the solar system. You must now travel to a whole new star system to even discuss embryonic stem cell research. Actually there is no such ban (as I hope anyone reading this realizes). There is not even a ban on research in the USA. There is a concentration of government funding for embryonic stem cells to the existing "lines" that are already established and being researched. We (the people) are no longer wasting money to research how to create new "lines" and now spending our money on researching actual uses of the existing lines. That seems rational to me. Let's remove the "stem cell" emotional component and talk about it in another way. Imagine scientists had this great new idea. They thought we could use hydrogen to produce energy in a usable form. They would call it a "fuel cell". They ask for some government funding and get it. They start to work and come up with a few different sources for hydrogen. Years later all they have successfully done is blow up stuff and create over 160 different sources of hydrogen, but they still haven't actually done anything useful. All of the "breakthrough" research has been in the harvesting of additional hydrogen and using that process to create more hydrogen. I would hope that we would wise up and demand that they spend all of the money on researching cures/uses. Use the existing supply and concentrate your time/resources on an actual use!
We could have a whole new discussion on this. Why do you think a member of the Libertarian Party would more closely match the Democratic Party and be opposed by the Republican Party? I am honestly curious because I feel I more closely match the Libertarian Party, but feel the Democratic Party would be my opposition.
As for these debates, I don't know what positive outcome can come from this lawsuit. The college is not going to NOT have the debate. They are in a contract to do this debate and I doubt they are going to find a Judge willing to say that a State University is making any type of political contribution. Now if this was being held at a Hotel Convention center or something for free, that would be different. All that this seems to do is make the people most likely to agree with the Libertarian Party (minimum Govt. interference, let us do as we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, etc.) think the Party has abandoned them for the Democratic (only picked since the parent post picked the Democrats) mantra (If you don't like the rules, sue until you do).
Simply repeating his statement doesn't explain his statement. The question is, why is this a "racist" practice? Is it the fact that slaves couldn't vote part? Is it counting a slave as 3/5 of a person? Is it also a "sexist" practice as well? Women couldn't vote either. That actually is the real question. By knowing that answer we will have all the facts neccessary to make a decision. If the electoral college is racist and sexist. Then the problem is not allowing slaves and women to vote. If the electoral college is simply racist then it is counting a slave as 3/5 of a person. Please answer that so we can all be educated.
Now a little historical background. The reason for counting slaves as 3/5 of a person actually goes back to "no taxation without representation". You see the "good" "politically correct" and racially integrated Northern boys (whom we shall call Damn Yankees for the remainder of this post) wanted the "bad" "racist" slave owning Southern boys (whom we shall call White Trash for the remainder of this post) to pay their "fair share" of taxes. Back in the good old days, federal taxes were paid based on state population not individual income. The Damn Yankees felt that slaves should be counted as full people (because they are people after all), at least for tax purposes. For the purposes of representation in the federal government, however, the Damn Yankees felt that slaves did not count, (them being property and all). The White Trash however felt that slaves should not count at all for tax purposes. If anything they should be a deduction, amortized over the lifetime of the slave, say 22 years or so. These two views (North thinking slaves are people when they have to pay, but not when they can receive and South thinking they are just good farm equipment) needed to be argued out and a "good" compromise reached. The White Trash would pay their "fair share" by measuring their population for tax purposes by using the formula (non-slave * 1 + slave * 0.60), in exchange they would be allocated Congressmen and Senators using the same allocation (Electoral college numbers being the number of Congressmen + 2 Senators every state has). This was a "great" compromise because neither side then had to argue over whether slaves should be considered as (White Trash preferred) not-equal or (Damn Yankee preferred) almost equal.
The electoral college itself is not racist any more than the entire United States is. As a country we went through a disgraceful period of time. I don't understand how "decent folk", as most Southerners are, could stand for slavery. I also don't understand how the Northerners could stand for it either but they did. In fact, most historical research shows that slavery was not portrayed any different in North or South during those times. The reason slavery did not thrive in the North was because the work in the North wasn't as well suited for slave labor. Plantation work fit the workflow pattern better. The civil war was actually fought for State Rights, not slavery. We rewrite history now so We (the United States) feel better. We fought that evil South (ignoring the fact that We includes the south) and We won. We (the United States) won, and We (The State of insert your state) lost. Now We (the United States), instead of feeling better about our civil war thing, should stand up and fight slavery. That is the only way to truly show repentance as a country. Fight the enslavement of our African brothers. Kick the crud out of the Sudan and all the other Islamic "racist" countries! http://www.iabolish.com/default.htm
Actually people loosely associated with the Bush campaign have been the most vocal and spent the most money "helping" Nader get on the ballot in several states. (Florida being one). The Kerry campaign has been using law suits and other tactics to keep Nader off. Most of my "liberal" friends here in California have been very critical of Kerry because of this.
Of course, I don't understand any "national" party that has almost 100% concentration on issues that affect one city in the US. (Last election, Nader was running for President, I don't remember who the vice-president candidate was, but the "national" website dealt exclusively with city ordinance type issues for San Francisco)
You are a Republican? What does that mean? I don't mean to pick on you, but I ask this to a lot of people. Are you a registered Republican? Do you agree with all of the "planks" of the Republican platform? Probably not, so which do you disagree with? I have several friends registered Democrat simply because they want to vote in the Democrat primary, not because they identify with any of the Democrat ideals. They will be probably be voting for Bush.
I cannot see how anyone who identifies with the Republican party could vote for Kerry. Kerry is against almost all of the basic beliefs of the Republican party itself. I do understand not voting because you disagree with Bush on major issues. Border control for example, but Kerry will do a much worse job. At least part of Bush's base keeps him in check. Kerry's base does not.
Take it from the other side. Would anyone have voted for Bob Dole because they thought Clinton was to Conservative? How about voting for Bush because Kerry voted for the Iraq war.
In my humble opinion, your "I am a Republican" statement has the same credibility as Kerry's orange tan.
I have found that along with Pair Programming, all code needs to be "group owned". Anyone can modify any code they think they need to. Having Pair Programming in this situation helps because you have a second set of eyes to keep your code as clean as possible.
Since all code is group owned you don't always have to have the same partner all the time, you just end up with whoever is available when you are ready to code. I can't imagine how Pair Programming is much of a benefit if the pair is always the same two people.
Of course, most of the time I have had a personality problem with a partner in Pair Programming was because I was being hard-headed and not willing to learn from my partner. If you are truly the expert, you will not feel threatened and will be willing to help your partner learn. If you aren't then the personality problem is probably caused by both. As for what to do, let it go. Do your job and leave the problems out of it. If they are that bad, others will notice in time and the Pair Programming practice will work.
The funniest part: Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam (See http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?Art Num=67867 )
Kerry didn't want to go to Vietnam, and He has said himself that he joined the Swift Boats because they weren't going. (He said this during his War is Bad phase, talking to anti-war people. He may have flip-flopped)
Kerry is everyone's candidate. Think service in Vietnam war was wrong. Kerry's your man! (He protested didn't he? He even said all the soldiers committed war crimes while they were there!) Think service in Vietnam is good. Kerry is your man! Look at all his medals. He served honorably and did his duty. I would go into more reasons that Kerry is your man no matter what your position, but I don't want to go off-topic.
Can you site some source for this assertion. I would contend that people who carry cell phones only tend to be more intelligent, hence more conservative. Those that meet both criteria, having only a cell phone and likely to vote, also tend to have jobs and want to keep more of their own money, making them more conservative.
Source: My own survey of friends.
Basis: Those of my friends that only have a cell phone have made the decision to cancel their land-line and spend the additional money on additional minutes. They are successful business types and tend to be more conservative than the general population. Other friends have both a land-line and cell, but only use the cell on nights/weekends for free long-distance. On average, these users tend to be more liberal.
Now of course, none of this has much bearing on polling because liberal/conservative is not an absolute indicator of a Bush/Kerry vote. My most liberal friends are voting for Bush because Kerry's group is keeping Nader off the ballot in so many places. They said they would've vote for Kerry, but they don't like the strong-arm tactics.
You will probably get modded flamebait by claiming that people are fat or drunk by their own choice. Nowadays being fat or drunk is the result of a disease, not life choices.
Your post makes the case better than I can. Nowadays, these are all things that "happen" to us. "She was born gay", "He has a genetic predisposition toward alcoholism", and "They have had a rough life and food gives them comfort".
In America, we have a thriving "culture of victimhood". We blame others for anything bad that happens to use. We point to our genetics to explain away weak spots in our character. And we are offended whenever anyone suggests that we have chosen to live the way we do. We are not simply the sum of our genetics. Haven't you seen Gattaca?
Our genetics define our starting point, but it is possible to exceed our potential.
Note: To assist the moderator to determine if this is flamebait. If you are reading this in the year 2004, defects in character refer to alcoholism (a known bad in 2004). If you are reading this in any other year, I make no claims as to the flamebait content of this message. To assist the moderator to determine if this is off-subject. I can believe that genetic defects can cause a person to vote Democrat.
Does anyone else think this is a bad idea?
on
Joe Trippi Interviewed
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I'm not sure Howard Dean is the best "horse" to hook the open source wagon to! We already have to overcome the linux is only for geeks issue. Do we want add on the screaming fanatic with no grasp on reality issue as well.
I understand that the Howard Dean scream was to motivate his people. It doesn't mean he's insane. yada yada yada. It doesn't matter what I think, I'm already on our side. What do the big companies decision makers think? In the USA they tend to be white, middle-aged, conservative (Republican).
All I'm saying, right or wrong, Howard Dean may not be a good influence on the Open Source acceptance in the mainstream.
One suggestion here is to hire a security professional. That is not a bad idea.
However I have a better one. Hire me! (Better for me, at least). But seriously, if you can't figure out the best solution, you certainly are not going to get it solved here. Bring in a consultant who specializes in this aspect of your business (ER management) and have them explain the options.
It is not clear what your requirements are, but I am not sure this is a good candidate for a "technology" solution. Charts are still the standard method for tracking in ER environments and a good old-fashioned white board is a pretty good way to track assignments. No matter what the solution, if the doctor has to go away from the patient to check status or update status the system is going to be always out of date (hence charts hanging on for so long).
I know this isn't the sexiest solution but you need to prepare yourself for the boring solutions when you present this problem.
Of course you could pull a Dave Barry and post contact information for Tracy Barnes, thus leveraging the might of slashdot against him.
Another idea is to get this story on as many blogs as possible. That way searches for "hard radio" pull up the story of some lawyer beating up on a "public access", not for profit, little-guy website.
Paybacks....
Of course, I'm not sure how you pull this kind of attention back when hardradio.com lawyers back off.... Well they did bring it on themselves.
The big deal is the subversive part. Any connected computer that attempts to get to www.anything.com will get a random page off the laptop. The backpack wearer is disseminating information to anyone in the area that is "listening" (ie connected) and that information is of his/her own choosing. Not sure how this idea is much different than SPAM, delivering content to people that they didn't want and didn't ask for, but subversive and confrontational is good on Slashdot. (when it's not SPAM)
Computing simply hasn't reached that point. When people choose web hosting, they don't choose on the basis of how many dollars each GB of bandwidth costs; they choose on the basis of security, reliability, customer service, and generally reputation.
It is our (Developers, IT Professionals) fault that computing hasn't reached that point. Security and reliability should be a given. You don't pick a water company because of security and reliability, those are built in. A water company that doesn't have ten 9s of reliability is no longer in business. (When was the last time your neighborhood lost water?) People do pick a utility for customer service, reputation, cost, etc.
The point of utility computing is getting to the point (very rapidly) that customers make their decisions based on real business or personal needs not technical ones. For example, I need water at my house, I need a phone to take orders. Customers should not have to pick a company based on "I need my customers Visa card number to stay secure". That should be built in and automatic. With a utility company you have a comfort, I have never worried that there will be no water at my work location, however I often worry that I won't have a network link to the outside world. Both problems would have an equal impact (no work done today) but one has a history of being reliable, the other does not.
Utility Computing, to me, means WE quit playing around and start doing things right (delivering bullet proof service) and our customers will then start taking our service for granted just like the water company. Of course, when you start taking this service for granted then you start taking us for granted and we drop in status to the sewer repair men of this century. So perhaps I have stumbled on why we are not yet ready for utility computing.
Slashdot Mirror
Take this scenario:
An island with wonderful beaches and good healthy food on one side, lots of fattening food and horrible beaches on the other and a wasteland in the middle. There are people living all the way around the island. Closer to the wonderful beaches all the people are slim and tan (all the swimming and healthy living) closer to the fattening food they are all heavy and pale. We find that the neighbors can and do interbreed, but you take the good looking, tan people to the fat ugly side and they don't interbreed.
Are they now seperate species?
Actually, since electric cars are an additional load on the grid, the electricity for electric cars will come from the dirtiest source. This means during the summer, when the additional load from Air Conditioners, etc. is on the grid, electric cars are really running on coal produced electricity. (Coal fired plants are more expensive/restricted so they are generally only used to meet the increased demand during the summer when all other plants are at capacity. Electric cars increase this load, not decrease it.) This means that during the summer months, gasoline cars are cleaner than electric cars. Why don't we ever see this brought up? This is a good reason to push for more Nuclear plants.
That being said, I think electric cars are still worth the research/development because they do something that gas powered cars cannot. Electric cars move the polution out of the big city to rural locations that do not have as severe a problem with it. Also, as much as environmentalists hate even thinking about it, big companies (like those that run power plants) are a lot better at keeping their power plants (ie engines) running effeciently then average people. If you don't believe this, check out a smog check station in California. Most of those cars that fail their smog check have been running badly for months. If the owner is paying attention to gas mileage, they know there is a problem. (ex. Car was getting 30 MPG, now getting 27) Why didn't they fix it before their every 2 year smog check? Because fixing it now might cost $200. If a power plant had a 10% reduction in effeciency, the owner would notice immediately and would fix it. That's a 10% hit to profitability and because of our weird tax laws, the repair cost is a write-off which makes it profit too! That gets fixed!
This is the kind of thing that is thrown around a lot with no proof. It is true that quite a few first month Wal-Mart employees are on welfare. All that proves is that Wal-Mart is willing to hire people that are on welfare. Isn't that a good thing? The question is, how many 1 year or longer employees are still on welfare? For some reason you never hear that statistic even though the numbers are known (just as easy as determining how many 1st month Wal-Mart employees are on welfare).
I'll leave the answer to that question as an exercise for the student.
I work in an environment that is this restrictive. I estimate that it costs me 3 to 4 hours a week of productive time to work around the security restrictions.
1)The checks to make sure my machine is secure before I can connect it to the corporate infrastructure alone take 10 - 15 minutes a day every day that I take the work laptop home. And I have to take it home everyday because I am frequently called at home to check/fix something. This is an hour a week of lost time waiting to even be able to open email first thing in the morning.
2) I do not have access permissions to install any software, which also means software I write on company time to do company tasks. What this ends up meaning is a one to two week delay in deploying softare I write to speed up my job to my own machine, let alone the other team mates.
3) All internet access is restricted. If I need to download a patch that can't be sent to me via email I have to do it somewhere other than the company network.
4) I am unable to send email to any internet address that is not specifically white-listed by management. This means even sending logs to a 3rd party for analysis requires me to send to a white-listed external address with a request for them to forward it to the person I need it to go to.
5) My system is scanned for unauthorized software on a regular basis, unauthorized sofware is removed even from an external storage device. This means any executable file that I create to automate some task is removed without warning. Until I realized this was happening I wasted many hours automating several tasks only to lose all of that work when the file was removed.
Basically it is a nightmare environment to work in, and I am positive the workstation support personnel that implement this do not have the same restrictions.
If you want to implement draconian restrictions, implement them for everyone with no exemptions. Every security restriction plan needs a documented process to handle exceptions to the default, everyone must follow this process. When the manager of the security team gets an onslaught of emails with exceptions for his own team he will understand how the restriction affects most other teams. Unless your company is filled with large groups that do exactly the same thing you cannot make a single image/list of applications that will work for everyone. Even the secretary group will have one-off needs. (One secretary needs access to MS Project, another to Visio, another to internet-travel sites, etc)
My other piece of advice, fire the power-hungry sysadmin. And if that is you, remember this: "Why do we need you if the system is so bulletproof now? And if it isn't bulletproof, why do I put up with all the restrictions!"
"Those that give up work-flexibility for network security get neither"
Until my manager can create/update project plans under Linux, it will not even be considered as a replacement on the desktop.
That's because moron's start using them incorrectly and that new usage sticks. (BTW: I am intentionally using the "new" definition of moron, stupid person, not the psychological definition, A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years.)
These are both instances where a word has a very specific (ie decimation being 10% destruction, moron being mental age of 7 to 12) meaning yet incorrect usage catches on and the word loses all meaningful definition.
Wasn't he convicted of a felony? This whole "get out the vote" campaign he's on seems a little odd. He looks to me like the poster boy for the "to indifferent to vote" crew or the "to stupid to edumacate myself about nothin'" at least. This is sadly all to common nowadays.
You're right. The person we elect will not make any difference at all. I'm not sure why we even vote for anyone in the executive branch. They are all simply puppets to the legislative branch. They have no real power.
What is that veto thing?
Kerry will raise taxes for the next 4 years. Bush will cut taxes for the next 4 years.
That is what they have said they will do, and that is what they will do. It is a difference and it is important. Before I get attacked by either side, let me point out that Finkployd asked the question and I answered it. I am not saying that raising/cutting taxes is a good/bad/fantastic/idiotic idea. I am simply saying Kerry will raise taxes (In the debates he said he will, wants to, and getting elected will get him the clout to do it) and Bush will cut taxes (He already has, said in the debates he wants more cuts, and being reelected will get him the clout to do it).
If you can see no other differences between the two (there are quite a few others) and believe one or the other will be elected then you can be a single issue voter.
Kerry actually said he himself committed these war crimes. He said that in an interview April 18, 1971. He testified to it in congressional hearings. I would post a link here but no matter what news organization I was to link to I would be accused of bias. (Link to Fox and I'm a Republican operative, link to NPR and I'm some Nader supporter, would CNN be better?) Simply searching for "Kerry war crimes Senate" and add your favorite news source and you will see commentary with your preferred spin. I would recommend reading several articles and look for articles that have the full transcript not excerpts. (For obvious reasons, some pro-Kerry sites have removed Kerry's "confession", some anti-Kerry sites for equally obvious reasons have over-emphasized it.) While you are searching you might come across the fact that Kerry's picture is hanging in a Vietnam museum (formerly called the "war crimes museum") and is recognized as a contributor to the communist win of the Vietnam War. I am not comfortable calling Kerry a traitor to his country, but I do understand how his fellow veterans, and especially former POWs, might feel strongly about it. His testimony about "atrocities" and "genocide" committed by the US was used against them during their torture. Aid and comfort to the enemy is treason. Perhaps his testimony, that he is now backing away from, could be considered to be aid. It certainly was used as an aid torturing American POWs.
Here is a quote simply to aid in your search. I have taken this "out of context" and again I recommend you read the entire transcript.
John Kerry (1971) - "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers"
jumped all over this. The article is very specific,
One important way people today are learning these success habits, believe it or not, is by playing computer and video games on Windows and game consoles!
Only Windows or game consoles. Those of us that use Linux for our games are not effective at all. (Actually, the time sink factor does go into that, so it might be true.)
grow cancer tumors.
That has been the closest that scientists have gotten in fulfilling their previous promises. I am not an embryonic stem cell researcher so I don't even pretend to know. But I do know that we have put more government money into embryonic stem cell research than adult stem cell research. Now the medical companies that want to make money off of these discoveries are concentrating on adult stem cell research. I wonder why that is. My guess, they have decided there is a greater chance of a breakthrough with adult stem cells. Why not equalize the funding?
I have the answer to that. Politics. George Bush has banned ALL embryonic stem cell research done anywhere in the solar system. You must now travel to a whole new star system to even discuss embryonic stem cell research. Actually there is no such ban (as I hope anyone reading this realizes). There is not even a ban on research in the USA. There is a concentration of government funding for embryonic stem cells to the existing "lines" that are already established and being researched. We (the people) are no longer wasting money to research how to create new "lines" and now spending our money on researching actual uses of the existing lines. That seems rational to me. Let's remove the "stem cell" emotional component and talk about it in another way. Imagine scientists had this great new idea. They thought we could use hydrogen to produce energy in a usable form. They would call it a "fuel cell". They ask for some government funding and get it. They start to work and come up with a few different sources for hydrogen. Years later all they have successfully done is blow up stuff and create over 160 different sources of hydrogen, but they still haven't actually done anything useful. All of the "breakthrough" research has been in the harvesting of additional hydrogen and using that process to create more hydrogen. I would hope that we would wise up and demand that they spend all of the money on researching cures/uses. Use the existing supply and concentrate your time/resources on an actual use!
We could have a whole new discussion on this. Why do you think a member of the Libertarian Party would more closely match the Democratic Party and be opposed by the Republican Party? I am honestly curious because I feel I more closely match the Libertarian Party, but feel the Democratic Party would be my opposition.
As for these debates, I don't know what positive outcome can come from this lawsuit. The college is not going to NOT have the debate. They are in a contract to do this debate and I doubt they are going to find a Judge willing to say that a State University is making any type of political contribution. Now if this was being held at a Hotel Convention center or something for free, that would be different. All that this seems to do is make the people most likely to agree with the Libertarian Party (minimum Govt. interference, let us do as we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, etc.) think the Party has abandoned them for the Democratic (only picked since the parent post picked the Democrats) mantra (If you don't like the rules, sue until you do).
Simply repeating his statement doesn't explain his statement.
The question is, why is this a "racist" practice? Is it the fact that slaves couldn't vote part? Is it counting a slave as 3/5 of a person? Is it also a "sexist" practice as well? Women couldn't vote either.
That actually is the real question. By knowing that answer we will have all the facts neccessary to make a decision. If the electoral college is racist and sexist. Then the problem is not allowing slaves and women to vote. If the electoral college is simply racist then it is counting a slave as 3/5 of a person. Please answer that so we can all be educated.
Now a little historical background.
The reason for counting slaves as 3/5 of a person actually goes back to "no taxation without representation". You see the "good" "politically correct" and racially integrated Northern boys (whom we shall call Damn Yankees for the remainder of this post) wanted the "bad" "racist" slave owning Southern boys (whom we shall call White Trash for the remainder of this post) to pay their "fair share" of taxes. Back in the good old days, federal taxes were paid based on state population not individual income. The Damn Yankees felt that slaves should be counted as full people (because they are people after all), at least for tax purposes. For the purposes of representation in the federal government, however, the Damn Yankees felt that slaves did not count, (them being property and all). The White Trash however felt that slaves should not count at all for tax purposes. If anything they should be a deduction, amortized over the lifetime of the slave, say 22 years or so. These two views (North thinking slaves are people when they have to pay, but not when they can receive and South thinking they are just good farm equipment) needed to be argued out and a "good" compromise reached. The White Trash would pay their "fair share" by measuring their population for tax purposes by using the formula (non-slave * 1 + slave * 0.60), in exchange they would be allocated Congressmen and Senators using the same allocation (Electoral college numbers being the number of Congressmen + 2 Senators every state has). This was a "great" compromise because neither side then had to argue over whether slaves should be considered as (White Trash preferred) not-equal or (Damn Yankee preferred) almost equal.
The electoral college itself is not racist any more than the entire United States is. As a country we went through a disgraceful period of time. I don't understand how "decent folk", as most Southerners are, could stand for slavery. I also don't understand how the Northerners could stand for it either but they did. In fact, most historical research shows that slavery was not portrayed any different in North or South during those times. The reason slavery did not thrive in the North was because the work in the North wasn't as well suited for slave labor. Plantation work fit the workflow pattern better. The civil war was actually fought for State Rights, not slavery. We rewrite history now so We (the United States) feel better. We fought that evil South (ignoring the fact that We includes the south) and We won. We (the United States) won, and We (The State of insert your state) lost.
Now We (the United States), instead of feeling better about our civil war thing, should stand up and fight slavery. That is the only way to truly show repentance as a country. Fight the enslavement of our African brothers. Kick the crud out of the Sudan and all the other Islamic "racist" countries! http://www.iabolish.com/default.htm
Actually people loosely associated with the Bush campaign have been the most vocal and spent the most money "helping" Nader get on the ballot in several states. (Florida being one). The Kerry campaign has been using law suits and other tactics to keep Nader off. Most of my "liberal" friends here in California have been very critical of Kerry because of this.
Of course, I don't understand any "national" party that has almost 100% concentration on issues that affect one city in the US. (Last election, Nader was running for President, I don't remember who the vice-president candidate was, but the "national" website dealt exclusively with city ordinance type issues for San Francisco)
You are a Republican? What does that mean? I don't mean to pick on you, but I ask this to a lot of people. Are you a registered Republican? Do you agree with all of the "planks" of the Republican platform? Probably not, so which do you disagree with?
I have several friends registered Democrat simply because they want to vote in the Democrat primary, not because they identify with any of the Democrat ideals. They will be probably be voting for Bush.
I cannot see how anyone who identifies with the Republican party could vote for Kerry. Kerry is against almost all of the basic beliefs of the Republican party itself. I do understand not voting because you disagree with Bush on major issues. Border control for example, but Kerry will do a much worse job. At least part of Bush's base keeps him in check. Kerry's base does not.
Take it from the other side. Would anyone have voted for Bob Dole because they thought Clinton was to Conservative? How about voting for Bush because Kerry voted for the Iraq war.
In my humble opinion, your "I am a Republican" statement has the same credibility as Kerry's orange tan.
I have found that along with Pair Programming, all code needs to be "group owned". Anyone can modify any code they think they need to. Having Pair Programming in this situation helps because you have a second set of eyes to keep your code as clean as possible.
Since all code is group owned you don't always have to have the same partner all the time, you just end up with whoever is available when you are ready to code. I can't imagine how Pair Programming is much of a benefit if the pair is always the same two people.
Of course, most of the time I have had a personality problem with a partner in Pair Programming was because I was being hard-headed and not willing to learn from my partner. If you are truly the expert, you will not feel threatened and will be willing to help your partner learn. If you aren't then the personality problem is probably caused by both.
As for what to do, let it go. Do your job and leave the problems out of it. If they are that bad, others will notice in time and the Pair Programming practice will work.
The funniest part:t Num=67867 )
Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam (See http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?Ar
Kerry didn't want to go to Vietnam, and He has said himself that he joined the Swift Boats because they weren't going. (He said this during his War is Bad phase, talking to anti-war people. He may have flip-flopped)
Kerry is everyone's candidate. Think service in Vietnam war was wrong. Kerry's your man! (He protested didn't he? He even said all the soldiers committed war crimes while they were there!) Think service in Vietnam is good. Kerry is your man! Look at all his medals. He served honorably and did his duty.
I would go into more reasons that Kerry is your man no matter what your position, but I don't want to go off-topic.
Can you site some source for this assertion. I would contend that people who carry cell phones only tend to be more intelligent, hence more conservative. Those that meet both criteria, having only a cell phone and likely to vote, also tend to have jobs and want to keep more of their own money, making them more conservative.
Source: My own survey of friends.
Basis: Those of my friends that only have a cell phone have made the decision to cancel their land-line and spend the additional money on additional minutes. They are successful business types and tend to be more conservative than the general population. Other friends have both a land-line and cell, but only use the cell on nights/weekends for free long-distance. On average, these users tend to be more liberal.
Now of course, none of this has much bearing on polling because liberal/conservative is not an absolute indicator of a Bush/Kerry vote. My most liberal friends are voting for Bush because Kerry's group is keeping Nader off the ballot in so many places. They said they would've vote for Kerry, but they don't like the strong-arm tactics.
Interesting that you would only mention gay....
You will probably get modded flamebait by claiming that people are fat or drunk by their own choice. Nowadays being fat or drunk is the result of a disease, not life choices.
Your post makes the case better than I can. Nowadays, these are all things that "happen" to us. "She was born gay", "He has a genetic predisposition toward alcoholism", and "They have had a rough life and food gives them comfort".
In America, we have a thriving "culture of victimhood". We blame others for anything bad that happens to use. We point to our genetics to explain away weak spots in our character. And we are offended whenever anyone suggests that we have chosen to live the way we do. We are not simply the sum of our genetics. Haven't you seen Gattaca?
Our genetics define our starting point, but it is possible to exceed our potential.
Note: To assist the moderator to determine if this is flamebait. If you are reading this in the year 2004, defects in character refer to alcoholism (a known bad in 2004). If you are reading this in any other year, I make no claims as to the flamebait content of this message.
To assist the moderator to determine if this is off-subject. I can believe that genetic defects can cause a person to vote Democrat.
I'm not sure Howard Dean is the best "horse" to hook the open source wagon to! We already have to overcome the linux is only for geeks issue. Do we want add on the screaming fanatic with no grasp on reality issue as well.
I understand that the Howard Dean scream was to motivate his people. It doesn't mean he's insane. yada yada yada. It doesn't matter what I think, I'm already on our side. What do the big companies decision makers think? In the USA they tend to be white, middle-aged, conservative (Republican).
All I'm saying, right or wrong, Howard Dean may not be a good influence on the Open Source acceptance in the mainstream.
One suggestion here is to hire a security professional. That is not a bad idea.
However I have a better one. Hire me! (Better for me, at least). But seriously, if you can't figure out the best solution, you certainly are not going to get it solved here. Bring in a consultant who specializes in this aspect of your business (ER management) and have them explain the options.
It is not clear what your requirements are, but I am not sure this is a good candidate for a "technology" solution. Charts are still the standard method for tracking in ER environments and a good old-fashioned white board is a pretty good way to track assignments. No matter what the solution, if the doctor has to go away from the patient to check status or update status the system is going to be always out of date (hence charts hanging on for so long).
I know this isn't the sexiest solution but you need to prepare yourself for the boring solutions when you present this problem.
Another idea is to get this story on as many blogs as possible. That way searches for "hard radio" pull up the story of some lawyer beating up on a "public access", not for profit, little-guy website.
Paybacks....
Of course, I'm not sure how you pull this kind of attention back when hardradio.com lawyers back off.... Well they did bring it on themselves.
The big deal is the subversive part. Any connected computer that attempts to get to www.anything.com will get a random page off the laptop. The backpack wearer is disseminating information to anyone in the area that is "listening" (ie connected) and that information is of his/her own choosing.
Not sure how this idea is much different than SPAM, delivering content to people that they didn't want and didn't ask for, but subversive and confrontational is good on Slashdot. (when it's not SPAM)
The point of utility computing is getting to the point (very rapidly) that customers make their decisions based on real business or personal needs not technical ones. For example, I need water at my house, I need a phone to take orders. Customers should not have to pick a company based on "I need my customers Visa card number to stay secure". That should be built in and automatic. With a utility company you have a comfort, I have never worried that there will be no water at my work location, however I often worry that I won't have a network link to the outside world. Both problems would have an equal impact (no work done today) but one has a history of being reliable, the other does not.
Utility Computing, to me, means WE quit playing around and start doing things right (delivering bullet proof service) and our customers will then start taking our service for granted just like the water company. Of course, when you start taking this service for granted then you start taking us for granted and we drop in status to the sewer repair men of this century. So perhaps I have stumbled on why we are not yet ready for utility computing.