Where are you getting your gas from, airmail straight from Chile? I spend about $1.50 LESS per gallon today (in the midwest) than I did at this point into GWB's first term.
After the adjustment for oil future speculation, you would find the inverse is mostly correct. I don't see what this has to do with which president is in office. (If it weren't for ULSD and ethanol regulations, it would be absolutely correct, possibly without the market changes brought on by fucking speculators.)
As for Afghanistan, what do you suggest? Keep in mind that your solution must uphold our treaty obligations with other countries at the very least and should at least heavily favor upholding private political agreements with our close allies. Keep in mind also yadda yadda yadda
I'd blow the shit out of the mosques and Islamic sites, humiliate their esteemed Muslim leaders, and burn their fields (of opium). Then I'd introduce pornography, the Internet, and running water.
(After all, it's only what they'd do for us. Except significantly better.)
It's not like Obama has had much of a choice in that quagmire, and it's not like there even is one clear answer. I don't have a favorite solution, so I am genuinely interested in what you want to happen.
Yet, the death rate increases. We've had more deaths in the past previous two years than all other years combined. Somethign isn't being done right; why? You'd think someone would see the death count increases (nevermind the rate) and say: "Hey, I'm going to change tactics. More Clinton-era type bombings and put some tanks in there, now!" or similar. Something! The status quo is obviously not working; the enemy has adapted to the existing tactics and is on a counter-surge.
She may beat all the other republican candidates and get to the general election, but a substantial portion of her on-paper power base would evaporate at the polls.
You are absolutely right, of course. I'd not sooner support her as a candidate (if not because I disagree with her fundamentally, which I do in many regards) than I would vote for the other guy. There's absolutely no way she's winning the general, to be certain.
I'm sorry but you're incorrect. McCain won because the was not Huckabee, not Romney, and not Giuliani candidate. That and because of the wide-open field he won many primaries with significantly less than 50% of the vote. If the Democrats were doing that, don't you think they'd choose a unelectable far-right conservative rather than the most moderate of the entire Republican field?
Don't kid yourself. Most states no longer matter, on their own: what it comes down to is electoral votes.
And if you really think that Barack Obama is a Marxist, I suggest you look at the platforms of even the conservative parties of Europe.
I don't exactly see how this contests my argument, one way or another.
Obama is very much a centrist by today's American standards
Not from what I've seen. In fact, short of the fat rimmed glasses, turtleneck-wearing set who think that Nigeria is the hight of human rights concerns in the world, I've yet to meet a single human who thinks his policies are in any way good. (Not many Americans are a fan of overt communism, but there are even fewer who are a fan of Marxist state-run corporatism, which Obama has contributed heavily to. More than anything, I'd like to see a rebuttal to this preceding statement.)
but pretty far right by European standards,
... which means precisely fuckallnothing to me, since I don't live in Europe. You can burn your own houses down for all I care, after the ingratitude and contempt most of Europe has held for the US after what our fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers have done for you.
He's objectively to the right of Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford.
Now that's interesting. I can think of nothing he has done which is further "right" of these guys than say, what Mao may have done. Supporting arguments?
So the moral of the story here is not that Google and OpenDNS services are bad, but that Apple's iTunes QoS methods are of "questionable quality" - at best.
How did this make Slashdot's frontpage, again? Maybe this should be filed as a bug report to Apple (do they read those?) instead.
Basically, what it comes down to is a number of things, but IMO, one thing comes to the surface (from my experience):
* PCs allow for more seamless 'teaming' of groups. You can chat with the people in and prior/after the game on MSN, AIM, whatever while looking at porn or something. * PCs have higher resolution capabilities, meaning an easier ability to distinguish what's actually in front of your eyes. * PCs have better input. N-axis input + keyboard or 2x8 axis input + 6-12 buttons? I know which is more adaptable, to be sure. This one is key: while a gamepad may be leveraged to similar awesomeness by some, a mouse is still far superior for the average person. Not every 'team' can be universally awesome, so the result is that the average is brought down by joypads.
Are you actually arguing that, per unit of production, dia is cheaper than Visio? Blender is cheaper than Maya? That there's a cheaper CAD program than what AutoDesk offers? That there are cheaper options for healthcare than what the current systems provide (this one I might believe - those are expensive as hell)?
The simple fact that you can't get there from here using most "open source alternatives" is a key point of my argument.
Make the software better, and we'll go there as a society. Until then, the commercial stuff is picked for its superiority to get the job done. (People have been, time and time again, shown to use the free option preferentially if it does the job at least sufficiently, if not better. Most open source software is not there yet.)
Look how much the continued Afghanistan 'conflict' is costing, in both dollars and lives. More soldiers are dying now than at any time throughout the Iraq/Afghan conflicts under Bush II. Gas costs significantly more now than it did under Bush (as does LPG and other fossil fuels), and there have been before unheard of moratoriums on drilling (= oil industry profits through the ceiling due to lack of supply).
he graduated HLS with highest honors and as editor of the Harvard Law review.
He did? Prove it.
There is absolutely zero affirmatively positive documentation as to Obama's past: nothing legally officious about where he was born; no school records to speak of; not a single paper published or picture indicating his presence in places he claimed to be prominent (and really should be visible).
Additionally, we have people with verifiable histories who would be in a position to either deny or confirm Obama's official story who do deny it, consistently.
This, on top of Obama's reticence to actually release his history. Why is he? Bush, McCain, Clinton - their files were all thoroughly investigated and vetted by the public. Every piece of dirt was unearthed. Obama? His feet smell like flowers, and the media never touched him.
No, I don't believe any of the 'birther' stuff is true. At the same time, I think his official history is bullshit until I see it proven otherwise.
If I say I'm going to do something, and then don't, what is it that I've "demonstrated", exactly?
Because that's exactly what Obama has done. He's said one thing, and either implemented/tried it partially and in a very fucked-up fashion or not at all. What he's done instead has been a complete fuck-up.
To demonstrate something - particularly, responsibility - is an act. I've not seen him taking action much, unless we're counting going for a bike ride, playing golf or basketball, or eating lobster and ice cream.
(1) It corrupts the US election process, because that's not how it was supposed to work.
These people don't care about the election process. They care about control from the top, by Their Guy. I mean, c'mon: these guys are likely avowed Marxists or simply delusional: they want Obama for a second term? Seriously? Have they been paying attention for the past year+? There's only so long you can say 'this is Bush's fault'.
(2) It legitimizes non-democratic measures to counter this.
No, it doesn't. It's just more clandestine bullshit which most people are opposed to but will likely never hear about - just like dead people voting in elections, completely fabricated ballots, and the like.
(3) It increases the odds that Sara Palin becomes President.
She may come across as an idiot in some regards, but her economic policies aren't all that wishy washy.
I don't particularly want her to be President, but something tells me that having someone like her in the White House (given what she's done in Alaska) would be very, very good for the country as a whole (economically). She'd kick begging corporations to the curb, box the ears of Congress and send them to bed without dinner, and generally roll things back to a somewhat more sane rate of discussion.
Regardless of Palin (no, this is NOT an argument for her) we need a domestically-focused President. We've had entirely too many exofocused Presidents in the last several decades (or more), and the state of the union has suffered for it significantly. Arguably, it goes all the way back to Carter (and every President since) vying for international favor and handing out appeasement.
There was lots of wind about Obama being the first black President, and how significant it was in the face of racism in America (despite the only signs of racism against him being the people bringing this 'fact' to light). It was an epic change against bigotry for America.
And look how he's cocked things up.
Now it's a woman's turn to be the first woman President to cock things up. The Democrat party got one elected in the name of electioneering and corporate sponsorship; now let the Republicans have an epic failure.
Honestly, compared to Obama and Palin, Bush is actually looking pretty good.
At this point, I think a literal monkey could win against Obama. The man has made nothing but bad choices, had increasingly poor public interactions, and has demonstrated wanton hypocrisy and contempt for the American populace.
Of course, that doesn't say much for Palin, et al. The monkey would beat her, too (with a stick, if you let him have one).
On the other hand, it worked before: how do you think McCain won the primaries in the first place? Yep, that's right - Democrats voting in the Republican primaries. (We really need to have open primaries.)
I would think the radical 'democrats' (the ones that would be voting for Stalin, were he on the ticket) would be more concerned with the Democrat primary, as there's likely to be one at this point. Considering how Obama barely beat Hillary last time around, one of the most universally reviled females in American public life, ever (except in NY, CT, NJ, and CA, where they've got even worse human beings to hate), he's likely goign to need all the help he can get from his Marxist kindred. It was them and them alone (well, and the dead people) who helped him win last time.
I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, wrt "application acceleration". Why would I need (want) that? My OS already starts from a cold boot to a desktop with launched in about 3 seconds, and my hardware is nothing to write home about (no flash memory/SSD).
In all fairness, TRIM is only needed because/when filesystems suck. That's hardly a boasting point.
I'm a troll, yet you are the one saying that dia is a suitable replacement for Visio?
If you use either Dia or Visio for project management then you have been promoted well past your level of competence.
Hell, why use dia at all, just keep everything in flat ASCII files and if you need the information, you can read the whole file?
If you can not see the intrinsic utility in gantt, project and resource prerequisites, etc. then you are apparently missing the point of computing in general. Sure, someone might not need those things - but they sure save a hell of a lot of time, money, and general material/human resources.
Rude and empty rhetoric. Yes I know what Autodesk is and which products they sell. [wikipedia.org]
Yet, they sell a great number of other products, too. None of them have a correlative product available on Linux, never mind as 'free' software. I have no idea why you would automatically assume I meant Maya when I refer to "AutoDesk" and "drafting", unless you've got no actual professional experience with what we're talking about and/or have torrent sites as your primary source of education. Consider the AutoDesk products: pretty much all of them deal exclusively with the engineering, surveying, and architecture fields. Maya is an auxiliary acquisition which compliments their portfolio, but is by no means the focus of their product line(s).
Unlike Maya productions (where the returns are more significant on a big production), the margin for typical engineering/physical technical work is significantly less. "Re-tooling", as it were, is not nearly as much of an option when you're making something functional as when you're trying to push the boundaries on art.
It's a simple economic computation, and if you can't grasp this fact, you really don't belong in this argument. It's not ideological, it's economical. If I can not meet my deadline for a project if I resort to using software with inferior features, I can't simply justify charging more (because I'll be beaten out by competitors). I can't justify it to customers (with "I use free software so it's going to cost more to get it done" or otherwise).
I can agree with you - to a point - that free and open software is ideologically better, and technically better from a "liberation" standpoint. When it comes time to get shit done, however, you've got to make a compromise or not do it at all (except for in the rarest of circumstances).
I don't believe there's anyone here on Slashdot calling for the support of the ban.
They're supporting Amazon's choice to ban them, which is distinctly different.
(As for a movie based on the "undesirable" parts of the Bible, I think that would be awesome. HBO or Showtime should produce it as a series - trying to be as true to the literal and symbolic meaning in the stories as possible. I think it would be great, receiving much public acclaim, and win many awards.)
So I'm censoring the TV when I walk from the room during commercials?
Am I censoring people's choice when I decide to sell one product over another?
Look it up, you are wrong:
–noun 1. strong or vehement expression of disapproval: The newspapers were unanimous in their censure of the tax proposal. 2. an official reprimand, as by a legislative body of one of its members. –verb (used with object) 3. to criticize or reproach in a harsh or vehement manner: She is more to be pitied than censured. –verb (used without object) 4. to give censure, adverse criticism, disapproval, or blame.
I think you're over-applying the definition of the word. There is nothing chastising as to the quality of said items; they're just not selling them. I do believe others are still selling said degenerate works. This is called 'free will'. It's just somewhat more difficult (or I should say, not as trivially easy and universal) to find/acquire things found by most societies of the world to be offensive.
Yeah, those poor artists, having to compromise their artistic integrity to make money in the world's largest retail store instead of nickel and dimeing it like street-side rappers. Those poor sods can't scream and rap about popping caps, raping, murdering, and fucking bitches anymore or anything...
No, it isn't banned. We the state don't ban anything. You just won't be doing business in this town.
I presume you've got a problem with democratic decisions?
I much rather have state censorship.
Ah, the true response of a totalitarian.
The state can be voted out. Amazon can not.
Until Amazon becomes the only source for literature, Amazon most certainly can be voted out. If your sentiments were socially acceptable as to the odious nature of these 'literature redactions', this might actually happen. But since pretty much everyone finds these things offensive, you're just going to have to rot.
Sorry, no: I'm not going to support an independent organization being forced to sell something which they deem to be offensive, unprofitable, and/or counter-productive.
Religious extremists aren't limited to the muslim world, it just takes other forms and actions and a lot of the effects seen in the US of that is that anything related to sex is banned but it's OK to sell weapons, show how to abuse someone (as long as it isn't sexually) and glorify war.
What? THat makes no sense.
How are these things related to protestant Christian extremism (which I presume it is you are referring to):
* banning anything related to sex * selling weapons * showing how to abuse someone (wtf) * glorifying war
I'm not a protestant CHristian, but this sounds stupid and false to me. I'm not sure where any of those things have been doctrinally defined as "this is what we do" (except for banning the public display of sexual imagery in public and similar, which can be argued from a number of other vantage points sans the religious: there's no -good- reason for hedonistic displays in public, for starters.)
In the final stages even books related to science will disappear and only creationism books will be permitted to remain.
You folks are a bunch of reactionary nuts. There is no reason to believe this, and such a response as your's is retarded. We've got a long way to go before something as even as controversial and intentionally offensive as (oh) "Piss Christ" is banned, never mind the inverse response of banning non-Christian things.
This is a commercial entity doing what is best for themselves. Nothing more. It is in no way similar to banning books or burning them. Go shop somewhere else, if it bothers you so much.
Oh, and as far as your Muslim response... there are many things entombed in the Quran and enforced throughout the Muslim world through law (nevermind culture) which are odious to the rights of humans, never mind the 'radicals'.
It's simply, really, and anyone who didn't fail economics 101 and/or adheres to radical anti-societal social beliefs would realize it for what it is:
If you're selling a lot of everything, and one of your items offends more people to the point of complaining or not returning to your place of business than it brings in in lost sales, you do not sell said offensive item.
I don't care if it's a plush Barney toy or a piss and shit painting of Mohammed the Dog. Not selling said offensive item makes sense when you've got a 'universal marketplace', as Amazon does.
This is not censorship. They've just decided it isn't in their best interest to sell these specific items. (This is illustrated by actual works of fiction with merit - by Hienlien - still being sold through their store.)
In other news, I've seen other, completely innocent items (as well as several vendors) yanked from Amazon. Why? Those vendors and/or items were shit, and bad for business. Is that censorship too, or can you admit that such a practice might just be in the better interest of its customer base?
Ultimately, it doesnt' matter if China reaches its full potential - provided it's able to dominate everyone else.
That, at least, is how history has gone. The Khans could have done oh-such more had they used different methods of (say) construction and/or labor concentration/slavery, but they didn't... but they were still unarguably successful.
and then it is happy-fun CAL time. You can re-ghost a lot of flakey client machines for that money.
Not unless it's an automated process, you can't.
Let's say you've got 1000 users, so $15,000 or so in user CALs. That's a chunk.
How many Windows desktop support monkeys would you need to support 1000 workstations? My guess is somewhere around 3-4, if they're overworked and behind the curve.
Meanwhile, one or two server admins can manage the work load, if they're allowed to plan sufficiently far ahead and purchase requisite hardware to do it right. So you save 2-3 salaries - significantly more than the $30-40k they're making (more like 60-80k cost to the company, each).
Additionally, you've going to save a full cycle of workstations + $100 per workstation or so, because you bought thinclients. That's another $500,000 + $100,000 in your pocket.
So what if you've got to buy a couple dozen more $200 disks, five or so more $5k servers, and some pricey SAN licensing? You are still way ahead. Arguably, the hardware savings on workstations alone make up for this, particularly when you consider that desktop users do not use spindles as much as a power user would, so you're able to more evenly provision effectively.
Switching fabric may push you over the top, but even if you need 25 $1500 48 port gigE switches, and end up spending a bit more than you would with desktops, there are several other key advantages:
* The environment is better maintained (or, at least, easier to do so for a competent person) due to its centralized nature. * Your upgrade cycles can be more easily planned for * Upgrade cycles will be relatively fast due to the lack of upgrade prerequisites; storage, virtualization frontends, and thinclients can (should be able to) be upgraded independently without the other parts really caring, with negligible downtime. No more half-year long "migrations". * You are not only enabled to do so, but have to plan ahead to do things right - as a sysadmin should.
Slashdot Mirror
Where are you getting your gas from, airmail straight from Chile? I spend about $1.50 LESS per gallon today (in the midwest) than I did at this point into GWB's first term.
After the adjustment for oil future speculation, you would find the inverse is mostly correct. I don't see what this has to do with which president is in office. (If it weren't for ULSD and ethanol regulations, it would be absolutely correct, possibly without the market changes brought on by fucking speculators.)
As for Afghanistan, what do you suggest? Keep in mind that your solution must uphold our treaty obligations with other countries at the very least and should at least heavily favor upholding private political agreements with our close allies. Keep in mind also yadda yadda yadda
I'd blow the shit out of the mosques and Islamic sites, humiliate their esteemed Muslim leaders, and burn their fields (of opium). Then I'd introduce pornography, the Internet, and running water.
(After all, it's only what they'd do for us. Except significantly better.)
It's not like Obama has had much of a choice in that quagmire, and it's not like there even is one clear answer. I don't have a favorite solution, so I am genuinely interested in what you want to happen.
Yet, the death rate increases. We've had more deaths in the past previous two years than all other years combined. Somethign isn't being done right; why? You'd think someone would see the death count increases (nevermind the rate) and say: "Hey, I'm going to change tactics. More Clinton-era type bombings and put some tanks in there, now!" or similar. Something! The status quo is obviously not working; the enemy has adapted to the existing tactics and is on a counter-surge.
She may beat all the other republican candidates and get to the general election, but a substantial portion of her on-paper power base would evaporate at the polls.
You are absolutely right, of course. I'd not sooner support her as a candidate (if not because I disagree with her fundamentally, which I do in many regards) than I would vote for the other guy. There's absolutely no way she's winning the general, to be certain.
I'm sorry but you're incorrect. McCain won because the was not Huckabee, not Romney, and not Giuliani candidate. That and because of the wide-open field he won many primaries with significantly less than 50% of the vote. If the Democrats were doing that, don't you think they'd choose a unelectable far-right conservative rather than the most moderate of the entire Republican field?
Don't kid yourself. Most states no longer matter, on their own: what it comes down to is electoral votes.
And if you really think that Barack Obama is a Marxist, I suggest you look at the platforms of even the conservative parties of Europe.
I don't exactly see how this contests my argument, one way or another.
Obama is very much a centrist by today's American standards
Not from what I've seen. In fact, short of the fat rimmed glasses, turtleneck-wearing set who think that Nigeria is the hight of human rights concerns in the world, I've yet to meet a single human who thinks his policies are in any way good. (Not many Americans are a fan of overt communism, but there are even fewer who are a fan of Marxist state-run corporatism, which Obama has contributed heavily to. More than anything, I'd like to see a rebuttal to this preceding statement.)
but pretty far right by European standards,
... which means precisely fuckallnothing to me, since I don't live in Europe. You can burn your own houses down for all I care, after the ingratitude and contempt most of Europe has held for the US after what our fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers have done for you.
He's objectively to the right of Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford.
Now that's interesting. I can think of nothing he has done which is further "right" of these guys than say, what Mao may have done. Supporting arguments?
So the moral of the story here is not that Google and OpenDNS services are bad, but that Apple's iTunes QoS methods are of "questionable quality" - at best.
How did this make Slashdot's frontpage, again? Maybe this should be filed as a bug report to Apple (do they read those?) instead.
They're pretty much identical, except for input device and, on the PC, more configurability on the graphics.
Yeah, and an SNES is pretty much identical to an Xbox.
Basically, what it comes down to is a number of things, but IMO, one thing comes to the surface (from my experience):
* PCs allow for more seamless 'teaming' of groups. You can chat with the people in and prior/after the game on MSN, AIM, whatever while looking at porn or something.
* PCs have higher resolution capabilities, meaning an easier ability to distinguish what's actually in front of your eyes.
* PCs have better input. N-axis input + keyboard or 2x8 axis input + 6-12 buttons? I know which is more adaptable, to be sure. This one is key: while a gamepad may be leveraged to similar awesomeness by some, a mouse is still far superior for the average person. Not every 'team' can be universally awesome, so the result is that the average is brought down by joypads.
Are you actually arguing that, per unit of production, dia is cheaper than Visio? Blender is cheaper than Maya? That there's a cheaper CAD program than what AutoDesk offers? That there are cheaper options for healthcare than what the current systems provide (this one I might believe - those are expensive as hell)?
The simple fact that you can't get there from here using most "open source alternatives" is a key point of my argument.
Make the software better, and we'll go there as a society. Until then, the commercial stuff is picked for its superiority to get the job done. (People have been, time and time again, shown to use the free option preferentially if it does the job at least sufficiently, if not better. Most open source software is not there yet.)
Drink the bourbon, stir your wife.
Alternatively, you can mix the two to get:
* Dirty Mother
* Slippery Nipple
* Bald Beaver
* Wet Sucker
* Sex on the Beach
And so on.
Wow.
If you're goign to mix your liquor, why do you need a guide? It's fucking trivial.
* pick something sweet, citrus, or salty ... or you could just drink your liquor straight, like most adults.
* pick a liquor
* maybe some ice
* liquor
Sort of how it is now, under Obama?
Look how much the continued Afghanistan 'conflict' is costing, in both dollars and lives. More soldiers are dying now than at any time throughout the Iraq/Afghan conflicts under Bush II. Gas costs significantly more now than it did under Bush (as does LPG and other fossil fuels), and there have been before unheard of moratoriums on drilling (= oil industry profits through the ceiling due to lack of supply).
he graduated HLS with highest honors and as editor of the Harvard Law review.
He did? Prove it.
There is absolutely zero affirmatively positive documentation as to Obama's past: nothing legally officious about where he was born; no school records to speak of; not a single paper published or picture indicating his presence in places he claimed to be prominent (and really should be visible).
Additionally, we have people with verifiable histories who would be in a position to either deny or confirm Obama's official story who do deny it, consistently.
This, on top of Obama's reticence to actually release his history. Why is he? Bush, McCain, Clinton - their files were all thoroughly investigated and vetted by the public. Every piece of dirt was unearthed. Obama? His feet smell like flowers, and the media never touched him.
No, I don't believe any of the 'birther' stuff is true. At the same time, I think his official history is bullshit until I see it proven otherwise.
How do you figure? The only instance similar to this I can recall is during the Republican primaries where the Democrats voted for McCain.
If I say I'm going to do something, and then don't, what is it that I've "demonstrated", exactly?
Because that's exactly what Obama has done. He's said one thing, and either implemented/tried it partially and in a very fucked-up fashion or not at all. What he's done instead has been a complete fuck-up.
To demonstrate something - particularly, responsibility - is an act. I've not seen him taking action much, unless we're counting going for a bike ride, playing golf or basketball, or eating lobster and ice cream.
(1) It corrupts the US election process, because that's not how it was supposed to work.
These people don't care about the election process. They care about control from the top, by Their Guy. I mean, c'mon: these guys are likely avowed Marxists or simply delusional: they want Obama for a second term? Seriously? Have they been paying attention for the past year+? There's only so long you can say 'this is Bush's fault'.
(2) It legitimizes non-democratic measures to counter this.
No, it doesn't. It's just more clandestine bullshit which most people are opposed to but will likely never hear about - just like dead people voting in elections, completely fabricated ballots, and the like.
(3) It increases the odds that Sara Palin becomes President.
She may come across as an idiot in some regards, but her economic policies aren't all that wishy washy.
I don't particularly want her to be President, but something tells me that having someone like her in the White House (given what she's done in Alaska) would be very, very good for the country as a whole (economically). She'd kick begging corporations to the curb, box the ears of Congress and send them to bed without dinner, and generally roll things back to a somewhat more sane rate of discussion.
Regardless of Palin (no, this is NOT an argument for her) we need a domestically-focused President. We've had entirely too many exofocused Presidents in the last several decades (or more), and the state of the union has suffered for it significantly. Arguably, it goes all the way back to Carter (and every President since) vying for international favor and handing out appeasement.
Well, why not? First woman President, and all.
There was lots of wind about Obama being the first black President, and how significant it was in the face of racism in America (despite the only signs of racism against him being the people bringing this 'fact' to light). It was an epic change against bigotry for America.
And look how he's cocked things up.
Now it's a woman's turn to be the first woman President to cock things up. The Democrat party got one elected in the name of electioneering and corporate sponsorship; now let the Republicans have an epic failure.
Honestly, compared to Obama and Palin, Bush is actually looking pretty good.
At this point, I think a literal monkey could win against Obama. The man has made nothing but bad choices, had increasingly poor public interactions, and has demonstrated wanton hypocrisy and contempt for the American populace.
Of course, that doesn't say much for Palin, et al. The monkey would beat her, too (with a stick, if you let him have one).
On the other hand, it worked before: how do you think McCain won the primaries in the first place? Yep, that's right - Democrats voting in the Republican primaries. (We really need to have open primaries.)
I would think the radical 'democrats' (the ones that would be voting for Stalin, were he on the ticket) would be more concerned with the Democrat primary, as there's likely to be one at this point. Considering how Obama barely beat Hillary last time around, one of the most universally reviled females in American public life, ever (except in NY, CT, NJ, and CA, where they've got even worse human beings to hate), he's likely goign to need all the help he can get from his Marxist kindred. It was them and them alone (well, and the dead people) who helped him win last time.
I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, wrt "application acceleration". Why would I need (want) that? My OS already starts from a cold boot to a desktop with launched in about 3 seconds, and my hardware is nothing to write home about (no flash memory/SSD).
In all fairness, TRIM is only needed because/when filesystems suck. That's hardly a boasting point.
ZFS doesn't need TRIM.
I'm a troll, yet you are the one saying that dia is a suitable replacement for Visio?
If you use either Dia or Visio for project management then you have been promoted well past your level of competence.
Hell, why use dia at all, just keep everything in flat ASCII files and if you need the information, you can read the whole file?
If you can not see the intrinsic utility in gantt, project and resource prerequisites, etc. then you are apparently missing the point of computing in general. Sure, someone might not need those things - but they sure save a hell of a lot of time, money, and general material/human resources.
Rude and empty rhetoric. Yes I know what Autodesk is and which products they sell. [wikipedia.org]
Yet, they sell a great number of other products, too. None of them have a correlative product available on Linux, never mind as 'free' software. I have no idea why you would automatically assume I meant Maya when I refer to "AutoDesk" and "drafting", unless you've got no actual professional experience with what we're talking about and/or have torrent sites as your primary source of education. Consider the AutoDesk products: pretty much all of them deal exclusively with the engineering, surveying, and architecture fields. Maya is an auxiliary acquisition which compliments their portfolio, but is by no means the focus of their product line(s).
Unlike Maya productions (where the returns are more significant on a big production), the margin for typical engineering/physical technical work is significantly less. "Re-tooling", as it were, is not nearly as much of an option when you're making something functional as when you're trying to push the boundaries on art.
It's a simple economic computation, and if you can't grasp this fact, you really don't belong in this argument. It's not ideological, it's economical. If I can not meet my deadline for a project if I resort to using software with inferior features, I can't simply justify charging more (because I'll be beaten out by competitors). I can't justify it to customers (with "I use free software so it's going to cost more to get it done" or otherwise).
I can agree with you - to a point - that free and open software is ideologically better, and technically better from a "liberation" standpoint. When it comes time to get shit done, however, you've got to make a compromise or not do it at all (except for in the rarest of circumstances).
I don't believe there's anyone here on Slashdot calling for the support of the ban.
They're supporting Amazon's choice to ban them, which is distinctly different.
(As for a movie based on the "undesirable" parts of the Bible, I think that would be awesome. HBO or Showtime should produce it as a series - trying to be as true to the literal and symbolic meaning in the stories as possible. I think it would be great, receiving much public acclaim, and win many awards.)
So I'm censoring the TV when I walk from the room during commercials?
Am I censoring people's choice when I decide to sell one product over another?
Look it up, you are wrong:
–noun
1.
strong or vehement expression of disapproval: The newspapers were unanimous in their censure of the tax proposal.
2.
an official reprimand, as by a legislative body of one of its members.
–verb (used with object)
3.
to criticize or reproach in a harsh or vehement manner: She is more to be pitied than censured.
–verb (used without object)
4.
to give censure, adverse criticism, disapproval, or blame.
I think you're over-applying the definition of the word. There is nothing chastising as to the quality of said items; they're just not selling them. I do believe others are still selling said degenerate works. This is called 'free will'. It's just somewhat more difficult (or I should say, not as trivially easy and universal) to find/acquire things found by most societies of the world to be offensive.
Yeah, those poor artists, having to compromise their artistic integrity to make money in the world's largest retail store instead of nickel and dimeing it like street-side rappers. Those poor sods can't scream and rap about popping caps, raping, murdering, and fucking bitches anymore or anything...
No, it isn't banned. We the state don't ban anything. You just won't be doing business in this town.
I presume you've got a problem with democratic decisions?
I much rather have state censorship.
Ah, the true response of a totalitarian.
The state can be voted out. Amazon can not.
Until Amazon becomes the only source for literature, Amazon most certainly can be voted out. If your sentiments were socially acceptable as to the odious nature of these 'literature redactions', this might actually happen. But since pretty much everyone finds these things offensive, you're just going to have to rot.
Sorry, no: I'm not going to support an independent organization being forced to sell something which they deem to be offensive, unprofitable, and/or counter-productive.
Religious extremists aren't limited to the muslim world, it just takes other forms and actions and a lot of the effects seen in the US of that is that anything related to sex is banned but it's OK to sell weapons, show how to abuse someone (as long as it isn't sexually) and glorify war.
What? THat makes no sense.
How are these things related to protestant Christian extremism (which I presume it is you are referring to):
* banning anything related to sex
* selling weapons
* showing how to abuse someone (wtf)
* glorifying war
I'm not a protestant CHristian, but this sounds stupid and false to me. I'm not sure where any of those things have been doctrinally defined as "this is what we do" (except for banning the public display of sexual imagery in public and similar, which can be argued from a number of other vantage points sans the religious: there's no -good- reason for hedonistic displays in public, for starters.)
In the final stages even books related to science will disappear and only creationism books will be permitted to remain.
You folks are a bunch of reactionary nuts. There is no reason to believe this, and such a response as your's is retarded. We've got a long way to go before something as even as controversial and intentionally offensive as (oh) "Piss Christ" is banned, never mind the inverse response of banning non-Christian things.
This is a commercial entity doing what is best for themselves. Nothing more. It is in no way similar to banning books or burning them. Go shop somewhere else, if it bothers you so much.
Oh, and as far as your Muslim response... there are many things entombed in the Quran and enforced throughout the Muslim world through law (nevermind culture) which are odious to the rights of humans, never mind the 'radicals'.
It's simply, really, and anyone who didn't fail economics 101 and/or adheres to radical anti-societal social beliefs would realize it for what it is:
If you're selling a lot of everything, and one of your items offends more people to the point of complaining or not returning to your place of business than it brings in in lost sales, you do not sell said offensive item.
I don't care if it's a plush Barney toy or a piss and shit painting of Mohammed the Dog. Not selling said offensive item makes sense when you've got a 'universal marketplace', as Amazon does.
This is not censorship. They've just decided it isn't in their best interest to sell these specific items. (This is illustrated by actual works of fiction with merit - by Hienlien - still being sold through their store.)
In other news, I've seen other, completely innocent items (as well as several vendors) yanked from Amazon. Why? Those vendors and/or items were shit, and bad for business. Is that censorship too, or can you admit that such a practice might just be in the better interest of its customer base?
Ultimately, it doesnt' matter if China reaches its full potential - provided it's able to dominate everyone else.
That, at least, is how history has gone. The Khans could have done oh-such more had they used different methods of (say) construction and/or labor concentration/slavery, but they didn't... but they were still unarguably successful.
and then it is happy-fun CAL time. You can re-ghost a lot of flakey client machines for that money.
Not unless it's an automated process, you can't.
Let's say you've got 1000 users, so $15,000 or so in user CALs. That's a chunk.
How many Windows desktop support monkeys would you need to support 1000 workstations? My guess is somewhere around 3-4, if they're overworked and behind the curve.
Meanwhile, one or two server admins can manage the work load, if they're allowed to plan sufficiently far ahead and purchase requisite hardware to do it right. So you save 2-3 salaries - significantly more than the $30-40k they're making (more like 60-80k cost to the company, each).
Additionally, you've going to save a full cycle of workstations + $100 per workstation or so, because you bought thinclients. That's another $500,000 + $100,000 in your pocket.
So what if you've got to buy a couple dozen more $200 disks, five or so more $5k servers, and some pricey SAN licensing? You are still way ahead. Arguably, the hardware savings on workstations alone make up for this, particularly when you consider that desktop users do not use spindles as much as a power user would, so you're able to more evenly provision effectively.
Switching fabric may push you over the top, but even if you need 25 $1500 48 port gigE switches, and end up spending a bit more than you would with desktops, there are several other key advantages:
* The environment is better maintained (or, at least, easier to do so for a competent person) due to its centralized nature.
* Your upgrade cycles can be more easily planned for
* Upgrade cycles will be relatively fast due to the lack of upgrade prerequisites; storage, virtualization frontends, and thinclients can (should be able to) be upgraded independently without the other parts really caring, with negligible downtime. No more half-year long "migrations".
* You are not only enabled to do so, but have to plan ahead to do things right - as a sysadmin should.