Insane mutterings like "we are about to lose our republic" should not be given credence in what is supposed to be a reasonable website. As opposed to the far-left website from which it was taken.
Other than the Democrats being very unhappy that they've lost the White House, Senate, and House of Reps for the last four years, and every poll and prospect shows that this will continue for another four or so, WHAT is so BLAZING URGENT that would make ANYONE foam up with THIS level of trash?
Dude. This is BUSINESS AS USUAL. It just SO HAPPENS that the REPUBLICANS are top dogs right now. DON'T WORRY. The Democrats will EVENTUALLY figure out how to appeal to more people again. There will CONTINUE to be elections. SOMEONE will win, SOMEONE will lose.
Come on. Come with your best. Let's hear your reasons. You've said NOTHING so far.
And wacko conspiracy theories about how someone-or-other is going to take over the TRUE government (which of course WE ALL don't KNOW about) are not allowed.
And, for crissakes, NO WHINING about the 2000 election and Florida. GET THE **** OVER IT.
The WHOLE DEBATE is over whether the filibustering Democrats, or the Republicans who are trying to bring their nominees to a Senate vote, are exterting "extrajudicial power". You can't just grab one side of that argument and assert it's true without arguing it!!!
Umm... excuse me? "supermajority requirement written into the Constitution" ?? This is just made-up crap.
Votes on Supreme Court nominations are by simple majority, not supermajority. THAT is what's in the Constitution.
The issue is one of Senate rules on filibuster requiring 60 votes to end debate, and even bring a nomination to a vote. The Constitution allows the Senate to make its own rules, but does NOT specify a supermajority for ending filibusters.
The tactic of using filibusters ROUTINELY to, in effect, REQUIRE 60 votes to confirm a nomination, is what's in question.
Is it Constitutional to use Senate rules to, in a back-door way, CHANGE a Constitutionally-mandated simple-majority decision to a supermajority decision?
"Insightful" is the mod rating on this piece of garbage post? Lust has obviously not done the SLIGHTEST bit of thinking before posting.
Number one: WHAT TAX BREAK? Since when is Apache a charitable donation?
Number two: WHAT DEAD APPLICATION? Had you read the IBM press release, you would have noted that Cloudscape is currently shipped in DOZENS of IBM products, and IBM intends to continue shipping it.
Mods... please take action here, don't validate drivel like this.
First, IBM is in the hardware business, yes, but it's not just a hardware vendor by a long shot. Check out the IBM annual report off of ibm.com for starters.
Second, IBM's interest in Linux isn't to "limit overhead". It's because IBM sees the IT industry as needing to have standards and openness (among other things) in order to grow. If the industry as a whole grows, IBM can compete and win in that growing space. Linux is just a part of this strategy. The fact that it's free isn't a key part of that -- the fact that it's open and standard is much more relevant.
Third... what "other hardware manufacturers" are there who have fully embraced Linux? Sun? HP/Compaq? Dell? I don't think so.
IBM has it ports only for Linux/PPC and it's just another source of incompatibility problems.
Gotta correct this, IBM's Java runtimes (J2SE) support Linux on PPC as well as Linux on Intel, AIX on PPC, Linux on S390 (zSeries), and native z/OS. Not to mention Windows. All of these come in a 64-bit flavor as well. IBM has to do this because WebSphere is supported on all these platforms.
And I don't know where "incompatibility" comes from, they are all certified and bugs are fixed.
I know all these people at IBM, you need to understand that the CUE team and Lotus Notes are quite different things. Furthermore the basic design of Lotus Notes predates the Internet.
I would suggest that we do totally separate threads on Notes and the CUE report... as they really are two different things.
I can talk about either one semi-intelligently, just post something here and I'll reply.
Slashdot Mirror
Insane mutterings like "we are about to lose our republic" should not be given credence in what is supposed to be a reasonable website. As opposed to the far-left website from which it was taken.
Other than the Democrats being very unhappy that they've lost the White House, Senate, and House of Reps for the last four years, and every poll and prospect shows that this will continue for another four or so, WHAT is so BLAZING URGENT that would make ANYONE foam up with THIS level of trash?
Dude. This is BUSINESS AS USUAL. It just SO HAPPENS that the REPUBLICANS are top dogs right now. DON'T WORRY. The Democrats will EVENTUALLY figure out how to appeal to more people again. There will CONTINUE to be elections. SOMEONE will win, SOMEONE will lose.
Come on. Come with your best. Let's hear your reasons. You've said NOTHING so far.
And wacko conspiracy theories about how someone-or-other is going to take over the TRUE government (which of course WE ALL don't KNOW about) are not allowed.
And, for crissakes, NO WHINING about the 2000 election and Florida. GET THE **** OVER IT.
The WHOLE DEBATE is over whether the filibustering Democrats, or the Republicans who are trying to bring their nominees to a Senate vote, are exterting "extrajudicial power". You can't just grab one side of that argument and assert it's true without arguing it!!!
Umm... excuse me? "supermajority requirement written into the Constitution" ?? This is just made-up crap.
Votes on Supreme Court nominations are by simple majority, not supermajority. THAT is what's in the Constitution.
The issue is one of Senate rules on filibuster requiring 60 votes to end debate, and even bring a nomination to a vote. The Constitution allows the Senate to make its own rules, but does NOT specify a supermajority for ending filibusters.
The tactic of using filibusters ROUTINELY to, in effect, REQUIRE 60 votes to confirm a nomination, is what's in question.
Is it Constitutional to use Senate rules to, in a back-door way, CHANGE a Constitutionally-mandated simple-majority decision to a supermajority decision?
THAT is the question. Don't obfuscate.
The site is down. Says "Maintenance is being done, check back later."
"Insightful" is the mod rating on this piece of garbage post? Lust has obviously not done the SLIGHTEST bit of thinking before posting.
Number one: WHAT TAX BREAK? Since when is Apache a charitable donation?
Number two: WHAT DEAD APPLICATION? Had you read the IBM press release, you would have noted that Cloudscape is currently shipped in DOZENS of IBM products, and IBM intends to continue shipping it.
Mods... please take action here, don't validate drivel like this.
Well, no.
First, IBM is in the hardware business, yes, but it's not just a hardware vendor by a long shot. Check out the IBM annual report off of ibm.com for starters.
Second, IBM's interest in Linux isn't to "limit overhead". It's because IBM sees the IT industry as needing to have standards and openness (among other things) in order to grow. If the industry as a whole grows, IBM can compete and win in that growing space. Linux is just a part of this strategy. The fact that it's free isn't a key part of that -- the fact that it's open and standard is much more relevant.
Third... what "other hardware manufacturers" are there who have fully embraced Linux? Sun? HP/Compaq? Dell? I don't think so.
signed... an IBMer
JMS specs are public, but JVM sources are not.
so, that's EXACTLY what this thread is about... IBM approaching Sun to open-source Java! So why are you stating this as a negative?
Spencer Brown (IBM)
IBM has it ports only for Linux/PPC and it's just another source of incompatibility problems.
Gotta correct this, IBM's Java runtimes (J2SE) support Linux on PPC as well as Linux on Intel, AIX on PPC, Linux on S390 (zSeries), and native z/OS. Not to mention Windows. All of these come in a 64-bit flavor as well. IBM has to do this because WebSphere is supported on all these platforms.
And I don't know where "incompatibility" comes from, they are all certified and bugs are fixed.
Spencer Brown (IBM)
Linux runs on all the IBM hardware platforms, so I don't get the point.
Spencer Brown (IBM)
I know all these people at IBM, you need to understand that the CUE team and Lotus Notes are quite different things. Furthermore the basic design of Lotus Notes predates the Internet.
I would suggest that we do totally separate threads on Notes and the CUE report... as they really are two different things.
I can talk about either one semi-intelligently, just post something here and I'll reply.