I had this problem a while back as well. The package I was trying to install was a beta (I think it was mozilla-0.7), so the major was 0... well, that's quite a bit less then 3, as far as release versions go. I thought it was going to be years before I got to install mozilla on my machine. Then, out of curiosity, I checked my version of rpm itself. It was something like 3.0.6. I poked around to see what the latest version of rpm was, and I found a rpm-4.0.1. I installed the new rpm of rpm and I was back in business.
I agree with you that the error rpm reports is not very descriptive at all, but luckily I stumbled across the problem. Once you find out what the problem actually is, it's pretty easy to fix.
This is the funniest thing I've seen on/. in quite some time.
I especially like this little goodie: This is the sort of thing that might work in France or Britain, where working for the common good is a popular concept, but here in America we have a different set of ideals...
It makes me feel warm and tingly all over to know that I live in a country where the common good isn't popular.
If you knew this was going to happen, then why did you start the dreaded chain of events by saying "This would be a biting and insightful comment if Internet Explorer didn't have the most comprehensive support for W3C standards of any browser in existence."?
You already did what you chided the parent for doing, with the exception of exaulting IE instead of Mozilla. Is it ok for an IE supporter to start the argument, but not ok for a Mozilla supporter to join in?
I live in Chicago and after making sure that I get to view the bills online before I pay for them, I signed up for a lot of electronic payment options.
These are the bills that I don't pay electronically:
My rent check - I can walk across the parking lot and hand it to one of the staff.
My water and sewer bill - The company that sends the bill has an online payment option, but there is an extra surcharge of $2.50!! Kind of defeats the purpose.
My car payment - I bought my grandma's old car, and she doesn't do electronic payments.
Oddly enough, my ISP - for whatever reason, they don't provide an electronic payment option.
Because your situation has changed since you've had a child. Maybe your spouse has died, been incarcerated, or left you to fend for yourself. Maybe the working spouse has been laid off and now can't find a job making more than half of what he/she did before, so in order to make up the difference, the spouse who was staying home needs to get a job.
Be aware that there are a lot of situations to consider. If you were in a situation where you were capable of being a parent, and then your situation changes, you can't go back and unhave the kids.
I haven't had this problem. Before I was 18, I decided that I would try to go as long as I could before getting a credit card. I did get a check card (debit card) from my credit union when I turned 18, though. Whenenever anyone checks my credit rating, they always seem to comment on how good it is. When I moved for my new job and set up my phone bill, electric bill, and such, a couple of people I talked with said they needed to check my credit history before they could finish making my account. Both of the people who did this made a positive comment about my credit history.
Telemarketers check your credit rating, too, and when they try to set up an account for me before I'm awake enough to realize what's happening, they say something like, "No problem here", or "This looks great." I also get the credit card applications that say, "We save this special rate/off for only 3% of the people we mail to", but I'm sure they send those to everyone anyway.
I also bought a (used) car, and had no problems there, either.
Well, I just wanted to say I've been 5 years without a credit card, and have had nary a problem. Granted I haven't needed a loan for a house yet, but I was able to get a car without a problem, so I guess YMMV...
Pronto can do this for you. When you compose a message there is a pulldown menu that let's you choose which account to send from, and, you guessed it, each account can have its own SMTP server.
Its written in perl, and uses the GTK bindings, so you may have to download a few things to get it to work, but the install script takes care of this for you.
Do you mind if I inquire as to where your located in Canada? I would guess Vancouver or somewhere near a coast. The past couple of weeks I've been checking the temperatures in Canada and where I'm from (grew up in Wisconsin, now I work in Chicago). I always have been interested in Canada, but I was nervous about the cold. Needless to say I'm starting to change my tune about that reservation. Up until this week it's been single-digit highs for me, but quite a bit warmer several places in Canada.
The only other thing I'd have to worry about is getting enough free time to find a jobby job.
But think about this. We have seconds defined to be the time it takes for light to travel a certain distance (measured in km), but now we have defined km to be the distance light travels in 1 second. This is a cyclic definition. You still haven't given a reason why we can't change the definition, not that that's what you were trying to do, necessarily.
There's no reason for keeping the current measuring unit for time (except tradition), because we arbitrarily picked these constants. What's so special about 299,792.458 km, besides the meaning we gave it?
I just found the "current official" definition of the second. According to this website, the current official definition of a second is "time it takes for 9 192 631 770 oscillations of the Cesium atom at zero magnetic field". Even so, what is so special about that. It's arbitrary, too. I get the feeling that these things were officially defined after they had been in use for some time (specifically the units of time), so the definitions that were created had to agree with the current use of the units.
When you get down to it, are there any units that aren't arbitrarily based?
Anyone play H.E.R.O. for the 2600? For some reason that was the only game that held my interest long enough for me to get a score high enough for the patch. I remember taking a picture of the TV, but the picture came out horribly, and you couldn't read the score. The next time I did it I think I wasted about half a roll of film, just to be sure I'd get a decent picture.
This reminds of the end of Cable Guy, where Chip falls from the tower and lands on the satellite dish, taking out the TV reception for the whole area. Everyone was at home watching the ending of the Sam Sweet trial, and the TV cuts out. Then they pan to a family looking awkwardly at each other (kind of saying, "What are we supposed to do now? Talk to each other?"), and then there's a guy who glances away from the TV and sees a book. His eyes get real wide, then he starts reading. Soon he has a very satisfied look on his face. Like he was discovering books for the first time. Classic...
Damn, that's a quality movie. If you've only seen it once, and didn't like it, watch it again. I know at least 10 people (including myself) who didn't like it the first time, but now they think it's great.
But they didn't, so quit your bitching. Most of those 96,000 people obviously thought that Nader would have made a better leader for this country than Gore or Bush (or any of the other candidates). You can't blame Gore losing on those people's personal preferences. These people didn't vote for Gore, because they didn't want Gore to win. If they wanted Gore to win, they would have voted for him, but they didn't.
If Gore would have been able to CARRY HIS HOME STATE, then he would have won the election, but he didn't do that either. Neither did he carry Clinton's state. Gore basically backed out of Ohio in the last week, and a lot of Democrats are pissed at him for that, because they thought he would have had a chance there.
There's a lot of what-if's being thrown around. The election is over, let them count the votes, and we'll see who won. But QUIT YOUR BITCHING, you can't change what has happened. It's no one's fault who won the election. Someone had to win, and that is going to make some people mad, and others happy.
- A Nader voter, who without the Nader option, still wouldn't have voted for Gore or Bush.
How about a combination of the two alternative voting methods? Instead of just voting yeah or nay to each candidate or ranking them, why not rank them on a scale (say [-100, 100])? This way you still have the basic concept of the approval system (a plus vote is an approval, obviously), and you are able to rank the candidates.
Saari gives 2 examples and says that the Borda system is the only one that "correctly" produces a tie in both situations.
Here are the examples:
There was a 3 candidate election and a 4 candidate election. B = Bradley, G = Gore, M = McCain, W = Bush
Votes are listed voter1, voter2, total. G: 4, 1, 5
B: 3, 2, 5
M: 2, 3, 5
W: 1, 4, 5
Sorry, slashcode doesn't like a lot of nonbreaking spaces, so I can't format this better.
Saari correctly says that these situations are both ties in under the Borda voting scheme, and neither case would be handled well under our current system (with primaries, Gore would win in the first example, and McCain and Bradley were out of luck in the second).
However, I don't know that these should result in ties. If the rankings weren't limited to the number of candidates, but instead had a wider range, you might get results like this:
Now, voter1, voter2, total G: 77, -80, -8
B: 37, -70, -33
M: 34, 25, 59
W: -85, 100, 15
Again, I tried to format this nicer, but I couldn't get it just right.
Notice each of these situation keeps the strict ordering of the candidates as in the Borda example, but with the wider range of ratings, there is a clear winner in each election - no ties at all.
I need to get back to work, now, but can anyone think of any apparent downsides to this style of voting? One thing to watch out for is that you always have a much larger range than your number of votes. With my example, if you have 201 candidates and a range of 201 ([-100, 100]), then it would become a Borda style election.
As an aside, I just noticed that McCain won both my example elections, but that was purely coincidental. Of those four, I would have picked Bradely, but I digress...
Re:The Middle Class' Best Interest is to Vote Nade
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
"Greens support progressivity in taxation as a matter of principle". In other words, the more you earn, the higher percentage you have to pay to the government-- basically as a method to make sure that people who EARN their money don't have more than the McDonald's fuck-ups that can't even get your order right.
I understand that you're planning on voting for Brown, but consider that the Democrats AND Republicans are both for a progressive tax system, so there is no need to single out the Green Party for their view. Sure, Bush wants a huge tax cut for the rich, but even with that tax cut the U.S. tax system would still be progressive.
What is Browne's position on taxing wages? Is he for a flat tax, or a regressive tax, or no taxes on wages? IIRC, he wants to pay for the government with only tarrifs and excise taxes, right?
I'm afraid to hear what Browne says should be done for seniors and people who can't find work. Here's a quote of Browne from his website: "Repealing the income and Social Security taxes will leave a trillion dollars a year in the private economy. That money will buy a job for everyone who can work, and charity for everyone who can't." I think a more accurate statement would be: "That money could buy a job for everyone who can work, and charity for everyone who can't." Browne has no way to guarantee that is what will happen. If it doesn't, you have all of those people stranded without any help what so ever. That doesn't sound very helpful. To me it sounds like, "Let's take the government out of welfare and hope that everything will work out for best." That doesn't address my concerns at all.
So I guess, thanks, but no thanks, I'll stick with Nader.
I think this is one of the stupidest reasons to vote for someone. Do you think you get some prize for picking the winner of the election and voting for him/her? Is the point of voting for someone who you think can win so you can tell your friends/family/acquaintances that you voted for the winner (a kind of "me too" type deal). What is the point of voting for someone just because you think they will win? Where is the logic there? Can someone please tell me, 'cuz I don't get it?
I heard an interesting quote from John Hagelin (3rd party candidate from the Natural Law Party) while watching a PBS special on 3rd party candidates last night. He said something to the effect of the only time we've had any real change in American politics was when a 3rd party candidate was was elected (remember of course that at one time the republican party was a 3rd party). Now I won't speak about the extent that this statement is true (although I believe it may be stretching the truth a little, I think it has some validity as well), but I think it underlies that fact that we won't get any real change with a republicrat in office.
Take any one of the many candidate selector quizzes and I bet that the candidate the most closely matches your views will not be Bush or Gore. I would suggest voting for the person who you most agree with; that sounds like a logical reason to give someone your vote. Although you are free, of course, to vote for whoever you want, and don't have to listen to my rambling...
Sorry we did this in 5th grade. Didn't fool me then, and it sure as hell won't fool me now.
Let's look at this a little more closely.
1. x = y
2. x = xy
3. x - y = xy - y
4. (x + y)(x - y) = y(x - y)
5. x + y = y
6. 2y = y
7. 2 = 1
you're skipping over 4.5 which is (x + y)(x - y)/(x - y) = y(x - y)/(x - y). Remember then that x = y, so you're dividing by zero, and your proof is incorrect.
I know, it probably wasn't worth the reply... oh well.
The link in parent was bad, so I did a search of JavaBots on the CMU cs website. The resulting JavaBots page said "JavaBots has been superceded by TeamBots. Please visit the TeamBots."
Real Goods has a battery powered by the sun available. I can't get the link to format correctly (the link continues to the end of my post):(, but if you search for laptop from the main page, you'll find it.
I don't have a laptop, and, therefore, don't have one of these, but here's what they say about it: "Output of 13.8 watts will run some models better than others. At a minimum it will triple your run time on the internal battery, or recharge in twice the time required by an AC plug." It doesn't support every laptop, but I think it may be worth checking out.
Slashdot Mirror
that's pretty much the point...
I agree with you that the error rpm reports is not very descriptive at all, but luckily I stumbled across the problem. Once you find out what the problem actually is, it's pretty easy to fix.
HTH
I especially like this little goodie: This is the sort of thing that might work in France or Britain, where working for the common good is a popular concept, but here in America we have a different set of ideals...
It makes me feel warm and tingly all over to know that I live in a country where the common good isn't popular.
my bad... different poster. I thought I checked that...
You already did what you chided the parent for doing, with the exception of exaulting IE instead of Mozilla. Is it ok for an IE supporter to start the argument, but not ok for a Mozilla supporter to join in?
I'm confused here...
And unlike Linux, it's a $200 add-on to an existing operating system.
"...and remember kids: Always recycle... TO THE EXTREME!!!"
These are the bills that I don't pay electronically:
Be aware that there are a lot of situations to consider. If you were in a situation where you were capable of being a parent, and then your situation changes, you can't go back and unhave the kids.
Telemarketers check your credit rating, too, and when they try to set up an account for me before I'm awake enough to realize what's happening, they say something like, "No problem here", or "This looks great." I also get the credit card applications that say, "We save this special rate/off for only 3% of the people we mail to", but I'm sure they send those to everyone anyway.
I also bought a (used) car, and had no problems there, either.
Well, I just wanted to say I've been 5 years without a credit card, and have had nary a problem. Granted I haven't needed a loan for a house yet, but I was able to get a car without a problem, so I guess YMMV...
Its written in perl, and uses the GTK bindings, so you may have to download a few things to get it to work, but the install script takes care of this for you.
The only other thing I'd have to worry about is getting enough free time to find a jobby job.
There's no reason for keeping the current measuring unit for time (except tradition), because we arbitrarily picked these constants. What's so special about 299,792.458 km, besides the meaning we gave it?
I just found the "current official" definition of the second. According to this website, the current official definition of a second is "time it takes for 9 192 631 770 oscillations of the Cesium atom at zero magnetic field". Even so, what is so special about that. It's arbitrary, too. I get the feeling that these things were officially defined after they had been in use for some time (specifically the units of time), so the definitions that were created had to agree with the current use of the units.
When you get down to it, are there any units that aren't arbitrarily based?
Ahh, memories...
Damn, that's a quality movie. If you've only seen it once, and didn't like it, watch it again. I know at least 10 people (including myself) who didn't like it the first time, but now they think it's great.
If Gore would have been able to CARRY HIS HOME STATE, then he would have won the election, but he didn't do that either. Neither did he carry Clinton's state. Gore basically backed out of Ohio in the last week, and a lot of Democrats are pissed at him for that, because they thought he would have had a chance there.
There's a lot of what-if's being thrown around. The election is over, let them count the votes, and we'll see who won. But QUIT YOUR BITCHING, you can't change what has happened. It's no one's fault who won the election. Someone had to win, and that is going to make some people mad, and others happy.
- A Nader voter, who without the Nader option, still wouldn't have voted for Gore or Bush.
Saari gives 2 examples and says that the Borda system is the only one that "correctly" produces a tie in both situations.
Here are the examples:
There was a 3 candidate election and a 4 candidate election. B = Bradley, G = Gore, M = McCain, W = Bush
Votes are listed voter1, voter2, voter3, total.
G: 3, 2, 1, 6
M: 2, 1, 3, 6
W: 1, 3, 2, 6
Votes are listed voter1, voter2, total.
G: 4, 1, 5
B: 3, 2, 5
M: 2, 3, 5
W: 1, 4, 5
Sorry, slashcode doesn't like a lot of nonbreaking spaces, so I can't format this better.
Saari correctly says that these situations are both ties in under the Borda voting scheme, and neither case would be handled well under our current system (with primaries, Gore would win in the first example, and McCain and Bradley were out of luck in the second).
However, I don't know that these should result in ties. If the rankings weren't limited to the number of candidates, but instead had a wider range, you might get results like this:
Again, voter1, voter2, voter3, total
G: 95, 5, -100, 0
M: 10, -90, 100, 20
W: -100, 100, -5, -5
Now, voter1, voter2, total
G: 77, -80, -8
B: 37, -70, -33
M: 34, 25, 59
W: -85, 100, 15
Again, I tried to format this nicer, but I couldn't get it just right.
Notice each of these situation keeps the strict ordering of the candidates as in the Borda example, but with the wider range of ratings, there is a clear winner in each election - no ties at all.
I need to get back to work, now, but can anyone think of any apparent downsides to this style of voting? One thing to watch out for is that you always have a much larger range than your number of votes. With my example, if you have 201 candidates and a range of 201 ([-100, 100]), then it would become a Borda style election.
As an aside, I just noticed that McCain won both my example elections, but that was purely coincidental. Of those four, I would have picked Bradely, but I digress...
I understand that you're planning on voting for Brown, but consider that the Democrats AND Republicans are both for a progressive tax system, so there is no need to single out the Green Party for their view. Sure, Bush wants a huge tax cut for the rich, but even with that tax cut the U.S. tax system would still be progressive.
What is Browne's position on taxing wages? Is he for a flat tax, or a regressive tax, or no taxes on wages? IIRC, he wants to pay for the government with only tarrifs and excise taxes, right?
I'm afraid to hear what Browne says should be done for seniors and people who can't find work. Here's a quote of Browne from his website: "Repealing the income and Social Security taxes will leave a trillion dollars a year in the private economy. That money will buy a job for everyone who can work, and charity for everyone who can't." I think a more accurate statement would be: "That money could buy a job for everyone who can work, and charity for everyone who can't." Browne has no way to guarantee that is what will happen. If it doesn't, you have all of those people stranded without any help what so ever. That doesn't sound very helpful. To me it sounds like, "Let's take the government out of welfare and hope that everything will work out for best." That doesn't address my concerns at all.
So I guess, thanks, but no thanks, I'll stick with Nader.
I heard an interesting quote from John Hagelin (3rd party candidate from the Natural Law Party) while watching a PBS special on 3rd party candidates last night. He said something to the effect of the only time we've had any real change in American politics was when a 3rd party candidate was was elected (remember of course that at one time the republican party was a 3rd party). Now I won't speak about the extent that this statement is true (although I believe it may be stretching the truth a little, I think it has some validity as well), but I think it underlies that fact that we won't get any real change with a republicrat in office.
Take any one of the many candidate selector quizzes and I bet that the candidate the most closely matches your views will not be Bush or Gore. I would suggest voting for the person who you most agree with; that sounds like a logical reason to give someone your vote. Although you are free, of course, to vote for whoever you want, and don't have to listen to my rambling...
Whenever you're thirsty, just put a little dehyrated water in a cup, add water, and voilà!
Let's look at this a little more closely.
1. x = y
2. x = xy
3. x - y = xy - y
4. (x + y)(x - y) = y(x - y)
5. x + y = y
6. 2y = y
7. 2 = 1
you're skipping over 4.5 which is (x + y)(x - y)/(x - y) = y(x - y)/(x - y). Remember then that x = y, so you're dividing by zero, and your proof is incorrect.
I know, it probably wasn't worth the reply... oh well.
Enjoy.
-snip-
This comment posted with Konqueror
Damn, that sounds like a lot of extra work.
I would have just chosen one webrowser to do my slashdot posting, but that's just me.
I don't have a laptop, and, therefore, don't have one of these, but here's what they say about it: "Output of 13.8 watts will run some models better than others. At a minimum it will triple your run time on the internal battery, or recharge in twice the time required by an AC plug." It doesn't support every laptop, but I think it may be worth checking out.