It's obviously a typo for "LDS modem", a device knwon for sending out packets in pairs, trying to connect with non-compliant devices and convert them to use their own rather strict proprietary protocol (popularly known as "mormon"). LDS modems originally supported one-to-many connections, but now only work in one-to-one mode.
I don't know if this applies or not, but for musical compositions there's both duplication and performance rights. That sounds like a similar distinction to what we're talking about here.
Will someone please tell me how mandating how electricity is to be generated defines the role or scope of government?
According to one theory of government, it exists to protect the public. Protecting them from the consequences of using non-renewable energy sources would fall within that purview.
Now, you presumably subscribe to a different philosophy of government in which its role should be limited to military defense, or that it should only legislate who should marry whom, or some other standard. But in a non-solipsistic universe, you really should try to consider the possibility that other models exist.
I just wanted to add that the site now has a "domestic" domain name, courtesy of a sympathetic Canadian national. So it's almost as good as being official.
It must be that all of us who voted for Bush are short-sighted idiots.
No, not all. Just most. I've listened for rational intelligent arguments, and I do hear some from folks like my father, my sisters, and so on. Maybe that's what led you to vote for him. But that's not at all what Bush supporters on the whole have been saying to pollsters. That's been mostly Christian dogma, uncritical loyalty, the doctrime of "me first", and/or comments about positive traits like steadfastness that the flip-flopping Bush (2000: "America must be humble"; 2004: "America must be proud") simply does not exhibit.
By every measure, Bush won, so there is no case made by this particular election that there's something which needs fixing.
Yes, it seems to be the democratically correct outcome. But some would argue that it demonstrates that the critical thinking skills of the voters themselves need "fixing".
I was pleased to see the same old punch-card voting gear at my polling place. We've never had any horribly designed ballots, and with the machine there on-site to confirm that your ballot's valid (something we had well before 2000), I have fairly high confidence that my vote will be counted... and can be recounted, if needed.
We had a couple rent-a-cops where I voted, which is new. The public schools closed for the day, because so many of them are polling places, and the current climate of fear (to say nothing of uncertainty and doubt) made the administration of the schools nervous about safety. Since my polling place is a private school that stayed open, they city hired security for it.
My only real concern is just the outcome. I know that the GOP is going to sweep the local (West Michigan) races, and the constitutional amendment banning gay marriages and civil unions and anything else that tries to give gay couples rights similar to hetero couples is going to pass. So depending on how the presidential race comes out, I may have to start learning "O Canada".
While the exact figures of the popular vote are merely symbolic, they're an important symbol. Bush may very well win the Electoral College, but if he fails again to win the popular vote, that'll be a rather powerful symbol, undermining his "mandate", and which can be used to caution the Congress not to go along with him when he goes too far. I'd much rather live in an American where Kerry won only the popular vote, than in an America where Bush won both.
There are times when it's important to build up alternative parties (I was a Green/Nader booster in 2000), and there are times when it's more important for a display of national unity. In parliamentary governments, it's not unusual for two or more opposition parties to form a coalition in order to oust the party with the largest plurality. They agree to disagree - and continue disagreeing after the election - where they differ, but put forth the common unifying goal of removing a dangerous goverment from power.
That's what I wish the opposition parties (Democrats, Nader, Libertarians, Greens, etc.) had done this year. It's not too late (yet) for their members to choose do that themselves.
The American electorate changes its mind a lot from one decade to the next, even within a few years. It's why we get so many divided goverments (House vs. Senate, Congress vs. President), and bounce back and forth between Democrats and Republicans, with the voters trying to correct and moderate their flirtations with one and then the other.
But from time to time, there are presidents whose election or re-election is more than just a course correction; it represents a course change. The first election of FDR in 1932 hinted at one; his first re-election in 1936 confirmed that it had occurred, and would continue for another decade or more, with lasting repercussions. He made dramatic changes in the judiciary (and tried for even bigger ones). The role of government in the United States changed forever, and the role of the United States in the world did as well.
To a smaller degree, the re-election of Reagan in 1984 meant more than his election in 1980; he wasn't just replacing a "failed" president, he was redefining national policy. It also gave him a big stamp on the Supreme Court. It was only the charismatic failure of his successor and Clinton's appeal to "Reagan Democrats" that allowed him to win the White House.
The election of 2000 showed a rather obvious indecision of where to go next. The GWB who was elected then (e.g. exhorting that America must be more humble internationally) was a tentative choice. But now, in 2004, we have a very different GWB in office, and this election is a referendum on whether the course he's set us on is one we want to stick with. If he wins (by whatever margin), he'll take that as a mandate and run with it. And just as Truman followed FDR's voter-endorsed lead and GHWB followed Reagan's, GWB's successor (whoever it'll be) is going to follow his.
So tomorrow the voters will either endorse the GWB model of America and steer it even more sharply in that extreme direction, or they'll perform a correction and steer back toward the middle. Imagine if FDR had lost in '36 and how different the country and the world would be today. The same could be true of '04. Personally, I hope historians look back on it as just a minor course correction. But if that doesn't happen...
Putting the authority to both make and enforce policy into one department invites corruption and uninformed policy making.
Exactly, this is why the U.S. government was originally set up to place policy-setting authority in the hands of a legislature, and policy-enforcement authority in the hands of an executor. (We should try doing it that way again some time.)
How do you propose running a network where the emphasis is on sharing and being nice instead of enforcing strict security policies.
Try "good cop"/"bad cop". Have one person in your department go around and threaten to disconnect people, then have another go around "behind his back" and help them to stay on. (If you're a department of one, ask your director if he'll sign a "bad cop" memo; if not, let him be "good cop" and "force" you to cooperate.) "Bad cop" may not end up the most popular person in the organisation, but if he responds by enthusiastically congratulating and thanking the newly-complying parties, that should avoid too much permanent bad blood.
Never mind where this came from. Although it sounds good, it's the sort of platitude that can easily mean the opposite. That's because when you make everyone responsible for something, that means that no one is responsible for it. The buck doesn't stop anywhere, so when there's a lapse, the responsible party is arguably "everyone", and those who simply do not have the authority to take responsibility for security (which is most)... won't.
Hmph! "Devolution" is a subjective - and arguably meaningless - concept. One could just as easily accuse sparrows of forgetting how to swim or to run. More correctly, one should say that each evolved to fill a particular niche.
Linux doesn't need a new logo, because it already has dozens. Don't like the penguin? Use the hat, or the lizard, or the spiral, or the flower, or the broken "L", or the puffy "g", or the menage-a-trois, or the dotty "X", or the lightning bolt, or... whichever one you think is going to appeal to whatever audience you want to pitch Linux too. And if you don't like any of those... make one yourself!
Between the various Linux distros I use (Red Hat, Mandrake, Coyote, Debian), the Mac OS versions I'm running (7.0, 9.2, 10.x), the Windowses I use (mostly at work) (98SE, 2K, XP), and the FreeBSD and BeOS boxes I play with, I presumably have a case of Multiple Personality Disorder.
Why isn't there a.porn? I think it would be nice to seperate that stuff out.
Because it would never accomplish that. All the creation of.porn or.xxx would accomplish is a messy land-grab as smut merchants rushed to register the new domains... while keeping their.com and.net and.org(y) domains in place. They'd have no incentive to shut them down, and there'd be no legal authority that could force them to. So you'd get a brief bit of profit for the registrars, then the internet would get back to business as usual, completely unchanged, except with one more variant of hornysluts.* to keep track of.
Well, this certainly makes me feel better about the OS-X-powered beige PowerMac G3 I use at work. (The "real" computers are for the students and faculty I help support, as it should be.)
For funsies, today my officemate and I were playing with an old Classic we found in storage, tricked out with 10MB RAM, 250MB hard drive, and running Photoshop 3.0, Pagemaker 5.0, etc. and some old games downloaded from UMich's archives.
Slashdot Mirror
It's obviously a typo for "LDS modem", a device knwon for sending out packets in pairs, trying to connect with non-compliant devices and convert them to use their own rather strict proprietary protocol (popularly known as "mormon"). LDS modems originally supported one-to-many connections, but now only work in one-to-one mode.
I don't know if this applies or not, but for musical compositions there's both duplication and performance rights. That sounds like a similar distinction to what we're talking about here.
No, I think his point was that there are laws that govern these sorts of activities offline, and that the same laws would apply online.
According to one theory of government, it exists to protect the public. Protecting them from the consequences of using non-renewable energy sources would fall within that purview.
Now, you presumably subscribe to a different philosophy of government in which its role should be limited to military defense, or that it should only legislate who should marry whom, or some other standard. But in a non-solipsistic universe, you really should try to consider the possibility that other models exist.
I just wanted to add that the site now has a "domestic" domain name, courtesy of a sympathetic Canadian national. So it's almost as good as being official.
No, not all. Just most. I've listened for rational intelligent arguments, and I do hear some from folks like my father, my sisters, and so on. Maybe that's what led you to vote for him. But that's not at all what Bush supporters on the whole have been saying to pollsters. That's been mostly Christian dogma, uncritical loyalty, the doctrime of "me first", and/or comments about positive traits like steadfastness that the flip-flopping Bush (2000: "America must be humble"; 2004: "America must be proud") simply does not exhibit.
Yes, it seems to be the democratically correct outcome. But some would argue that it demonstrates that the critical thinking skills of the voters themselves need "fixing".
And for those who aren't quite prepared to actually emigrate to Canada, another option has just been registered and is being set up as I type.
Or at least a typing class.
We had a couple rent-a-cops where I voted, which is new. The public schools closed for the day, because so many of them are polling places, and the current climate of fear (to say nothing of uncertainty and doubt) made the administration of the schools nervous about safety. Since my polling place is a private school that stayed open, they city hired security for it.
My only real concern is just the outcome. I know that the GOP is going to sweep the local (West Michigan) races, and the constitutional amendment banning gay marriages and civil unions and anything else that tries to give gay couples rights similar to hetero couples is going to pass. So depending on how the presidential race comes out, I may have to start learning "O Canada".
Can Double-Click be purchased thru One-Click shopping?
While the exact figures of the popular vote are merely symbolic, they're an important symbol. Bush may very well win the Electoral College, but if he fails again to win the popular vote, that'll be a rather powerful symbol, undermining his "mandate", and which can be used to caution the Congress not to go along with him when he goes too far. I'd much rather live in an American where Kerry won only the popular vote, than in an America where Bush won both.
That's what I wish the opposition parties (Democrats, Nader, Libertarians, Greens, etc.) had done this year. It's not too late (yet) for their members to choose do that themselves.
OK: it's a potential tipping point.
The American electorate changes its mind a lot from one decade to the next, even within a few years. It's why we get so many divided goverments (House vs. Senate, Congress vs. President), and bounce back and forth between Democrats and Republicans, with the voters trying to correct and moderate their flirtations with one and then the other.
But from time to time, there are presidents whose election or re-election is more than just a course correction; it represents a course change. The first election of FDR in 1932 hinted at one; his first re-election in 1936 confirmed that it had occurred, and would continue for another decade or more, with lasting repercussions. He made dramatic changes in the judiciary (and tried for even bigger ones). The role of government in the United States changed forever, and the role of the United States in the world did as well.
To a smaller degree, the re-election of Reagan in 1984 meant more than his election in 1980; he wasn't just replacing a "failed" president, he was redefining national policy. It also gave him a big stamp on the Supreme Court. It was only the charismatic failure of his successor and Clinton's appeal to "Reagan Democrats" that allowed him to win the White House.
The election of 2000 showed a rather obvious indecision of where to go next. The GWB who was elected then (e.g. exhorting that America must be more humble internationally) was a tentative choice. But now, in 2004, we have a very different GWB in office, and this election is a referendum on whether the course he's set us on is one we want to stick with. If he wins (by whatever margin), he'll take that as a mandate and run with it. And just as Truman followed FDR's voter-endorsed lead and GHWB followed Reagan's, GWB's successor (whoever it'll be) is going to follow his.
So tomorrow the voters will either endorse the GWB model of America and steer it even more sharply in that extreme direction, or they'll perform a correction and steer back toward the middle. Imagine if FDR had lost in '36 and how different the country and the world would be today. The same could be true of '04. Personally, I hope historians look back on it as just a minor course correction. But if that doesn't happen...
Exactly, this is why the U.S. government was originally set up to place policy-setting authority in the hands of a legislature, and policy-enforcement authority in the hands of an executor. (We should try doing it that way again some time.)
Try "good cop"/"bad cop". Have one person in your department go around and threaten to disconnect people, then have another go around "behind his back" and help them to stay on. (If you're a department of one, ask your director if he'll sign a "bad cop" memo; if not, let him be "good cop" and "force" you to cooperate.) "Bad cop" may not end up the most popular person in the organisation, but if he responds by enthusiastically congratulating and thanking the newly-complying parties, that should avoid too much permanent bad blood.
Never mind where this came from. Although it sounds good, it's the sort of platitude that can easily mean the opposite. That's because when you make everyone responsible for something, that means that no one is responsible for it. The buck doesn't stop anywhere, so when there's a lapse, the responsible party is arguably "everyone", and those who simply do not have the authority to take responsibility for security (which is most)... won't.
Hmph! "Devolution" is a subjective - and arguably meaningless - concept. One could just as easily accuse sparrows of forgetting how to swim or to run. More correctly, one should say that each evolved to fill a particular niche.
Linux doesn't need a new logo, because it already has dozens. Don't like the penguin? Use the hat, or the lizard, or the spiral, or the flower, or the broken "L", or the puffy "g", or the menage-a-trois, or the dotty "X", or the lightning bolt, or... whichever one you think is going to appeal to whatever audience you want to pitch Linux too. And if you don't like any of those... make one yourself!
On the other hand, having the authority without the responsibility is a much larger disaster waiting to happen.
Between the various Linux distros I use (Red Hat, Mandrake, Coyote, Debian), the Mac OS versions I'm running (7.0, 9.2, 10.x), the Windowses I use (mostly at work) (98SE, 2K, XP), and the FreeBSD and BeOS boxes I play with, I presumably have a case of Multiple Personality Disorder.
Because it would never accomplish that. All the creation of .porn or .xxx would accomplish is a messy land-grab as smut merchants rushed to register the new domains... while keeping their .com and .net and .org(y) domains in place. They'd have no incentive to shut them down, and there'd be no legal authority that could force them to. So you'd get a brief bit of profit for the registrars, then the internet would get back to business as usual, completely unchanged, except with one more variant of hornysluts.* to keep track of.
Unless you count Kylix. It uses Pascal or C++ instead of Basic, but it's definitely a VB-style environment.
Really? Well I'm indirectly supporting you, so there. :)
For funsies, today my officemate and I were playing with an old Classic we found in storage, tricked out with 10MB RAM, 250MB hard drive, and running Photoshop 3.0, Pagemaker 5.0, etc. and some old games downloaded from UMich's archives.