Actually, I frequently refine my thoughts in response to criticism, but it only works in the presence of intelligent thought. Nothing you've said qualifies. You haven't even figured out how to set "foe".
Consider it a convenience so I can remember you're some sort of idiot and not waste time looking at your comments. Actually, my settings are such that foes are already nearly invisible. (Unfortunately, there is a limit to the total number of allocations, and I'm using most of mine constructively for friends.)
Well, I agree with you, but... I just don't think it's possible to stop it completely, so making it visible and putting limits on it seems to be about the best that can be done. I think the underlying problem there is actually the wealthy people who are focused on wealth for the sake of power over other people, not the "pure" economic animals who only want money for its own sake.
I've pretty much gotten away from history and sociology these years, but I'd like to see some substantive research into whether or not the most democratic societies really do outperform the others. I don't have much doubt about the results in comparison to dictatorships, but right now America is sliding into oligarchy, and I only have vague impressions that oligarchies normally collapse into corruption or class warfare or both.
Actually, the original design was significantly less democratic than it has evolved to be. I'm not saying that the direction of development is completely bad, because I really do believe that democracy is a good thing and that it confers competitive advantage on the societies that have more of it. However, I also believe in the value of honesty, and I think that some part of the government is going to be bought and sold, so we might as well package it that way. The Senate's powers were actually fairly well limited in the original design, sort of like the modern House of Lords in England or the Upper House in Japan.
Besides, addressing Bill Gates as "The senior Senator from Microsoft" has a kind of ring to it.
Look, I don't care if your problem is that you can't read well, you can't understand things that don't match your prejudices, or you're just stupid. Of course I'd bet on the proud and aggressive ignorance, since it's so fashionable in the States these years. Whatever. I have no use for you. Please just mark me as your foe and we'll eagerly ignore each other.
I addressed the first part elsewhere, but as regards the budget, the job of the Executive branch is to do (execute) the will of Congress to the best of their ability with the resources provided. If the money is insufficient, then they need to do as much as they can and report how much wasn't finished for the next budget, and if there is too much money, they need to save that extra money and report why about that, too.
As it actually works now, we have Dubya's cronies deciding to divert money from New Orleans because Iraq was a higher priority for them. Totally against the will of the Congressmen from Louisiana (and probably also against the will of the representatives of the states that depended on New Orleans).
Yes, that's the one, though (of course) it's not the only problem. The unintended side effect was to eventually weaken the independence of the Senate and make their election process more like the House of Representatives, so that the same kind of vote buying strategies could be used for both houses of Congress. Before that the various state legislatures were effectively more powerful, and that formed another form of division of power.
My suggestion is actually a kind of modification of the original idea to fit the present situation. When they drafted the Constitution, they wanted to focus "elite" interests more in the Senate, and it made some sense to give each of the states an equal position, but the states are now so unequal that the idea of equality between the states is fundamentally flawed.
I suppose you could do it by allocating the Senators based on the wealth of the states the way the House is allocated based on population. However, I feel like it's more honest to just make it a direct reflection of the money. If Microsoft has 5% of the wealth, then let's just give them 5% of the Senators.
Oh yeah, I forgot the constructive suggestion part. A well-thought out Constitutional Amendment. Not bloody likely, is it?
The Senate should be reapportioned to reflect economic power. Let the corporations have their playground, but make it much weaker, except for negative delaying powers. That way the companies will have some place to focus all their lobbying money. At the same time, the House should be strengthened and held accountable and prevented from delegating their powers away. That's why they were supposed to face the voters every two years. Keep them on their toes.
And get the White House completely OUT of the budget business.
I think the subject pretty much sums it up. Doesn't matter if the current holder of the power is the most righteous guy on earth. Once the power is concentrated and usable, it's just a matter of time until it gets abused by some person or some gang.
The American idea of dividing the powers up and setting them at each other's throats was really clever. Unfortunately, no one knows the future, and things have evolved in a way where the powers are bigger and more concentrated than any English king's powers ever were. Unanticipated side effect of the 17th Amendment. (Yeah, the idea of an evolving document was pretty good, too, but it also got misused...)
Today's FBI example is relatively minor compared to all the dead bodies in Iraq.
Gee, no one calls the Catholics Christian, but I do call the Catholics Christian, which means I am not "no one", which is logically equivalent to saying I don't exist. Then the Zionist troll on top? Plenty of non-Jewish Zionists, too, though I don't know which particular brand is worst.
Anyway, since you're clearly just another troll, my standard request is that you mark me as a foe for convenience in ignoring you.
How are they planning to enforce this one? This is about the stupidest idea I've ever heard of.
Wait! I've got it. Every day when the students arrive at school, they'll start by putting their hands on the school Bible and swearing that they haven't written a blog or violated any of the other 729 rules and regulations. Of course, they'll have to do it in very small groups so they can be properly monitored to make sure none of them are lip-synching the oath or crossing their fingers. By the time the students all finish all their mighty oath takings, it will be time to go home, and they can start again the next morning.
Blaming the victim as national policy? You hard-core mindless Busheviks following your talking-point faxes are really quite disgusting. Anything to defend your leader. I should use the stronger term?
Tell you what. Mark me as foe and let's ignore each other. I have no use for fantasy-based fools, and you have no use for reality.
Well, actually I believe that most of the delay is due to various low-level security software that corporate requires us to use on any machine that can touch the corporate network. Other parts of the delay involve various utilities and things that I set up. In the extreme case of the W2K machine I mentioned, I actually split a lot of the initialization into a separate batch file with delays so that fewer programs are loading at one time--but even with the reduced thrashing it takes about 15 minutes. The XP machines do claim to be be ready in less than a minute, but most of that is just preparing the eye candy, and I don't consider them as really ready or responsive for several minutes.
Boot speed is not the decisive factor, but I'm seriously thinking about going non-Windows for my next box. However, the big straw that seems to be breaking this camel's back is the "Windows Genuine Advantage" BS. Not like I ever wanted to do business with Microsoft in the first place, and now they want to make a big issue about it? Most of my machines come from reputable dealers with "genuine" OSes installed--but I've still had to buy several extra OSes from Microsoft over the years.
Getting off topic, but any recommendations for good comparisons between Linux and OS X?
Sorry, I couldn't help myself! But seriously, you'd think that they should have addressed this ongoing nuisance a long time ago. One of my office machines takes a good 15 minutes to boot in the morning. Even my fastest XP boxes take several minutes to IPL before you can really start working on them. It mounts up over the years.
My guess is that they just use a bank of EEPROMs to store a lot of the critical system routines and a EEPROM or two for their critical state information. They could refresh the status using idle cycles after the machine has started, but in general, those routines aren't going to change so much. (I think two EEPROMs for the state information because they could easily hold "last stable" and "almost ready" states.)
Shucks and darn. Now I have to thank you. You motivated me to check the/. settings more carefully, and it turns out that there is a way to make ACs disappear. Having made that change, I can happily say bye-bye.
But I'd still appreciate the foe setting just in case you ever develop the courage to post under less than complete anonymity. It will save time in ignoring you.
I have to say that even for an anonymous coward, that was an excellent piece-of-shit post. Congratulations on being a slightly big jackass. You can collect your prize from any well-used toilet.
Wasting time to try to educate such a bloody twit, but here's the/. catch. There is a limit to how many friends and foes you can designate. There are constructive reasons to designate friends, and my slots are mostly full of thoughtful and interesting people.
There are a rather large number of worthless twits like yourself. You're not even worth a foe slot. It's rather a shame that/. doesn't offer an effective way to deal with such vile and mindless abuses of anonymity. If/. offered the configuration option, fools like you would not exist in any visible sense, even when they are cowering behind their anonymity.
I can wish you nothing worse than to have another one of your endless stream of terrible days. And it would still be nice if you designate me as a foe. I would not at all object to being the official foe of a large number of such spineless "people".
You frigging anonymous cowards are so tedious. Just mark me as a foe and we'll ignore each other. I'm not at all interested in "discussions" with intellectually dishonest fools.
Thank you. You make my point much more clearly and strongly than I could. I suppose it could be taken as unfortunate that my point is that America is being overwhelmed by idiots, and you make my point by being such an amazing example.
One more favor. Please designate me as one of your foes. It will save time in ignoring you in the future.
You're apparently posting an indirect response in my journal as a indirect reply to my comment in the public discussion of mathematical games, so you're getting an indirect response here. I'm not going to include the full response here, since I feel like it would not be "cost-effective" in the private discussion, but in essense, I will argue we real-world "technologists" need to stop playing foolish theoretical games and consider the larger social context that is rendering our intellectual activities moot.
Thank you for another fine example of the abuse of/. anonymity. Still waiting for the first example of a legitimate usage here.
By the way, if it doesn't exceed your bravery quotient please mark me as your foe so we can happily ignore each other in perpetuity. I have no use for foolish cowards, with or without the bravery of their anonymity.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I frequently refine my thoughts in response to criticism, but it only works in the presence of intelligent thought. Nothing you've said qualifies. You haven't even figured out how to set "foe".
Consider it a convenience so I can remember you're some sort of idiot and not waste time looking at your comments. Actually, my settings are such that foes are already nearly invisible. (Unfortunately, there is a limit to the total number of allocations, and I'm using most of mine constructively for friends.)
I've pretty much gotten away from history and sociology these years, but I'd like to see some substantive research into whether or not the most democratic societies really do outperform the others. I don't have much doubt about the results in comparison to dictatorships, but right now America is sliding into oligarchy, and I only have vague impressions that oligarchies normally collapse into corruption or class warfare or both.
Glancing over your comment, no wonder you're too ashamed to associate your name or even your handle with it. Typical Bushevik or Rushevik.
Besides, addressing Bill Gates as "The senior Senator from Microsoft" has a kind of ring to it.
Look, I don't care if your problem is that you can't read well, you can't understand things that don't match your prejudices, or you're just stupid. Of course I'd bet on the proud and aggressive ignorance, since it's so fashionable in the States these years. Whatever. I have no use for you. Please just mark me as your foe and we'll eagerly ignore each other.
Goes back WAY before 9/11, though that has been a nifty excuse for speeding things up.
As it actually works now, we have Dubya's cronies deciding to divert money from New Orleans because Iraq was a higher priority for them. Totally against the will of the Congressmen from Louisiana (and probably also against the will of the representatives of the states that depended on New Orleans).
My suggestion is actually a kind of modification of the original idea to fit the present situation. When they drafted the Constitution, they wanted to focus "elite" interests more in the Senate, and it made some sense to give each of the states an equal position, but the states are now so unequal that the idea of equality between the states is fundamentally flawed.
I suppose you could do it by allocating the Senators based on the wealth of the states the way the House is allocated based on population. However, I feel like it's more honest to just make it a direct reflection of the money. If Microsoft has 5% of the wealth, then let's just give them 5% of the Senators.
The Senate should be reapportioned to reflect economic power. Let the corporations have their playground, but make it much weaker, except for negative delaying powers. That way the companies will have some place to focus all their lobbying money. At the same time, the House should be strengthened and held accountable and prevented from delegating their powers away. That's why they were supposed to face the voters every two years. Keep them on their toes.
And get the White House completely OUT of the budget business.
The American idea of dividing the powers up and setting them at each other's throats was really clever. Unfortunately, no one knows the future, and things have evolved in a way where the powers are bigger and more concentrated than any English king's powers ever were. Unanticipated side effect of the 17th Amendment. (Yeah, the idea of an evolving document was pretty good, too, but it also got misused...)
Today's FBI example is relatively minor compared to all the dead bodies in Iraq.
Anyway, since you're clearly just another troll, my standard request is that you mark me as a foe for convenience in ignoring you.
Wait! I've got it. Every day when the students arrive at school, they'll start by putting their hands on the school Bible and swearing that they haven't written a blog or violated any of the other 729 rules and regulations. Of course, they'll have to do it in very small groups so they can be properly monitored to make sure none of them are lip-synching the oath or crossing their fingers. By the time the students all finish all their mighty oath takings, it will be time to go home, and they can start again the next morning.
How's that for a proper religious education?
What, you mean the entire thing wasn't some kind of sick joke? Iraq? Katrina? All the little stuff?
Do you think I'm going to argue with a fool? As far as I'm concerned, your only purpose in life is to mark me as your foe.
Tell you what. Mark me as foe and let's ignore each other. I have no use for fantasy-based fools, and you have no use for reality.
Boot speed is not the decisive factor, but I'm seriously thinking about going non-Windows for my next box. However, the big straw that seems to be breaking this camel's back is the "Windows Genuine Advantage" BS. Not like I ever wanted to do business with Microsoft in the first place, and now they want to make a big issue about it? Most of my machines come from reputable dealers with "genuine" OSes installed--but I've still had to buy several extra OSes from Microsoft over the years.
Getting off topic, but any recommendations for good comparisons between Linux and OS X?
My guess is that they just use a bank of EEPROMs to store a lot of the critical system routines and a EEPROM or two for their critical state information. They could refresh the status using idle cycles after the machine has started, but in general, those routines aren't going to change so much. (I think two EEPROMs for the state information because they could easily hold "last stable" and "almost ready" states.)
But I'd still appreciate the foe setting just in case you ever develop the courage to post under less than complete anonymity. It will save time in ignoring you.
Wasting time to try to educate such a bloody twit, but here's the /. catch. There is a limit to how many friends and foes you can designate. There are constructive reasons to designate friends, and my slots are mostly full of thoughtful and interesting people.
There are a rather large number of worthless twits like yourself. You're not even worth a foe slot. It's rather a shame that /. doesn't offer an effective way to deal with such vile and mindless abuses of anonymity. If /. offered the configuration option, fools like you would not exist in any visible sense, even when they are cowering behind their anonymity.
I can wish you nothing worse than to have another one of your endless stream of terrible days. And it would still be nice if you designate me as a foe. I would not at all object to being the official foe of a large number of such spineless "people".
Has anyone yet discovered a valid purpose for the existence of anonymous cowards on /.?
You frigging anonymous cowards are so tedious. Just mark me as a foe and we'll ignore each other. I'm not at all interested in "discussions" with intellectually dishonest fools.
One more favor. Please designate me as one of your foes. It will save time in ignoring you in the future.
You're apparently posting an indirect response in my journal as a indirect reply to my comment in the public discussion of mathematical games, so you're getting an indirect response here. I'm not going to include the full response here, since I feel like it would not be "cost-effective" in the private discussion, but in essense, I will argue we real-world "technologists" need to stop playing foolish theoretical games and consider the larger social context that is rendering our intellectual activities moot.
By the way, if it doesn't exceed your bravery quotient please mark me as your foe so we can happily ignore each other in perpetuity. I have no use for foolish cowards, with or without the bravery of their anonymity.