Sorry to break it to you, but everything is relative. It could also be said that all of your media is so far left wing, it makes our left wing media look like right wing conservative activists. It all depends on where you choose put the "center".
The electoral college needs to be abolished. The fear that candidates will only pander to more populated areas is already realised by candidates pandering almost solely to swing states.
There's a simpler solution that doesn't involve a Constitutional amendment, and still maintains the protection against populated areas dictating the election: require that electoral votes be distributed proportionately.
Hardware costs, while not negligible, are still not a major component of the costs of upgrading. Far more expensive are retraining, data conversion, replacing incompatible software, etc.
With:
Windows 2000 Server => Windows 2003 Server
Retraining ~ 0
Data Conversion ~ 0
Software Replacement ~ 0
Windows 2000 Server => Red Hat Enterprise Linux
Retraining ~ Massive
Data Conversion ~ Probably Enormous
Software Replacement ~ Indeterminate
I'm sorry, but comments like these only make you appear incredibly ignorant; when did you use Linux last? In 1994?
...I don't want to fuss around with kernels...
Linux Myth #1: Kernels must always, ALWAYS be compiled by hand. It is utterly impossible for distributions to provide a packaged kernel.
Linux Reality #1: Welcome to the world of package management! With just every distribution, kernel upgrades are trivial, and are identical to upgrading every other piece of software on your computer.
apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade
What's that? New kernel installed? Gee, that sure was tough!
...deciding between a distribution...
Linux Myth #2: Distributions are confusing, and the process of selecting which one to use is a time-consuming process. Once you've selected one, you must review the decision over and over.
Linux Reality #2: Distributions are largely the same, and the selection of them pretty much boils down to personal preference. Some distributions provide benefits that some others don't, but the difference in most cases is marginal, and not worth hours of deliberation.
In any case, if that is too much work for you, here's a handy list:
Red Hat Enterprise
Got lots of cash? Need a hefty support contract for mission-critical servers? Right now, this is pretty much the only game in town.
Debian Linux
Don't need a support contract (or can't afford one) but still need enterprise-level stability and the best package management available for Linux? Debian is for you!
Fedora Core
Need something solid and well-supported, but don't care about extreme uptimes? Looking for the absolute latest versions of several server applications? This is the distro of choice.
Of course, there are other distributions you can use that I haven't mentioned, but it's all about choice. Like I said before, the difference between distributions is relatively small and widely overblown.
Give me a linux that does all this in an easy to use manner, and I'll switch.
Linux Myth #3: People would use it, if only it weren't so damn tough.
Linux Reality #3: People don't use it because they are comfortable with their misconceptions, and have few current motivations to reconsider them. If you were serious about the above statement, you already would have switched. Linux is not difficult; it is your being wedged in the Windows paradigm that has you stuck there. The same is true in reverse; it's just as difficult for a Linux administrator with zero Windows experience to migrate over to Windows.
You don't have to compile kernels. Hell, with packaging, you don't even have to compile any software whatsoever. Upgrades are simple. When shit does hit the fan, you have plenty more options available to you to discover the source of the problem. Many distributions' installation processes are almost entirely automated, requiring the user to make less than 5 choices the entire process.
Is Linux perfect? Of course not. Is it better than Windows? It really depends on the situation: the intended use, the overall cost, and the skill of the administrator. But using age-old excuses like "compiling kernels is hard" and "there are too many distributions" to justify you staying put with Windows is either a cop out or simply being severely uninformed. And even if it wasn't, a good system administrator should be exploring new territory, and trying things that open up possibilities even if they are difficult at first.
This is not always true. Remember, it is the Total Cost of Ownership. If going with the initially-cheaper Windows installation because all of your techies are Windows folk enables more security breaches, more downtime due to viruses spreading, etc., you still may lose out in the long-run.
Of course, the same can be said for Linux; it is not a panacea. If you train the Windows guys in Linux for a little bit then convert your entire infrastructure over, you're asking for services to be install insecurely and for huge hiccups in service due to misguided installations.
Now turn your open eyes to the work that list was put to. They sent the list to polling places to keep tens of thousands of eligible Floridians from voting. The list itself isn't as bad as its democracidal use.
This didn't actually happen, according to the article; it's what the guy thinks could happen.
The problem is, this isn't even rational. It's a list of people's names; this an election for Christ's sake! How many lists of names do you think both sides are using for entirely legitimate purposes? Without any sort of context, this is insane.
I know airline security is bad now, but when was the last time you were stopped before getting on a plane because you were carrying baggage, of all things! And of course, the security guard was quoted as saying, "The only possible use of luggage is as a vessel for terrorist weapons."
He finds out about bad stuff, then comes up with the evidence, carefully researched and coherently presented.
I must agree. A list of people's names is damning evidence if I've ever seen it. Hell, marketing companies keep lists of people's names and we all know that they're up to no good. My eyes have been opened!
I think the problem the parent had was that the guy is wildly jumping to conclusions. He found a list of people, and he's claiming that the only possible use George Bush has for a list of people is to prevent them from voting. Regardless of your impressions of George Bush, is that statement even backed by a meager shred of evidence? This is little more than a publicity stunt and a thinly veiled attempt to influence the outcome of the election in Florida. Come on.
Especially in an election where bush has all but given up the black vote (he didn't even meet with the NAACP!)
Actually, IIRC, the NAACP issue had more to do with Kweisi Mfume's repeated insults of Bush. I sure as hell know I wouldn't have done it if I were in his position; it's all about dignity.
Now, I'm not attempting to make a comment on the validity of either of you two's insights, but let's recap what just happened here:
GP Poster: "Bush is bad, but Kerry will be bad because of A, B, C, D, and E as well."
Parent Poster: "E is wrong. Therefore, your entire conclusion is wrong and you are a slimy Republican."
I can just as easily say that your Democrat trick of "Bush Bad, Kerry Not As Bad (we promise)" doesn't work on anyone anymore. That is, with the minor exception of the average American voter. D'oh.
And no chance of winning, so he's not really a choice, even if he's on the ballot.
With the winner-takes-all setup of the Electoral College right now, unless you're in a battleground state your choice doesn't really matter as much anyways. In Georgia, George Bush will take the electoral vote. I could convince every single person I know to vote for Jesus H. Christ this election, and it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference.
Do what other countries do and make it a NATIONAL HOLIDAY. How do we expect the poor and disenfranchised to vote if they have to somehow get out of work to vote? How hard is that.
Actually, having voting on weekdays favors the poor and the rich, and fucks the middle class. Many of the poor are jobless, and can spend as long as they need to stand in line and vote. Many of the exceedingly rich are in a position where they can take arbitrary amounts of time off from work to go vote. The middle class is the group most likely to be unable to vote, due to job constraints.
Not at all. That +/- 10% is there for a reason. The margin of error is just that--a margin within which error could have occurred. The true value could easily have been 92% or 105% the predicted value, but the error caused it to become closer to what was expected. I'd be more interested in the latter example, as deviations that small usually indicate that we're on the right path with minor reworking.
Correct me if I am wrong, but if I understand this correctly, and if filtering with this becomes widely adopted, then it will also prevent me from sending mails with my gmail-address from my smtp server.
You are wrong, but not in this statement directly. Yes, you will be prevented from sending emails with your gmail address from your SMTP server. What you are wrong about is doing this in the first place; it breaks the SMTP standard. That's what reply-to addresses are for. If you want to send email that looks like it's coming from your Gmail account, the only thing you're supposed to do is configure the reply-to, not the email address.
Slashdot Mirror
You heard me.
Ah well, maybe next year.
Why should we have to wait until next year?
Sorry to break it to you, but everything is relative. It could also be said that all of your media is so far left wing, it makes our left wing media look like right wing conservative activists. It all depends on where you choose put the "center".
The electoral college needs to be abolished. The fear that candidates will only pander to more populated areas is already realised by candidates pandering almost solely to swing states.
There's a simpler solution that doesn't involve a Constitutional amendment, and still maintains the protection against populated areas dictating the election: require that electoral votes be distributed proportionately.
I'm in Georgia, so our representative Jesus gets 15 votes. I don't know how many your representative Jesus gets.
Chris posted Google's official statement on this. Unfortuantely, it's been pushed back to the second page due to all the conspiracy theorists.
Google's Official Response
The poor fool! Everyone knows that VB6 can't open files!
Where are mod points when you need them?
Sadly, I have them all. Life's a bitch, eh?
Hardware costs, while not negligible, are still not a major component of the costs of upgrading. Far more expensive are retraining, data conversion, replacing incompatible software, etc.
With:
Windows 2000 Server => Windows 2003 Server Retraining ~ 0 Data Conversion ~ 0 Software Replacement ~ 0 Windows 2000 Server => Red Hat Enterprise Linux Retraining ~ Massive Data Conversion ~ Probably Enormous Software Replacement ~ IndeterminateCan you figure out which one is cheaper?
<rant>
I'm sorry, but comments like these only make you appear incredibly ignorant; when did you use Linux last? In 1994?
Linux Myth #1: Kernels must always, ALWAYS be compiled by hand. It is utterly impossible for distributions to provide a packaged kernel.
Linux Reality #1: Welcome to the world of package management! With just every distribution, kernel upgrades are trivial, and are identical to upgrading every other piece of software on your computer.
apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgradeWhat's that? New kernel installed? Gee, that sure was tough!
Linux Myth #2: Distributions are confusing, and the process of selecting which one to use is a time-consuming process. Once you've selected one, you must review the decision over and over.
Linux Reality #2: Distributions are largely the same, and the selection of them pretty much boils down to personal preference. Some distributions provide benefits that some others don't, but the difference in most cases is marginal, and not worth hours of deliberation.
In any case, if that is too much work for you, here's a handy list:
Red Hat Enterprise Got lots of cash? Need a hefty support contract for mission-critical servers? Right now, this is pretty much the only game in town. Debian Linux Don't need a support contract (or can't afford one) but still need enterprise-level stability and the best package management available for Linux? Debian is for you! Fedora Core Need something solid and well-supported, but don't care about extreme uptimes? Looking for the absolute latest versions of several server applications? This is the distro of choice.Of course, there are other distributions you can use that I haven't mentioned, but it's all about choice. Like I said before, the difference between distributions is relatively small and widely overblown.
Give me a linux that does all this in an easy to use manner, and I'll switch.
Linux Myth #3: People would use it, if only it weren't so damn tough.
Linux Reality #3: People don't use it because they are comfortable with their misconceptions, and have few current motivations to reconsider them. If you were serious about the above statement, you already would have switched. Linux is not difficult; it is your being wedged in the Windows paradigm that has you stuck there. The same is true in reverse; it's just as difficult for a Linux administrator with zero Windows experience to migrate over to Windows.
You don't have to compile kernels. Hell, with packaging, you don't even have to compile any software whatsoever. Upgrades are simple. When shit does hit the fan, you have plenty more options available to you to discover the source of the problem. Many distributions' installation processes are almost entirely automated, requiring the user to make less than 5 choices the entire process.
Is Linux perfect? Of course not. Is it better than Windows? It really depends on the situation: the intended use, the overall cost, and the skill of the administrator. But using age-old excuses like "compiling kernels is hard" and "there are too many distributions" to justify you staying put with Windows is either a cop out or simply being severely uninformed. And even if it wasn't, a good system administrator should be exploring new territory, and trying things that open up possibilities even if they are difficult at first.
</rant>
This is not always true. Remember, it is the Total Cost of Ownership. If going with the initially-cheaper Windows installation because all of your techies are Windows folk enables more security breaches, more downtime due to viruses spreading, etc., you still may lose out in the long-run.
Of course, the same can be said for Linux; it is not a panacea. If you train the Windows guys in Linux for a little bit then convert your entire infrastructure over, you're asking for services to be install insecurely and for huge hiccups in service due to misguided installations.
Now turn your open eyes to the work that list was put to. They sent the list to polling places to keep tens of thousands of eligible Floridians from voting. The list itself isn't as bad as its democracidal use.
This didn't actually happen, according to the article; it's what the guy thinks could happen.
The problem is, this isn't even rational. It's a list of people's names; this an election for Christ's sake! How many lists of names do you think both sides are using for entirely legitimate purposes? Without any sort of context, this is insane.
I know airline security is bad now, but when was the last time you were stopped before getting on a plane because you were carrying baggage, of all things! And of course, the security guard was quoted as saying, "The only possible use of luggage is as a vessel for terrorist weapons."
He finds out about bad stuff, then comes up with the evidence, carefully researched and coherently presented.
I must agree. A list of people's names is damning evidence if I've ever seen it. Hell, marketing companies keep lists of people's names and we all know that they're up to no good. My eyes have been opened!
I think the problem the parent had was that the guy is wildly jumping to conclusions. He found a list of people, and he's claiming that the only possible use George Bush has for a list of people is to prevent them from voting. Regardless of your impressions of George Bush, is that statement even backed by a meager shred of evidence? This is little more than a publicity stunt and a thinly veiled attempt to influence the outcome of the election in Florida. Come on.
Especially in an election where bush has all but given up the black vote (he didn't even meet with the NAACP!)
Actually, IIRC, the NAACP issue had more to do with Kweisi Mfume's repeated insults of Bush. I sure as hell know I wouldn't have done it if I were in his position; it's all about dignity.
Now, I'm not attempting to make a comment on the validity of either of you two's insights, but let's recap what just happened here:
GP Poster: "Bush is bad, but Kerry will be bad because of A, B, C, D, and E as well."
Parent Poster: "E is wrong. Therefore, your entire conclusion is wrong and you are a slimy Republican."
I can just as easily say that your Democrat trick of "Bush Bad, Kerry Not As Bad (we promise)" doesn't work on anyone anymore. That is, with the minor exception of the average American voter. D'oh.
And no chance of winning, so he's not really a choice, even if he's on the ballot.
With the winner-takes-all setup of the Electoral College right now, unless you're in a battleground state your choice doesn't really matter as much anyways. In Georgia, George Bush will take the electoral vote. I could convince every single person I know to vote for Jesus H. Christ this election, and it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference.
Repeat after me: "The President is not in the Legislative Branch. The President is not in the Legislative Branch."
Do what other countries do and make it a NATIONAL HOLIDAY. How do we expect the poor and disenfranchised to vote if they have to somehow get out of work to vote? How hard is that.
Actually, having voting on weekdays favors the poor and the rich, and fucks the middle class. Many of the poor are jobless, and can spend as long as they need to stand in line and vote. Many of the exceedingly rich are in a position where they can take arbitrary amounts of time off from work to go vote. The middle class is the group most likely to be unable to vote, due to job constraints.
99% +/- 10% is far better than 99.9% +/- .01%
Not at all. That +/- 10% is there for a reason. The margin of error is just that--a margin within which error could have occurred. The true value could easily have been 92% or 105% the predicted value, but the error caused it to become closer to what was expected. I'd be more interested in the latter example, as deviations that small usually indicate that we're on the right path with minor reworking.
Correct me if I am wrong, but if I understand this correctly, and if filtering with this becomes widely adopted, then it will also prevent me from sending mails with my gmail-address from my smtp server.
You are wrong, but not in this statement directly. Yes, you will be prevented from sending emails with your gmail address from your SMTP server. What you are wrong about is doing this in the first place; it breaks the SMTP standard. That's what reply-to addresses are for. If you want to send email that looks like it's coming from your Gmail account, the only thing you're supposed to do is configure the reply-to, not the email address.
...except, evidently, the government.
And assuming it was a box to begin with, if everyone else is "outside" the box, doesn't that really become the "inside"?
Hahaha. What, you thought Microsoft would ever die?
It should. Who do you think loses out when the company has several million dollars stolen through identity fraud? The C-level executives?