I believe that the alpha team was moved to Intel as part of the HP/Itanium deal. But this only happened after many members of the team were laid off/left. I think the lead Alpha designer actually works/ed for AMD now. The K8 and some of the K7 was primarily designed by that group.
I believe that TI does SUN's chip fabbing for them, SUN only does the design part. I'm actually surprised that Sun hasn't bought AMD and designed their future on x86-64 and linux/solaris, and sold SPARC to Fujitsu.
since it is now replacing SGI's MIPS and HP/CPQ's PA/RISC and maybe ALPHA chips. I agree though that it isn't going to gain any market share wrt x86 or x86-64 (or even POWER). It might kill SPARC though.
That's not correct either. You might want to look at this http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm. The Debt is currently 7.3 Trillion, but over 3 Trillion is held by the government, money it owes itself in some fancy accounting trick. That debt could be vaporied and have no effect on future tax rates, since the obligations will be paid from the same source. The actual outstanding debt is 4.3 Trillion. This debt (government bonds mostly) is owned by private individuals, companies, and foreign governments. So some of that is "foreign" and some domestic.
But Grandparent is right, liberal ORIGINALLY did mean what he said. Of course the word has come to mean some different things. If anyone hijacked the word it was the socialists/quasi-socialists who came after them. It also has more general meanings outside of the political realm of course.
The US is free to agree NOT to sign any agreements, just like Saddam. But he did agree to disarmament as a condition to ending the 1991 Gulf War. Any agreement which he has ALWAYS flaunted. The US refusing to sign on to the ICC or Kyoto is not relevant to the logic of War in Iraq. Countries that don't sign treaties/conventions aren't bound by them, that's why signing them is voluntary.
Wrong, Afghanistan is included in the 2004 budget, just the same way Iraq was, in supplemental defense expenditures, not part of the normal budget. Of course NATO is now the major body in Afghanistan, not the US, so your statement is hardly surprising. I find it funny that you cite Krugman, who's just this side of Jason Blair on getting his facts correct. He's a partisan, not a reporter. Why not just cite moveon.org as a source of unbiased information. I mean really. How does Afghanistan have anything to do with Screwing Saudi Arabia and China, and why should that be our goal?
Yeah, the crack pipe needs to be passed... you've been sucking on it way too long! CEO's get to vote the same number of times as the rest of us. Yeah they lobby and run commercials on all different sides of issues and candidates, but in the end, it's the rest of us who win or lose elections, because we all get only one vote.
Welfare programs don't create wealth though, they can only transfer and destroy it. (Welfare employee's don't produce anything of value, they are a cost, and overhead expense of our good will.) Thus every dollar of welfare spending will lowers the average standard of living in this country (you have to take from one to give anything to another). Pooring money into poor communities doesn't make them better off, it masks the underlying problems. It's a bandaid, not a cure. However, the AVAILABILITY of money to private and public sector to invest in these communities is a necessary but not sufficient condition to improving them. The problem is, how do you know if the is acting as a bandaid or a tonic?
WTF??
We did ask for it, by electing people the decided to go into debt. Of course not all debt is bad, nor is the debt "out of control", yet. The problem is that we DO have a lot of spending commitments further out that might be unrealistic and ruinous to our economic health.
Actually, from my undestanding, the Fed makes most of it's money off the interest from the Treasury Bonds it owns. It has to pay the government back any "profit" from those proceeds. Basically, the fed (part of the governemnt) owns a percentage of the Federal Debt.
I don't think that it's as inefficient and expensive as it used to be. Also, farm markets are always struggling not to OVERPRODUCE, so I doubt that using biofuels will cause food shortages, unless the uptake was very sudden. 25 years ago ethanol did cost more energy than it produced. However, improvments in the efficiency of farms and in the refining technology seems to have changed this.
I see ethanol more as a replacement for MTBE than as a pure fuel, personally, as opposed to biodiesel, which works much better as a direct replacement, at least when it's warm.
We should just use Mussolini's defintions. The rationale that he is somehow "best qualified" is a logical non-starter. Is Bill Gates the ultimate arbiter of the definition of a Monoploy because he had a huge one??
You know, it's people with your attitude that make politics such fertile ground for the demogauges. You don't like Bush or his policies? Then to you he's a neo facist (or nazi, or worse than Saddam Hussein). You can't just disagree anymore on issues. I'm not talking about questioning the truthfulness of people you disagree with, I think someone does need to hold politicians accountable. But the lengths to which it is taken really has gone beyond the pale.
He certainly does have the right to say whatever he want's, and the American people don't have a problem with that. But they don't have to enjoy listening to him talk about it. And there are many reasons why they might not WANT to hear it from Ben Affleck.
Some people are just turned off by any discussion of politics, and obviously those people who disagree with what he is saying may feel like they paid for entertainment and got screwed by having to listen to a political rant. But there is one other reason, and I think someone in the NYT said it best.
"Somehow this glitzy world of risque dresses, pseudo-transgressive stylings and velvet ropes the celebrities showing up at these Democrat parties, has precisely the opposite effect on a huge swath of the American public. They hate it, and they hate everything that Hollywood has come to stand for. After all, Hollywood stars are as close as America comes to an aristocracy, and being instructed on how to be kinder and better people by pseudo-rebellious aristocrats can't help but rub people the wrong way."
that run hollywood's studios. Like Eisner, Spielberg, and maybe Jobs? Those big donors to the Democratic Party!
Whoops, time for a new line of reasoning!
I'm not saying the Rupublican's don't have some big rich donor's too, but this myth that all the big corporate bosses are all republican donor types is silly. They are all as divided as the rest of the country (though I'm sure there are tendencies with the CEO crowd, just like every other demographic group).
You just contradicted your self; by not choosing fast food or soft drinks you are, in a sense voting FOR some alternative (unless you plan to starve yourself. I
know the whole stupid mantra about "one vote doesn't count", and it IS stupid. If your only goal is for some candidate to win, then I guess the odds that your particular vote will tip the election is small. OTOH, voting is also about expressing a preference. If you truly don't care or don't know, that would be a good reason not to vote. But not because you don't think it will change the winner.
Well, both parties are guilty of using the "jobs" meme rather than productivity. They do it because it gets votes from people by "sounding right", espeically if you are relatively ignorant about how the economy works.
My other response stared to explain the folly of the term "moderate", but I was immediately side tracked by another point.
What I was trying to say is that a "moderate" is not a positive definition of what a person IS, it's a reactionary definition of what someone ISN'T. Put another way, moderate relative to what? That's why I say that EVERY elected politician is essentially a moderate, otherwise then couldn't stay in power.
The problem isn't that there aren't enough moderates, the problem for you is that you don't see any candidates who agree with you on (almost) every issue. But that's not a reasonable expectation, unless YOU run for office.
There is no such thing. I'd go so far to say that ALL WE EVER GET ARE MODERATES. In a "two candidate system", the incentive is to always play to the "center".
Political Parties are very nebulous entities whose members are NOT of a uniform opinion on every issue. The are a very loosely affiliated group that tend to agree more often than not. They don't all march in lockstep. That's why even though I might call my self a Democrat, Republican, conservative, libertartian, or socialist. Not everyone who shares that label will have the exact same opinion on issues. Opinions on issues, even the highly devisive abortion issue run the gradient from legal no matter what to illegal no matter what. The fact is that there are all sorts of people in between those positions who want varying degrees of restrictions from few to many.
It's not nearly as cut-and-dried as the partisans make it look.
you could start by looking at his voting record. Which IS much more "left" leaning than most senators. That's not a criticism, just a statement of facts. The question isn't how far left of right a politician is, the question is do you agree with how he/she voted in the past and is likely to vote in the future.
The joke/irony is that "domination" is inherently impossible in an open system since it removes more barriers to entry than any other system. If you have an itch you can't scratch you pay someone to do it for you, just like you do now. It's called a service economy. Software is much better as a service, both for the buyer and seller, given the nature of the "product". Software is never truly "done" and the service model fits this much better.
Example. Redhat EL isn't a product, anyone can take the bits for free, it's a service. They wrap the bits for you and make the updates available in a convenient form. They provide a certain amount of verification and support for a "standardized" platform. So what happens to guys writing the bits? It would be prudent for the service companies to employ them so as to better serve their customers.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that the alpha team was moved to Intel as part of the HP/Itanium deal. But this only happened after many members of the team were laid off/left. I think the lead Alpha designer actually works/ed for AMD now. The K8 and some of the K7 was primarily designed by that group.
I believe that TI does SUN's chip fabbing for them, SUN only does the design part. I'm actually surprised that Sun hasn't bought AMD and designed their future on x86-64 and linux/solaris, and sold SPARC to Fujitsu.
since it is now replacing SGI's MIPS and HP/CPQ's PA/RISC and maybe ALPHA chips. I agree though that it isn't going to gain any market share wrt x86 or x86-64 (or even POWER). It might kill SPARC though.
That depends, how many votes are actually changed by some guy writing a $5000 check?
That's not correct either. You might want to look at this http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm. The Debt is currently 7.3 Trillion, but over 3 Trillion is held by the government, money it owes itself in some fancy accounting trick. That debt could be vaporied and have no effect on future tax rates, since the obligations will be paid from the same source. The actual outstanding debt is 4.3 Trillion. This debt (government bonds mostly) is owned by private individuals, companies, and foreign governments. So some of that is "foreign" and some domestic.
But Grandparent is right, liberal ORIGINALLY did mean what he said. Of course the word has come to mean some different things. If anyone hijacked the word it was the socialists/quasi-socialists who came after them. It also has more general meanings outside of the political realm of course.
The US is free to agree NOT to sign any agreements, just like Saddam. But he did agree to disarmament as a condition to ending the 1991 Gulf War. Any agreement which he has ALWAYS flaunted. The US refusing to sign on to the ICC or Kyoto is not relevant to the logic of War in Iraq. Countries that don't sign treaties/conventions aren't bound by them, that's why signing them is voluntary.
Wrong, Afghanistan is included in the 2004 budget, just the same way Iraq was, in supplemental defense expenditures, not part of the normal budget. Of course NATO is now the major body in Afghanistan, not the US, so your statement is hardly surprising. I find it funny that you cite Krugman, who's just this side of Jason Blair on getting his facts correct. He's a partisan, not a reporter. Why not just cite moveon.org as a source of unbiased information. I mean really. How does Afghanistan have anything to do with Screwing Saudi Arabia and China, and why should that be our goal?
Yeah, the crack pipe needs to be passed... you've been sucking on it way too long! CEO's get to vote the same number of times as the rest of us. Yeah they lobby and run commercials on all different sides of issues and candidates, but in the end, it's the rest of us who win or lose elections, because we all get only one vote.
Welfare programs don't create wealth though, they can only transfer and destroy it. (Welfare employee's don't produce anything of value, they are a cost, and overhead expense of our good will.) Thus every dollar of welfare spending will lowers the average standard of living in this country (you have to take from one to give anything to another). Pooring money into poor communities doesn't make them better off, it masks the underlying problems. It's a bandaid, not a cure. However, the AVAILABILITY of money to private and public sector to invest in these communities is a necessary but not sufficient condition to improving them. The problem is, how do you know if the is acting as a bandaid or a tonic?
WTF?? We did ask for it, by electing people the decided to go into debt. Of course not all debt is bad, nor is the debt "out of control", yet. The problem is that we DO have a lot of spending commitments further out that might be unrealistic and ruinous to our economic health.
Actually, from my undestanding, the Fed makes most of it's money off the interest from the Treasury Bonds it owns. It has to pay the government back any "profit" from those proceeds. Basically, the fed (part of the governemnt) owns a percentage of the Federal Debt.
WHY is this modded funny?????
Can't OO.org use pgSQL through ODBC connectivity?
I see ethanol more as a replacement for MTBE than as a pure fuel, personally, as opposed to biodiesel, which works much better as a direct replacement, at least when it's warm.
You know, it's people with your attitude that make politics such fertile ground for the demogauges. You don't like Bush or his policies? Then to you he's a neo facist (or nazi, or worse than Saddam Hussein). You can't just disagree anymore on issues. I'm not talking about questioning the truthfulness of people you disagree with, I think someone does need to hold politicians accountable. But the lengths to which it is taken really has gone beyond the pale.
Some people are just turned off by any discussion of politics, and obviously those people who disagree with what he is saying may feel like they paid for entertainment and got screwed by having to listen to a political rant. But there is one other reason, and I think someone in the NYT said it best.
"Somehow this glitzy world of risque dresses, pseudo-transgressive stylings and velvet ropes the celebrities showing up at these Democrat parties, has precisely the opposite effect on a huge swath of the American public. They hate it, and they hate everything that Hollywood has come to stand for. After all, Hollywood stars are as close as America comes to an aristocracy, and being instructed on how to be kinder and better people by pseudo-rebellious aristocrats can't help but rub people the wrong way."
I'm not saying the Rupublican's don't have some big rich donor's too, but this myth that all the big corporate bosses are all republican donor types is silly. They are all as divided as the rest of the country (though I'm sure there are tendencies with the CEO crowd, just like every other demographic group).
know the whole stupid mantra about "one vote doesn't count", and it IS stupid. If your only goal is for some candidate to win, then I guess the odds that your particular vote will tip the election is small. OTOH, voting is also about expressing a preference. If you truly don't care or don't know, that would be a good reason not to vote. But not because you don't think it will change the winner.
Well, both parties are guilty of using the "jobs" meme rather than productivity. They do it because it gets votes from people by "sounding right", espeically if you are relatively ignorant about how the economy works.
The problem isn't that there aren't enough moderates, the problem for you is that you don't see any candidates who agree with you on (almost) every issue. But that's not a reasonable expectation, unless YOU run for office.
Political Parties are very nebulous entities whose members are NOT of a uniform opinion on every issue. The are a very loosely affiliated group that tend to agree more often than not. They don't all march in lockstep. That's why even though I might call my self a Democrat, Republican, conservative, libertartian, or socialist. Not everyone who shares that label will have the exact same opinion on issues. Opinions on issues, even the highly devisive abortion issue run the gradient from legal no matter what to illegal no matter what. The fact is that there are all sorts of people in between those positions who want varying degrees of restrictions from few to many.
It's not nearly as cut-and-dried as the partisans make it look.
you could start by looking at his voting record. Which IS much more "left" leaning than most senators. That's not a criticism, just a statement of facts. The question isn't how far left of right a politician is, the question is do you agree with how he/she voted in the past and is likely to vote in the future.
noticed the same thing here
Example. Redhat EL isn't a product, anyone can take the bits for free, it's a service. They wrap the bits for you and make the updates available in a convenient form. They provide a certain amount of verification and support for a "standardized" platform. So what happens to guys writing the bits? It would be prudent for the service companies to employ them so as to better serve their customers.