And you come along tell me that warmer air can carry more moisture, thus more snow, thus the glaciers grow.
So it would seem, if the glaciers grow, it's evidence for global warming. And if the glaciers shrink, it's also evidence for global warming.
Sounds like an arguement between labor economists about the shape of the labor supply curve. (elastic, highly inelastic, or backward bending.)
Actually, you don't need PAM to do LDAP authentication, but it seems to be easier to do it that way, unless you have a nonPAMified distro (Slackware). Then you just use the nsswitch file to change the settings iirc. And NDS does run on linux (I know someone else said that too)
Props to you for your other points though.
"Well, I think I've adequately addressed productivity, but "quality of life" is an inherently subjective measure, by any definition. There's nothing inherently inferior about European workers, by any stretch of the imagination - the major difference is in cultural values, I think. We value different things, and the choices we make reflect those values. And so long as we're all happy with those choices, and we understand that both parties have made certain trade-offs in pursuit of those choices...well, who am I to complain?;)"
This may be one of the best posts in this whole thread.
Simple, if everyone were paid the same, how do you determine where you have a shortage of workers, and how would you get people to change from jobs where there is a surplus of workers to that where there is a shortage? Or would the government just dictate who works where?
For socialism to work, you have take away an incredible amount of power from individuals and place it in the hands of government officials. Which, if you believe in the maxim of Lord Acton, is very very unhealthy.
The interest rate rise will mostly hurt people who havent locked in fixed rates on their mortgagues. If you were smart, you locked in a good rate which will result in a permanently better income.
" We know that they had them at one point. We sold them to them."
Almost correct, but not quite.
The US never sold saddam WMDs, they did sell him weapons back during the Iran Iraq war in the 80s in an attempt to "even up" the fight. Supposedly, saddam was also sold materials that could be used in a chemical or biological weapons programs (such as laboratory media etc.). But the US never actually shipped him mustard gas or anything like that, and we certainly weren't stupid enough to sell him weapons after the 1991 gulf war, like some others did. The US isn't blameless, but what you are saying isn't correct.
Not to excuse the American treatment of the "indians". But the concept of a nation-state didn't exist in their culture, so it was pretty hard for america to "conquer" them in the same way that germany did to poland. It doesn't make it right, but it does make it different, and thus not a good justification of your argument.
Including social security as part of the tax burden is misleading. Social security taxes are capped at a certain amount, but so are benefits. While I don't agree with the way that social security is set up, your monthy benefit is determined by you and your spouse's contribution. You are taxing yourself to pay for your own future benefit. That is much different than the income taxes that are used to fund general government operations.
When you talk about tax burden, you have to look at who is getting both the costs and benefits. A very large % of government spending is income transfers, (we are not talking social security now, which is 'off budget') which primarily benefit the poor. Now non-income transfer spending, like the NSF, NASA, transportation, etc. benefit everyone.
As a last thought I'm curious what your opinion of doing away with corporate income taxes and capital gains (capital gains would be taxed like regular income, but you would still be able to defer taxes on retirement funds,etc.)
No, Iraq didn't drag them out, but they simply refused to let them visit certain sites without permission, which pretty much made the inspections useless. They were withdrawn, but Iraq refused to let them back in after certain suspected sites were bombed by clinton in 1998.
Umm, how do bush and cheny benefit from cheeper gas prices? They don't own the oil. "Big oil" doesn't own the oil in the middle east, they have to buy that oil at prices that OPEC sets. Oil is a commodity, and american companies are not allowed to conspire to fix crude oil prices, unlike the state owned oil monopolies that make up OPEC. Their production quotas pretty much set the world oil price. Big oil does refining and retailing, and they do pump oil in the US, but they can't control oil prices, their fortunes are pretty much determined by OPEC's pricing policy.
I like bush, and I have to agree with you.
Dispite what some ppl on the right think, clinton isnt evil incarnate, and bush is far from perfect. While i disagree with many of clinton's policies, I don't think that everything he did was wrong. I think Clinton did the right thing in bosnia (showed some real leadership, going in before he had any UN approval, which many people forget) I don't like Bush's steel tarrifs or education bill. I could go on and on, with examples of foreign and domestic policy.
The point is, that no candiate is ever going to agree with you on everything. Some of you really need to get a sense of proportion. I'm all for a vigourous debate of ideas. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them evil incarnate. I'm not saying that the character of a leader is unimportant, but most people are far too eager attribute bad motives to people they disagree with and to excuse the behavior of those on "their side".
How about we charge a fee for every application, regardless of whether it is approved or not. The government still gets it's money, and it should, as it has to check for prior art and file the paperwork. The idea is a nonrefundable fee, set so that mass filing of patents is expensive, so only ideas that might actually have a chance of being approved would be submitted. Say bout $200?
Point taken, accept that the VP sold off all his stock during the election so as to avoid exactly what you are talking about. So the current executive branch doesn't really have a vested financial interest in haliburton.
It's more like they install a server that you support with your preferred distro, and they install a few more servers with a different distro, and you barge in uninvited, tally up the unsupported servers, and charge them twice your normal rate for support of the other distros, whether they want it or not.
This is only true if that "other distro" is redhat AS ES or WS.
They can't do that for, say, SuSE or Slackware, simply because you could never claim that these were "redhat supported" All they are saying is that you can only install the "High End" products on as many machines as you have a license for, since, IIRC, they also contain some proprietary software as well. The point is, the restriction only applies to the package (Redhat AS ES and WS) as a whole, not the the specific GPL software included in it.
That what we need in North America. Now TV here is a BS, b/c all ads are useless and non-informative.
Actually this law would cause exactly the opposite, since it would be hard to "prove" your product is better. It would lead to more touchy feely "brand" advertising that tells you almost nothing about the product.
Comparing the performance of Office is a non-dubious means of comparing the end-u"ser experience."
I'd agree with you, accept the Office isn't exactly what I'd call a high performance app, no one that buying any of these machines is buying them cause they need better performance out of MS office.
Now a comparison of the most commonly used programs on each machine is fine, but keep in mind the target audience of these machines.
Actually, advocating the overthrow of the govenment (overthrow being anything that does not comform to the law, eg. a coup rather than an election) is not protected by the 1st ammendment. There are limits, even to the first ammendment, the supreme court has ruled so on numerous occasions. It is meant to protect the legitimate discourse of ideas, even ones that are unpopular. What it does not do is protect someone who is not just speaking their mind, but is advocating/requesting that others engage in illegal activity. There are numerous laws that make such orders themselves illegal. (2nd degree murder is a simple example.
My understanding is that SATA is transparent to the OS in that it requires no "special" drivers, the system sees it as IDE/ATA just like before, it is just the hardware connection that has changed, which allows for higher speeds. Now your motherboard chipset might not be supported if its really new, but i dont think its only SATA related.
"We're not particularly welcome except in the case where it involves our money.:-)"
Money or protection from nasty people, both of which we are doing in Iraq:)
Notice that I think that we are in some places where we shouldnt be, but Iraq is not one of them.
I would love to get our Army out of S Korea and Western Europe. The S Koreans are equally matched in a conventional war and could sufficiently deter any attack. Assuming that deterence applies here (and if it doesn't then all our troops don't matter either, which is the premise of the "bush doctrine") There is nothing to be gained from us stationing troops there. Naval deployments though would be fine, a carrier group etc...
I would have to agree, there are two groups.
The '1 4m 1337' crowd who are into linux cause they think it makes them cool or cause they want to "get even" with microsoft. And the more mature element, who tend to be more knowledgeable, more committed, and seem to have stayed involved longer. This second group seems to be the group that dominates contribution end of OSS if not always the end user demographic.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like an arguement between labor economists about the shape of the labor supply curve. (elastic, highly inelastic, or backward bending.)
Actually, you don't need PAM to do LDAP authentication, but it seems to be easier to do it that way, unless you have a nonPAMified distro (Slackware). Then you just use the nsswitch file to change the settings iirc. And NDS does run on linux (I know someone else said that too) Props to you for your other points though.
This may be one of the best posts in this whole thread.
no, just the cost of redoing millions of documents from one format to another.
Simple, if everyone were paid the same, how do you determine where you have a shortage of workers, and how would you get people to change from jobs where there is a surplus of workers to that where there is a shortage? Or would the government just dictate who works where?
For socialism to work, you have take away an incredible amount of power from individuals and place it in the hands of government officials. Which, if you believe in the maxim of Lord Acton, is very very unhealthy.
The interest rate rise will mostly hurt people who havent locked in fixed rates on their mortgagues.
If you were smart, you locked in a good rate which will result in a permanently better income.
Almost correct, but not quite. The US never sold saddam WMDs, they did sell him weapons back during the Iran Iraq war in the 80s in an attempt to "even up" the fight. Supposedly, saddam was also sold materials that could be used in a chemical or biological weapons programs (such as laboratory media etc.). But the US never actually shipped him mustard gas or anything like that, and we certainly weren't stupid enough to sell him weapons after the 1991 gulf war, like some others did. The US isn't blameless, but what you are saying isn't correct.
Not to excuse the American treatment of the "indians". But the concept of a nation-state didn't exist in their culture, so it was pretty hard for america to "conquer" them in the same way that germany did to poland. It doesn't make it right, but it does make it different, and thus not a good justification of your argument.
ummm, non-jews can be Israeli citizens. They do have palestinean members of parliament (and no, they are not converts to judiasm)
When you talk about tax burden, you have to look at who is getting both the costs and benefits. A very large % of government spending is income transfers, (we are not talking social security now, which is 'off budget') which primarily benefit the poor. Now non-income transfer spending, like the NSF, NASA, transportation, etc. benefit everyone.
As a last thought I'm curious what your opinion of doing away with corporate income taxes and capital gains (capital gains would be taxed like regular income, but you would still be able to defer taxes on retirement funds,etc.)
No, Iraq didn't drag them out, but they simply refused to let them visit certain sites without permission, which pretty much made the inspections useless. They were withdrawn, but Iraq refused to let them back in after certain suspected sites were bombed by clinton in 1998.
Umm, how do bush and cheny benefit from cheeper gas prices? They don't own the oil. "Big oil" doesn't own the oil in the middle east, they have to buy that oil at prices that OPEC sets. Oil is a commodity, and american companies are not allowed to conspire to fix crude oil prices, unlike the state owned oil monopolies that make up OPEC. Their production quotas pretty much set the world oil price. Big oil does refining and retailing, and they do pump oil in the US, but they can't control oil prices, their fortunes are pretty much determined by OPEC's pricing policy.
We are signatories to the 1972 treaty, but we rejected new extenstions to the treaty, given the results of the last treaty.
The point is, that no candiate is ever going to agree with you on everything. Some of you really need to get a sense of proportion. I'm all for a vigourous debate of ideas. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them evil incarnate. I'm not saying that the character of a leader is unimportant, but most people are far too eager attribute bad motives to people they disagree with and to excuse the behavior of those on "their side".
How about we charge a fee for every application, regardless of whether it is approved or not. The government still gets it's money, and it should, as it has to check for prior art and file the paperwork. The idea is a nonrefundable fee, set so that mass filing of patents is expensive, so only ideas that might actually have a chance of being approved would be submitted. Say bout $200?
Two words, Moral Hazard. Your point, while true in the short run, has nothing to do with the situation the article describes.
Point taken, accept that the VP sold off all his stock during the election so as to avoid exactly what you are talking about. So the current executive branch doesn't really have a vested financial interest in haliburton.
This is only true if that "other distro" is redhat AS ES or WS. They can't do that for, say, SuSE or Slackware, simply because you could never claim that these were "redhat supported" All they are saying is that you can only install the "High End" products on as many machines as you have a license for, since, IIRC, they also contain some proprietary software as well. The point is, the restriction only applies to the package (Redhat AS ES and WS) as a whole, not the the specific GPL software included in it.
Actually this law would cause exactly the opposite, since it would be hard to "prove" your product is better. It would lead to more touchy feely "brand" advertising that tells you almost nothing about the product.
I'd agree with you, accept the Office isn't exactly what I'd call a high performance app, no one that buying any of these machines is buying them cause they need better performance out of MS office. Now a comparison of the most commonly used programs on each machine is fine, but keep in mind the target audience of these machines.
Actually, advocating the overthrow of the govenment (overthrow being anything that does not comform to the law, eg. a coup rather than an election) is not protected by the 1st ammendment. There are limits, even to the first ammendment, the supreme court has ruled so on numerous occasions. It is meant to protect the legitimate discourse of ideas, even ones that are unpopular. What it does not do is protect someone who is not just speaking their mind, but is advocating/requesting that others engage in illegal activity. There are numerous laws that make such orders themselves illegal. (2nd degree murder is a simple example.
My understanding is that SATA is transparent to the OS in that it requires no "special" drivers, the system sees it as IDE/ATA just like before, it is just the hardware connection that has changed, which allows for higher speeds. Now your motherboard chipset might not be supported if its really new, but i dont think its only SATA related.
macromedia does bundle sftp in the new versions of dreamweaver mx 2004
"We're not particularly welcome except in the case where it involves our money. :-)"
Money or protection from nasty people, both of which we are doing in Iraq :)
Notice that I think that we are in some places where we shouldnt be, but Iraq is not one of them.
I would love to get our Army out of S Korea and Western Europe. The S Koreans are equally matched in a conventional war and could sufficiently deter any attack. Assuming that deterence applies here (and if it doesn't then all our troops don't matter either, which is the premise of the "bush doctrine") There is nothing to be gained from us stationing troops there. Naval deployments though would be fine, a carrier group etc...
I would have to agree, there are two groups. The '1 4m 1337' crowd who are into linux cause they think it makes them cool or cause they want to "get even" with microsoft. And the more mature element, who tend to be more knowledgeable, more committed, and seem to have stayed involved longer. This second group seems to be the group that dominates contribution end of OSS if not always the end user demographic.