As a licensed (Baptist) minister, I agree. There is a huge difference between marriage as I believe God ordained it and the mockery of marriage we call civil marriage, even if you leave aside the gay marriage issue. In God's marriage, divorce is allowed only in the most dire circumstances, remarriage is never allowed, and the husband and wife "become one flesh." In civil marriage, the opposite obtains. It's time to stop equivocating on what marriage is and get the state out of the marriage business.
This is a question that's sure to come up in many different ways, but I'd really like to know what is so special about Ubuntu that its purposes could not be as well served by contributing to the Debian tree? I'm assuming you have your reasons - is it about having control of the packaging, more frequent releases, what? Do you see Ubunutu supplanting Debian someday, or will it just be a branded form of the more open Debian (akin to Fedora/Redhat)?
Also, becoming aware of your financial resources, I can't help but wonder whether Ubuntu is intended to be a money maker, or it seen as a gift to the community?
(My new Athlon 64 system is coming any day now, and I've decided to try Ubuntu first. So far, it looks very nice from afar.)
Disclaimer: I own some GOOG, and I've done pretty well with it.
But I wouldn't buy any more at current prices. Even with a 100% increase in profits (which is what they've done) they're trading at a P/E of 180. My general rule is that the earnings growth needs to be less than or equal to the P/E - which means I'd buy GOOG at a P/E of 100, or maybe even 120. (The odds change a bit when earnings growth is truly phenomenal.) But 180 is overpriced by 30-40% at least. Worse, I think that we have to expect their earnings growth to slow down a little in the next few years.
You can't make money in the long run by overpaying, no matter how good the company is.
As I've said in another post, I have NEVER talked to a fellow Quaker who has passed up a chance to vote. While we believe in concensus instead of rule of the majority, at this point, democratic (techincally republic, in USA) governments are the closest we have to such a government. While some Quakers may not vote, that would be a minority in a minority that numbers less than a quarter of a million worldwide.
Quakers believe firmly in "that of God" in each of us, and that when a person speaks, he or she should be listened to, since it is God speaking through that person, in the unique way that person understands God and him/her-self. For this reason, I could not imagine a Quaker telling his class to vote, and not allowing an alternative assignment for someone who sincerely felt it was against his religious belief.
This was admittedly an historical quaker position which is not much subscribed to in contemporary circles. I think you would find that this position is far more common among "conservative" Friends than those of a more "liberal" inclination. Most modern Mennonites likewise have no problem with voting.
Really, I am surprised that practically anybody votes for the republican party. Many rural voters consider themselves 'conservative'. What's so conservative about a huge budget deficit.
You might start by realizing that most conservatives are very troubled by the deficit (Rush's rants notwithstanding). However, they recognize that this might eb a short term problem, caused by a weak economy (which got weak under clinton) and terrorist attacks (which were planned and set in place and could only have been prevented under clinton.)
Most farmers don't live on dividends or cap gains, but now those are at 15%, which is much less than anybody who actually produces something for a living.
I actually wonder whether you've ever even been on a real, working farm long enough to understnad the economics involved.
Farming is a capital intensive business, and most farmers who are actually making a living at it have very large capital assets - that is, their farms, their farm equipment. Some of that equipment depreciates, but a lot of it (buildings, silo's, etc.) appreciates. I'm not sure, but I believe livestock transactions can also count as capital gains (i.e. buy a little cow, grow it, and sell it.)
You're forgetting another huge deal for farmers: environmental laws. Liberals tend to be entirely focused on mediapathic factories belching smoke when they pass these things, without realizing that agricultural runoff is the biggest source of water polution, with agricultural operations also being potentially a major source of air polution. Ever smell a pig farm? Farmers deal with environmental regulations all year long, and it's not surprising that they would prefer not to have too many of them.
As for tax rates, you need to start reading a newspaper and stop reading JohnKerry.com. The bottom marginal tax rate is 10% - a cut from 15% pushed through by Bush. What with tax credits and all, most working Americans who woul d pay the 10% rate actually have a negative tax rate - they got more money back than they paid.
Typically most conservities are against involvement in foriegn wars, free trade, imports.
s/conservatives/libertarians/
You'd do well not to confuse the two.
About the only conservative value that the Republicans carry on their adgenda is the 'Guns for fetuses' issue. Other than that there is some wording about "Family Values" (you know like shipping daddy's job to India) and how 'Marriage' is so weak that allowing Gays to marry will destroy the institution.
That's really not the argument among any conservative with half a brain. The argument is that we give special and exceptional protections to marriage since it results in children, who must be protected. "Gay marriage" furthers the incorrect progressive notion that marriage is about personal gratification rather than social cooperation.
I have a religious objection to voting, since I believe that I am a citizen of the Kingdom of God (who happens to live in the United States.) I pay taxes, I submit to the authorities of this country, and I will help it in any way my consciences allows - but I won't pretend it is my own. This is far from an unheard of point of view - many Quakers and Mennonites have held it for centuries.
If this were a political science class, she might have a case for this being a necessary requirement (although I would still feel strongly that students should be allowed to substitute an explanation for their decision NOT to vote for voting.) As it is, it presents a massive chilling effect on the religious freedom of withdrawal.
A confused George Bush once said "I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for my predecessors as well". Here is a sampler of what those predecessors had to say about the war powers.
And I have gone to the trouble of examining each quote only to find it misapplied.
"The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until they shall have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure. "
George Washington
You mean that Bush should have... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean... like he did in Iraq and Afghanistan?
"Congress must be called upon to take [reprisal on a nation]; the right of reprisal being expressly lodged with them by the Constitution, and not with the Executive".
Thomas Jefferson
"You mean that Bush should have... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean... like he did in Iraq and Afghanistan?"
"Whether the United States shall continue passive under these progressive usurpations and these accumulating wrongs, or, opposing force to force in defense of their national rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of Events... is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the Government"
James Madison
"You mean that Bush should have... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean... like he did in Iraq and Afghanistan?"
"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems in necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure."
Abraham Lincoln
"You mean that Bush should have... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean... like he did in Iraq and Afghanistan?"
"By an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown. A substantial wrong has thus been done..."
Grover Cleveland
"You mean that Bush should have... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean... like he did in Iraq and Afghanistan?"
"The remedy for this state of things can only be supplied by Congress, since the Constitution has confided to that body alone the power to make war."
James Buchanan
"You mean that Bush should have... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean... like he did in Iraq and Afghanistan?"
"The issue [of war with Spain] is now with the Congress.... Prepared to execute every obligation imposed upon me by the Constitution and the law, I await your action"
William McKinley
"You mean that Bush should have... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean... like he did in Iraq and Afghanistan?"
"The assumption by the press that I contemplate intervention in Mexico soil to protect American lives is of course gratuitous, because I seriously doubt whether I have such authority under any circumstances, and if I had I would not exercise it without congressional approval"
Howard Taft
"You mean that Bush should have... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean... like he did in Iraq and Afg
I've discovered that many Windows users don't even know what "reboot" means, they do it so often. They think that "reboot" means reinstalling the operating system. The idea that there is a computer that doesn't have to be continually turned on and off blows their minds.
I'm prepared to concede that a 12% reboot rate in XP is probably in part a result of poor administration, poor virus checking, etc. But it is nevertheless unacceptable - isn't the whole point of Windows supposed to be that it is easy to use and easy to administer? Isn't that why it's supposed to better than UNIX?
I've often wondered why third parties always start by running a candidate for president instead of trying to gain power at the state and congressional level first. This would have many benefits, not the least of which being that you would stand a much better chance of actually winning something. Even if you "only" won one Senate seat, you would have tremendous power by deciding who to caucus with (witness the Jefferds defection.) The house is a bit tougher, but 8-10 Representatives from a third party could make a huge difference.
He's talking about the "article" (little "a") referenced by the Slashdot story, not an "Article" (big "a") of the Constitution.
This all has to do with rules of procedure. Sometime a LONG LONG time ago, the Senate passed rules of procedure that (a) allowed for filibusters and (b) required a 2/3's majority to be modified. These procedures have the force of law, more or less, but they are law which governs how law can be made. Bluntly, since the consitution doesn't specify the rules by which procedures can be modified, the procedures themselves specify. Suffice it to say that this probably holds up, especially with the current Supremes being very chary of impinging on the privileges of other branches of government.
I'm not equipped to analyze this to great depth, but others in this thread have claimed that the "th" character was only available on the selectrics, and that only by custom order, while the proportional typeface was only available on the executive model. Apparently, there was also a primitive typesetting thing more like what you refer to, but that did not do "th" either.
So when you see people complaining about "bible-thumpers", please substitute the word "Calvinists" instead of "Christians". You may find that the complaints have merit.
I think the word you're looking for is "Fundamentalists." Many of us who are not fundamentalist would maintain that we offer a much more Biblical worldview than the fundies manage.
Kerry's testimony regarding atrocities in Vietnam was widely reported and even televised. Many Vietnam Veterans were quite angry about this - which is perhaps why they remember him.
Swift boats are pretty small, and only have a crew of about 6 men (i.e. less than Kerry has in his "band of brothers." However, they operated in squads with several boats each. The Swift Boat vets have never claimed to be on the same boat, but they have claimed to be in the same squad, and this claim appears to be true. No question but that many of them had the chance to observe Kerry in action. Whether they tell the truth is another matter.
The problem, as I see it, is that the media continually goes into "feeding frenzy" mode over these Alabama allegations, while failing to seriously engage with Kerry's war records. Where's the Associated Press's suit to force the release of Kerry's Vietnam records? And, frankly, where is the furor over Kerry's apparently fictitious "Christmas in Cambodia?"
The bottom line is that, at worst, Bush dodge the draft - and we already knew that - and then blew off his national guard service - if you didn't already know this, you should've. On the other hand, it appears from his own statements that Kerry falsely accused the United States government of having him invade a foreign country in 1968 - a claim he made from the senate floor in 1986 and has made many times before and sense.
Why do we have a media frenzy over the one and a media blackout over the other? Answer: 85% of employees in the news media are Democrats.
Now, I'm not much of a Republican. I will probably vote for Kerry. But I am disturbed at the way in which the mainstream media has failed to cover questions regarding Kerry's war record compared to this silliness about Bush's National Guard record. When they've covered the Kerry question at all, it has been coverage questioning the relationship between the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat ads. They have ignored everything but the question of Bush '04 involvemnt. I would really appreaciate some responsible coverage of the Christmas in Cambodia issue, but I've been unable to find it.
When I've switched jobs (quite a bit in the 90's) I always insisted on getting a written letter of offer stating my salary etc. before I would say _ANYTHING_ to my currenty employer. Many people have been burned by moving to a new job, only to "discover" that the salary and benefits discussed were "talking points" and "accounting won't let us do that." With an offer letter, you can sue for all kinds of damages. Without one, you get butkis. I read a book on employment law a couple of years ago, and his remark was that, inevitably, the side with the biggest stack of paper wins.
Also, I would strongly urge you not to quit "with style." What you call "with style" is really anything but. You should always try to maintain cordial and polite relationships with your former employer. Every job I've ever left, I've given a written letter of resignation, naming my last day (at least two weeks, sometimes more) and letting them know that I would be available free for "quick questions" on a short term basis to ease the transition. (I did not state, but implied, that if it was more than a "quick question" they should expect to pay me for my time.)
In 2000, this served me well. I had just left a large Internet Company, and discovered the company I went with was going out of business after only two months. I went back to work for the Internet Company, got a pay raise and full-time telecommuting. And that's the job I've held for the past 4 years through a crappy economy while all the other geeks were whining about outsourcing.
Bridges are good, a thing of utility and a thing of beauty. Never burn them unnecessarily.
Why do you feel compelled to mention the race of the cashier and the robbers? It's unnecessary, adds nothing to the putative point of your post, and is frankly pretty offensive.
I could show you places where all the thieves are white. Race has nothing to do with it - economics, and who was subject to legally mandated discrimination until 40 years ago has a whole hell of a lot more to do with it. Don't be a jackass.
I'm a certifiable, ordained bible thumper, but I plan to vote for Kerry. Perhaps we should keep our religious value systems where they are and you should keep your heathen prejudices out of government and keep them off of Slashdot?
Because birth control costs money. Lots of money. Doctors visits cost money. And if you're going to force people to be celibate, then why don't you just go ahead and shoot them and put them out of their misery?
Dust & dirt. I would imagine that at such low voltage levels, induced current would require a damn near perfect level of alignment between the chip and the "socket". This is admitted in the article. What they don't admit is that it's going to be nearly impossible to get the damn thing in the socket without letting dust or dirt inbetween the chip and the socket.
It's called a clean room dude, and it's distinctly Old Tech. Granted, this will cut into the vision of pushing this out into the hands of field engineers, but I suspect that Sun is visualizing a "processor assembly" that will plug into an otherwise conventional motherboard. Perhaps in the distant future, that might change, but not now. What this ends up meaning is that they have two separate fabs making smaller chips rather than one fab making gigantic chips. It is much easier to make three or four small chips without errors than one huge chip, so they get higher yields for their processors. This means that they can produce a "processor assembly" with some ridiculous amount of cache and 8 cores for a much lower price than would be possible with conventional tech.
And a more interesting topic is their consistent mentioning of taking the cache of the chip. That's a nice dream and all, but where the hell are you going to put it then? Hardwired onto the motherboard?
The whole point of this tech is to directly connect the cache to the processor without putting it on chip. No, it won't be on the MoBo. Instead, it will be on the "processor" - but the "processor" will have multiple chips in it.
I'm partially speculating here, but I bet that's what's on their mind.
You mean that it's Joe user's fault that his DSL connected PC got infected? What do you suggest we do about that?
Well, I would suggest that Joe User get a better computer. www.apple.com.
All kidding aside, we cannot entirely excuse the consumer's part in this. Why on earth would user's accept the notion of computers that are this reliable? It seems to boil down to saving a buck by the purchase of inferior products. And as long as consumers are willing to accept the unreliability of present computer systems, there will always be companies willing to bring such systems to market.
Note that the issue is not the operating system - half of consumers probably don't even know what an OS is - but the system as a whole. When consumers demand a better system and stop buying and using email clients that expose them to this garbage, Microsoft will get their act together. Not before.
And frankly speaking, $375 per user is still better than $0 per user, and lose face to Linux.
Indeed. This is especially true since Microsoft's marginal cost on each of these licenses is more or less $0. They could sell license certificates for $5 apiece and still be better off than not making the sale (excepting possible market effects if they sell stuff too cheap too often.)
Slashdot Mirror
As a licensed (Baptist) minister, I agree. There is a huge difference between marriage as I believe God ordained it and the mockery of marriage we call civil marriage, even if you leave aside the gay marriage issue. In God's marriage, divorce is allowed only in the most dire circumstances, remarriage is never allowed, and the husband and wife "become one flesh." In civil marriage, the opposite obtains. It's time to stop equivocating on what marriage is and get the state out of the marriage business.
Also, becoming aware of your financial resources, I can't help but wonder whether Ubuntu is intended to be a money maker, or it seen as a gift to the community?
(My new Athlon 64 system is coming any day now, and I've decided to try Ubuntu first. So far, it looks very nice from afar.)
But I wouldn't buy any more at current prices. Even with a 100% increase in profits (which is what they've done) they're trading at a P/E of 180. My general rule is that the earnings growth needs to be less than or equal to the P/E - which means I'd buy GOOG at a P/E of 100, or maybe even 120. (The odds change a bit when earnings growth is truly phenomenal.) But 180 is overpriced by 30-40% at least. Worse, I think that we have to expect their earnings growth to slow down a little in the next few years.
You can't make money in the long run by overpaying, no matter how good the company is.
Farming is a capital intensive business, and most farmers who are actually making a living at it have very large capital assets - that is, their farms, their farm equipment. Some of that equipment depreciates, but a lot of it (buildings, silo's, etc.) appreciates. I'm not sure, but I believe livestock transactions can also count as capital gains (i.e. buy a little cow, grow it, and sell it.)
You're forgetting another huge deal for farmers: environmental laws. Liberals tend to be entirely focused on mediapathic factories belching smoke when they pass these things, without realizing that agricultural runoff is the biggest source of water polution, with agricultural operations also being potentially a major source of air polution. Ever smell a pig farm? Farmers deal with environmental regulations all year long, and it's not surprising that they would prefer not to have too many of them.
As for tax rates, you need to start reading a newspaper and stop reading JohnKerry.com. The bottom marginal tax rate is 10% - a cut from 15% pushed through by Bush. What with tax credits and all, most working Americans who woul d pay the 10% rate actually have a negative tax rate - they got more money back than they paid.
s/conservatives/libertarians/You'd do well not to confuse the two.
That's really not the argument among any conservative with half a brain. The argument is that we give special and exceptional protections to marriage since it results in children, who must be protected. "Gay marriage" furthers the incorrect progressive notion that marriage is about personal gratification rather than social cooperation.If this were a political science class, she might have a case for this being a necessary requirement (although I would still feel strongly that students should be allowed to substitute an explanation for their decision NOT to vote for voting.) As it is, it presents a massive chilling effect on the religious freedom of withdrawal.
And I have gone to the trouble of examining each quote only to find it misapplied.
You mean that Bush should have ... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean ... like he did in Iraq and Afghanistan?
"You mean that Bush should have ... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean ... like he did in Iraq and Afghanistan?"
"You mean that Bush should have ... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean ... like he did in Iraq and Afghanistan?"
"You mean that Bush should have ... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean ... like he did in Iraq and Afghanistan?"
"You mean that Bush should have ... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean ... like he did in Iraq and Afghanistan?"
"You mean that Bush should have ... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean ... like he did in Iraq and Afghanistan?"
"You mean that Bush should have ... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean ... like he did in Iraq and Afghanistan?"
"You mean that Bush should have ... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean ... like he did in Iraq and Afg
I got all 3. :)
I've discovered that many Windows users don't even know what "reboot" means, they do it so often. They think that "reboot" means reinstalling the operating system. The idea that there is a computer that doesn't have to be continually turned on and off blows their minds.
I'm prepared to concede that a 12% reboot rate in XP is probably in part a result of poor administration, poor virus checking, etc. But it is nevertheless unacceptable - isn't the whole point of Windows supposed to be that it is easy to use and easy to administer? Isn't that why it's supposed to better than UNIX?
I've often wondered why third parties always start by running a candidate for president instead of trying to gain power at the state and congressional level first. This would have many benefits, not the least of which being that you would stand a much better chance of actually winning something. Even if you "only" won one Senate seat, you would have tremendous power by deciding who to caucus with (witness the Jefferds defection.) The house is a bit tougher, but 8-10 Representatives from a third party could make a huge difference.
This all has to do with rules of procedure. Sometime a LONG LONG time ago, the Senate passed rules of procedure that (a) allowed for filibusters and (b) required a 2/3's majority to be modified. These procedures have the force of law, more or less, but they are law which governs how law can be made. Bluntly, since the consitution doesn't specify the rules by which procedures can be modified, the procedures themselves specify. Suffice it to say that this probably holds up, especially with the current Supremes being very chary of impinging on the privileges of other branches of government.
I'm not equipped to analyze this to great depth, but others in this thread have claimed that the "th" character was only available on the selectrics, and that only by custom order, while the proportional typeface was only available on the executive model. Apparently, there was also a primitive typesetting thing more like what you refer to, but that did not do "th" either.
The bottom line is that, at worst, Bush dodge the draft - and we already knew that - and then blew off his national guard service - if you didn't already know this, you should've. On the other hand, it appears from his own statements that Kerry falsely accused the United States government of having him invade a foreign country in 1968 - a claim he made from the senate floor in 1986 and has made many times before and sense.
Why do we have a media frenzy over the one and a media blackout over the other? Answer: 85% of employees in the news media are Democrats.
Now, I'm not much of a Republican. I will probably vote for Kerry. But I am disturbed at the way in which the mainstream media has failed to cover questions regarding Kerry's war record compared to this silliness about Bush's National Guard record. When they've covered the Kerry question at all, it has been coverage questioning the relationship between the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat ads. They have ignored everything but the question of Bush '04 involvemnt. I would really appreaciate some responsible coverage of the Christmas in Cambodia issue, but I've been unable to find it.
Also, I would strongly urge you not to quit "with style." What you call "with style" is really anything but. You should always try to maintain cordial and polite relationships with your former employer. Every job I've ever left, I've given a written letter of resignation, naming my last day (at least two weeks, sometimes more) and letting them know that I would be available free for "quick questions" on a short term basis to ease the transition. (I did not state, but implied, that if it was more than a "quick question" they should expect to pay me for my time.)
In 2000, this served me well. I had just left a large Internet Company, and discovered the company I went with was going out of business after only two months. I went back to work for the Internet Company, got a pay raise and full-time telecommuting. And that's the job I've held for the past 4 years through a crappy economy while all the other geeks were whining about outsourcing.
Bridges are good, a thing of utility and a thing of beauty. Never burn them unnecessarily.
I could show you places where all the thieves are white. Race has nothing to do with it - economics, and who was subject to legally mandated discrimination until 40 years ago has a whole hell of a lot more to do with it. Don't be a jackass.
I'm a certifiable, ordained bible thumper, but I plan to vote for Kerry. Perhaps we should keep our religious value systems where they are and you should keep your heathen prejudices out of government and keep them off of Slashdot?
Because birth control costs money. Lots of money. Doctors visits cost money. And if you're going to force people to be celibate, then why don't you just go ahead and shoot them and put them out of their misery?
It's called a clean room dude, and it's distinctly Old Tech. Granted, this will cut into the vision of pushing this out into the hands of field engineers, but I suspect that Sun is visualizing a "processor assembly" that will plug into an otherwise conventional motherboard. Perhaps in the distant future, that might change, but not now. What this ends up meaning is that they have two separate fabs making smaller chips rather than one fab making gigantic chips. It is much easier to make three or four small chips without errors than one huge chip, so they get higher yields for their processors. This means that they can produce a "processor assembly" with some ridiculous amount of cache and 8 cores for a much lower price than would be possible with conventional tech.
The whole point of this tech is to directly connect the cache to the processor without putting it on chip. No, it won't be on the MoBo. Instead, it will be on the "processor" - but the "processor" will have multiple chips in it.
I'm partially speculating here, but I bet that's what's on their mind.
All kidding aside, we cannot entirely excuse the consumer's part in this. Why on earth would user's accept the notion of computers that are this reliable? It seems to boil down to saving a buck by the purchase of inferior products. And as long as consumers are willing to accept the unreliability of present computer systems, there will always be companies willing to bring such systems to market.
Note that the issue is not the operating system - half of consumers probably don't even know what an OS is - but the system as a whole. When consumers demand a better system and stop buying and using email clients that expose them to this garbage, Microsoft will get their act together. Not before.