I would consider it fundamental to at least have basic knowledge of the last 500 years of political history...
Well you'd know that the US didn't exist 500 years ago, right? But that's beside the point. Let's have a little history lesson.
Remember the 80's, when the USSR was touted as having the best health care system in the world, since it was all free? I mean, the government paid for it, but it was free! And all the doctors were women! It was like a democrat's wet dream. But then the Berlin wall came down, and the USSR collapsed in on itself... and we learned the truth. They had third-world style hospitals and most people never got the care they needed. But obviously that was something that was specific to the USSR, and the same thing would never happen here, right? So let's just suck up the money from the people that work for a living, and give it a try! After all, the only thing we have to lose is our lives!
How about taxes? Since YOU said you like to go back 500 years for reference, maybe you'd like to know that the Founding Fathers specifically stated that Congress "no tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census". Oh, and about the 16th amendment? Before the Democrats passed it in 1913, the Supreme Court found it Unconstitutional. Imagine that. So, Federal Income Tax is Unconstitutional. While we raise the federal income tax, we should also probably raise the state income tax... just in case there isn't enough money being drained out of "working families" pockets.
Education? Well, let's consider. Here's a test that was actually given to 8th graders in 1895. Can you pass it now? Can you get over 50%? Maybe our current education system isn't working then. Maybe it's time to hold children accountable for what they know, and what they don't know. If they can't pass a test, they don't pass the grade. Period. I don't see what's so hard about that. If more than 50% of the class doesn't pass a test, then fire the teacher. No more teacher's unions and whining about money. There are PLENTY of people out there looking for jobs as teachers that would be more than happy to show you how much children can learn.
Environment? The earth, according to all kinds of scientists, is over 10,000,000,000 years old. Do you REALLY think that us driving SUV's is going to kill the environment? The earth has survived earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, meteor showers, explosions, fires, radiation from the sun, UV rays, etc. Do you really think using 0.0005% more gasoline to get from point A to point B is REALLY going to make Mother Nature shiver in her boots?
If people are that upset and insist that those signatures truly don't reflect the will of the people since the recall is (supposedly) so easy to initiate, then obviously they believe that people are VERY concerned. The solution is simple: Vote no on the recall. If the majority truly wants Davis in, they'll turn out in droves.
The majority never wanted Davis in. Davis won with 47% of the vote. Over 50% is a majority. 47% is 3% off... and in a state of 35,000,000 people, that's about a million people.
Fire him. He never should have been elected in the first place. But, having said that, the people of California elected him, so I think they should have to deal with him, or leave the state. Let the state go straight to the depths of hell... THEN we can talk about how to revive it.
You honestly think it's hard to find that many people in California, a state of 35+ million, who don't really have a clue, or are just bitter enough about Simon's defeat to take this shot at fscking their own state government? Get real.
Who cares? Is that the point? The law required almost 1,000,000 signatures, and they got twice as many. At last count, I heard they had 1.7 million. If they did get 1.75 million, out of "a state of 35+ million", that would be 5%. Yet we hear whining all the time about the 50,000 people that die a year from SUV accidents, or lung cancer, or food poisoning, etc. So if we're going to make big changes that require a LOT of money to companies that make vehicles, cigarettes, and butcher cows, that's only going to help 50,000 people a year (in a country of 270,000,000), why not make a few changes to help 35,000,000 people in a state of 35,000,000?
Besides, Gray Davis has an approval rating of 22% or so. That's the lowest rating OF ANY POLITICIAN IN THIS COUNTRY'S HISTORY.
If the early half of the 20th century should have taught us anything, it's that instability in goverment leads to chaos and populist leaders with dangerous agendas.
So you're still looking at the early half of the 20th century to base your political opinions? Maybe it's time to jump into this century.
I wasn't around at the time, but from what I read, Adolf Hitler's government certainly wasn't "instable"... until the United States kicked his ass.
Here's what I think pisses most Democrats off about the situation in California. It was a Democrat's paradise. You want to increase school funding? Go for it! You have the House, Senate, AND the Governor! It's been a testbed for liberalism for several years... AND IT ISN'T WORKING. I hope some other Democrat gets elected and he does the same thing Davis does. Wait, rephrase... I hope the new governor does exactly what all the democrats in the state want. Then, next year when the state is completely bankrupt, I hope all the Republicans and Libertarians in the country stand up and say "I told you so." That would be great. Go ahead... try to find something in California that didn't go the way of the Left. Try to prove me wrong.
First, did anybody notice that AGES is SEGA spelled backwards?
Second, despite its shortcomings, Phantasy Star III was the only one I played or enjoyed. The graphics were far better than IV, and I enjoyed it immensely. I would absolutely LOVE to play it again, especially if it's updated in some way... Which leads me to...
Three. What is the point of the Ages series? I'd never heard of it. Are they doing REAL remakes of their classic games? Updated sound, graphics, gameplay, etc., but with the same storyline and everything? That's the kind of remake I like... not this re-release that they call a remake. That's just bleeding more money from the customer from games they made 5-10 years ago.
It is a bit odd, isn't it? Except that Red Hat's Update Agent takes at least 6 clicks... one to launch, one to submit the details to RHN, one to hit Next after they list all the packages you have installed, one to hit Next when they tell you what updates are available, one to hit Next after they download the updates, one to hit Next after they install the updates, and one to hit Close (or Finish... whatever) after they're all done.
Windows Update only takes 2 clicks. One to open the window, and one to hit Install...
When speaking of the humans with a lower-level intelligence than ourselves, we DO need to count the clicks. It DOES make a difference.
# Comment by Linus:
# This is not code written by SCO. I swear to god, I wrote it myself.
# It just looks a lot like SCO's code. It just happened that way. There's
# only so many ways to do certain things... I mean, hey, I have to make
# a living too! Where are my lawyers? Well? I don't have any! I have to
# scrap by on a measly salary trying my best to make a difference in the
# world, all the while, companies like IBM and Microsoft release shitty
# software all the time, and nobody seems to care! They're all getting
# butt-raped, and they don't even know it! Well, not anymore! I'm going to
# make the best operating system in the world, and name it after myself!
# M$ and IBM sux0rs!
Then show me the rules that say card counting isn't allowed in blackjack.
Here's my official answer: It may not be a rule that was signed into law, but it's a rule that should be followed.
Here's my unofficial answer: If you can keep track of 50+ cards in your head without any notepads, paper, or anything else, then goddamnit, you should win as much as you're able to. If the casino makes you accept their abilities (to throw you out after you win XXXX dollars), then they should accept that as a customer, you can use any abilities you're able to. If you can count cards, you have a talent, and should be rewarded for using that talent.
What I don't understand is why the process of discovering, downloading, and applying security patches has to be as difficult as it currently is.
Use the Red Hat Network Update Agent sometime if you want to see an updating process that's REALLY a pain in the ass.
For example, when trying to find a patch for the vulnerability that Blaster is currently exploiting on many systems...
Going to Google and typing "blaster patch" isn't easy enough? Considering the news coverage it's getting, you'd think that by going to any news site and doing a search for Blaster, you'd get some clue where to look next. Or, you could do what I did... SUBSCRIBE TO CERT. That way, you get the vulnerability notification the same day all the other professional system administrators do.
the vulnerability I thought it was, then find a download link, then be presented with a multipage license agreement -- all for one fix.
Two points I'd like to make. First, when is there a vulnerability that gets airtime on the major news channels (like CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.) that should NOT be fixed immediately? Second, clicking 3 times (Windows Update, Scan for Patches, Install) is a lot simpler than the 10 or so that Red Hat requires. (I only have Red Hat Network to compare to, so if there's any better way to update RH8, someone let me know.)
My thought is that Microsoft would do better to be a little more proactive in their approach.
You mean besides the bubble that pops up near the clock that says "You have updates. Click here to install."? You'd prefer a popup window that takes up 80% of the screen when it boots that says "Jesus Fucking Christ, update your system, dumbass!"?
I'd appreciate having the machine automatically seek out the patches I need and apply them (particularly the most critical) without requiring my intervention...
It already can do that. When you format a new machine, the first or second time it boots, a little bubble pops up near the clock that says "Set up automatic updates." One of the options (out of the 3) is "Automatically download and install patches." For those of us that don't know where to look without formatting our systems, that's under Start, Control Panel, System, Automatic Updates. I prefer to take a look at the updates before I install them though... just my preference.
So "Permanently Secured" now basically means "Permanently Offline"? Why didn't they just let the worm eat the domain? What's the difference, really? Whether they pull the plug, or the worm does it for them, it still means windowsupdate.com won't work...
How the hell are you associating donations under $1000 with lower income bracket donations?
Granted, it doesn't necessarily mean lower incomes, but it means that more people contributed to Bush than Gore in 2000. I just figured that for all the whining about poor people these days, that most of those
Listen man, you're living in the past. This isn't the 70's. Fiscal conservatism is no longer the hallmark of a republican administration. The Bush administration has increased government spending more than any administration in the last 20 years.
Yes, I know. I'm not happy about that either. But hey, at least he's giving me back more of the money I earn, rather than giving the money I work for to someone else. That's a step in the right direction.
As far as Condie becoming vice prez, it's a miracle she isn't "spending more time with her family." She put the president in a very difficult position. In a country where the media wasn't so "liberal" her repeated lying would have actually been an issue.
She's a lot more dependable and honest than Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton. It's not even cool to make fun of Bill Clinton for his honesty anymore because it's such a joke. Oh, and BTW, Iraq is so much better off today than they were 5 years ago, it's not even an issue. The Democrats always want to whine about what we were wrong about... what about what we were RIGHT about? Saddam was a monster, and the Iraqi people are glad he's gone. Professors in Iraq have gone from making $5 to $300 per month. There's more electricity available today than there was 5 years ago... but that's not enough, is it? It's always about what we're failing at, not what we're succeeding at. You've got such a depressing point of view on the world, it makes ME want to kill myself.
Leave it to a republican to accuse the left being racist and misogynist.
Republicans have nominated Estrada to a federal court bench. Republicans have selected Colin Powell to Secretary of State. Republicans have also selected Condeleezza Rice to National Security Advisor. Democrats have... the president on 24 (the TV show). I think the racist thing speaks for itself. Where's the black Democrat presidential candidate (who's taken seriously)?
The question all of us have to ask ourselves is: do we want jobs and more money, a balanced budget, a smaller deficit, our soldiers not getting pay cuts while in a war zone?
Do you mean more government jobs that pay unreasonably high pensions (thanks Gray Davis!)? Balanced budget for the imperialist federal government? What effect has the deficit EVER had on your life? Who gives a crap if it has the highest dollar amount ever? What difference does it make to the quality of lives for Americans?
By the way, I'm not a Republican or a Green. I'm a Libertarian.
Where do you think most campaign money comes from? Hint: it isn't from regular people choosing to donate that money to their favorite candidate. That does happen, but it isn't the major source of major party candidates.
Actually, George W. Bush collected more money from the lower-income brackets (donations under $1000) than any other candidate, including Gore. It seems ironic that the poor generally "support" Democrats while volunteering money to Republicans.
Then again, at the same time, african americans generally support Democrats too, even though common sense says that they shouldn't. The average lifespan of a black male in this country is lower than the retirement age, which means that most black men will never see a penny of their social security... yet they still vote for the party that wants to increase programs like social security. Of course, we won't mention that it was a Republican president in the 1860's that freed the slaves.
On the other hand, hispanics also generally support Democrats, even though Democrats are foaming at the mouth trying to prohibit any hispanics (or blacks, for that matter) from having any positions of importance. Where was Clinton's black Secretary of State? Did he ever have any black or hispanic heads of departments? But of course, the Republicans are the enemy because Republicans believe people should make their own living rather than forcing some people to support other people. Maybe that'll change once Bush decides to make Condeleeza (sp?) Rice his Vice President in 2004, clearing the way for her to run for President in 2008. (What? A black woman REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT? That can't be allowed!)
I never understood the mindless zombie-like following the Democrats have from the minorities of the country... but last week I spoke to someone who cleared it up a bit for me. He told me that all his Democrat friends honestly don't know too much about politics or the issues in the country, and just vote Democrat because they "feel" that Democrats "care" more. Say that when you have to pay $10,000 of your $30,000 income to taxes for other people to sit at home and watch soap operas...
One of my friends' significant other's did that, and got majorly sick from it for about 2 weeks... all the cramps and bad attitude, but no period to show for it. I don't have any details, and I don't particularly want them...
Although I was only an early teen, or pre-teen when Maniac Mansion and Day of the Tentacle came out, I thought the dialogue was hilarious. I'd love to see a third in the series, or a remake of the first two, with updated graphics and voice acting... as long as it kept the point and click interface. Would anybody else like to see a remake of some of the more memorable games like Maniac Mansion?
It's not a lax hiring process either. They just have an incredibly high turnover. Either people don't come to work, come in late, or just hate their job so VERY much that they leave, they lose people FAST.
Agreed. Tech Support has one of the highest turnover rates of any position in any industry... except maybe toilet cleaners. I worked in phone tech support for an ISP for about 3 years before I took a job that didn't have 1000+ irate people when they couldn't get their e-mail. I learned to enjoy my job by having fun with it. I had fun with it by learning a couple simple rules:
1) Let the customer vent.
When someone calls tech support, they've either already tried to fix it and failed (and are then upset at their failure), or haven't yet tried to fix it and are upset because it isn't working in the first place. In both cases, just let the person sit on the phone and scream at you until they run out of breath. When they stop to think about some more curses they can scream, you can calmly say "Sir/Maam, I have a couple ideas that might fix your problem..."
2) Don't get stressed out.
It's not YOUR computer that isn't working. It's theirs. Yours is working just fine, right? Besides, what's the worst that can happen? So what if you get fired for telling someone you can't help them. With the high turnover rate of tech support, you'll have another job in a matter of hours.
Follow those two guidelines, and tech support won't seem that bad. Oh, and I almost forgot... 3) Don't be afraid to yell back if you're having a bad day.
If someone yells that you can go to hell on the same day your girlfriend left you, your house burnt down, your bank closed your account and siezed your assets, and the FBI is hunting for you, don't be afraid to yell "Well slap my ass and call me Shirley you dumb shit. I thought the whole time I was trying to help YOU. Maybe I should just shove your computer up my ass, think that would fix it, you ignorant fuck." That always puts them in their place.
I see that CNN finally bought and tried to play Star Wars Galaxies! That's a nice thought... rather than researching REAL news, just write an article about something everybody already knows.
Over the past 10 years I've accumulated a massive library of scripts which I carry from job to job. Back to the original point, about "fixing" unix tools for ease-of-use, where is my benefit in breaking my whole library by redefining how "ls" works? If you don't like "ls", create a new command with a different name.
If the scripts have worked for 10 years, congratulations. I'm not saying go back through and re-write them all immediately. I'm saying don't hold back the rest of the Linux community because you don't have the time or the energy to revisit scripts you wrote 10 years ago. (By the way, if you wrote them 10 years ago, I'm 100% positive you could improve greatly on them. Unless, of course, you haven't learned one single thing over the last 10 years. Are they all annotated and commented to the point that you can immediately find what you're looking for?)
If progress is going to be made, some eggs are going to have to get broken. I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but that's the way it is and always has been. If people want to be able to burn CD's by dragging into their Nautilus window, and you try to hold back that feature because it disables a few of your scripts and you'll have to re-write them, which choice would you make? Whose time is more important, the users' (in learning how to simply burn a CD, and ultimately, the fate of Linux on the desktop), or yours?
Linux still has a LONG way to go to become the OS of choice among most of the population. If you can't offer them something they need that Microsoft can, it doesn't matter if Linux is free. If they need a command to do something, and it doesn't, they can't use it. They're certainly not going to "create a new command with a different name" for ls. So why can't everyone's scripts work and have a user-friendly commandline AND graphical interface?
no easy menu editing (ie: drag to where you want it)
This has been driving me nuts for a while... In Red Hat 8 (and 9, I think) how do you get rid of that stupid "Lock Screen" option right above "Log Off" in the menu?
You see: you "fix" a whole bunch of silly RTFM problems all over Linux, so that the "obvious" (to a Windows user) behavior occurs. You gain a whole bunch of happy Windows users who don't want to learn about "old fashioned" ways of doing things. But you break a whole bunch of older scripts, methods, and tools in the process.
This is definitely going to draw a lot of fire from the *nix people here, but I can't hold back. Fixing things that break over time is called PROGRESS. Keeping everything old-school just for the sake of saving time (and admittedly money) by avoiding the task of re-writing scripts isn't going to further the goal of the Linux community.
Now, I will admit that a lot of things shouldn't be changed. I personally don't see any problem at all with the operational use of the command "ls" or "cd". However, do a man on any choice of commands, and you'll see all kinds of "obsolete" and "outdated" remarks about options that no longer work, or have been replaced. At what point in the future can we FINALLY get rid of all those things that were obsoleted 8 years ago? What if they finally did remove that option and break some of your precious scripts?
Say it's a very simple change... like changing "ls -l" to "ls -z" (for example). A very simple sed command can change all the ls -l's to ls -z's. Voila, all your scripts work again.
I haven't even gotten into the fact that every now and then it's healthy to go back through all the scripts you've written to find errors, omissions, etc. I wrote a bunch of scripts about 6 months ago, and just went back through them this week to make sure everything was running as well as it could be. Re-writing scripts is one step of optimizing your system. If you never revisit the work you did 10 years ago, you never know if it could be simplified. What would your response to Microsoft be if they announced they were going to keep DOS commands around for all future versions of Windows, just to make sure that everybody's batch files worked properly? There'd be a massive Microsoft bashing session on/., I can guarantee you that...
Yeah, that's pretty close. Of course, you just basically admitted that your Democrat friends don't read the newspapers or watch news on TV, so they really don't know what's going on, other than the Democratic party gives them checks every month. =) Fine with me... but I personally don't see the point in voting if you don't know about the issues you're voting for or against.
However, their methods also allow out of control captitalism and monopolies. Many libertarians supported MS and think it is OK to have that kind of monopoly power.
I have several points that I'd like to make, but unfortunately, I'm bound by time at the moment, so I'll try to keep this short and to the point.
First, is it at all possible that Microsoft got to where it is by offering the best (and easiest to learn) product for the best price to the best portion of the populace? Take a minute to think about that before answering. Is Starbucks a monopoly? They charge WAY too much for a cup of coffee, yet I don't hear people on/. rant about them all the time.
Second, define "monopoly". Basically, it means that a market is 100% saturated by products by one company, and that company purchases all the companies that try to compete with it. Microsoft hasn't tried to purchase Red Hat or Apple, so they're not really a monopoly. You might say they are a monopoly on desktops. Interesting point... What OS do you have loaded? Since you're on/., I'm guessing it's a *nix of some kind. If so, then obviously you're not a Microsoft customer. If you're not a Microsoft customer, and there are many people like you (and there are), then Microsoft cannot possibly be described as a "monopoly". They can, however, be described as a company that has used their near-monopoly position to stiffle innovation and forces choices on most of the population that are in Microsoft's best interests, which also conflicts with the best interests of the consumers.
Third, if Microsoft is so terrible, and everyone hates them, why aren't there any companes that compete with them? You might say that they buy all the companies that try. IBM released OS/2 Warp about 7-8 years ago. It sucked, but Microsoft didn't buy them. Red Hat is still around, as is Mandrake (which would make an easy purchase, since they're in such dire straits, financially), SuSE, Apple, etc. The only conclusion is that Microsoft doesn't serve the needs of all the customers, which leaves room for competitors. If those competitors can convince people that their product can serve the needs and desires of the customers better than Microsoft can, and at a price (of both time to learn, and money) that is attractive, they will switch.
Libertarians believe that people can make their own choices, not that a company, or the government, should make their choices for them. Unfortunately, most people these days seems to think that the government is smarter than they are, and knows what's best for them. That couldn't be more wrong. The way you inherently distrust Microsoft should be exactly equal to how you inherent distrust the government. They're both out to screw you of your time, energy, and money.
Obviously you don't understand the viewpoint of Libertarians. Maybe you need a history lesson. When Federal Withholding began in WW2, it was meant to speed up tax paying so the government could afford to spend more on the military. It was supposed to last only until the end of WW2. Instead, it's gone on for nearly 60 years now. Why? Because government never wants to give anything back to the people, unless absolutely necessary. Basically, Libertarians believe that since the government never wants to give anything BACK to the people, government should never GET anything from the people.
Think for a minute how much money you make. Let's say you make $25,000 a year. After all the money the government takes away from you (social security, federal taxes, state taxes, local taxes, FEMA, sales tax, etc.) you're probably only actually making $15,000, maybe less. For proof, keep a record of all your receipts over the next year, and add up the sales tax you had to pay. Remember, for just about every dollar you spend, about $.05 - $.08 goes directly to the government.
Gone With The Wind would still stomp all over everything else, which would be pretty embarrassing for the movie industry, since it implies they haven't made anything with that much appeal in the last 64 years.
Sorta, yeah... When Gone with the Wind came out, VCR's and DVD players didn't exist, so if you wanted to watch it, you had to go to the theater, which counted towards its box office total. If you add Titanic's DVD sales and rentals in, along with worldwide box office, it "stomps" Gone With the Wind pretty handily.
Interestingly enough, I see that the gross for M:R solidly beats M1, at about $272M vs. $171M. Budget for M1 is listed at $63M vs. $127M for M:R, though, so although M:R still netted more, it wasn't as good of a return on investment.
Yes... I must be pissing your point. $272m - $127m = $145m profit for M:R. $171m - $63m = $108m profit for Matrix. However, M:R is still in theaters, and hasn't been released to video yet. The Matrix was the highest-selling DVD of all-time, until relatively recently (I think Shrek was the first one to beat it, but it might have been something else). M:R will probably also make a good chunk of change on DVD and VHS purchases. The Matrix made an additional $100m on rentals... so M:R has already made back the full budget of both Matrix Reloaded, and Revolutions, just in domestic box office, not counting rentals, DVD and VHS sales, or world-wide box office.
Slashdot Mirror
I would consider it fundamental to at least have basic knowledge of the last 500 years of political history...
Well you'd know that the US didn't exist 500 years ago, right? But that's beside the point. Let's have a little history lesson.
Remember the 80's, when the USSR was touted as having the best health care system in the world, since it was all free? I mean, the government paid for it, but it was free! And all the doctors were women! It was like a democrat's wet dream. But then the Berlin wall came down, and the USSR collapsed in on itself... and we learned the truth. They had third-world style hospitals and most people never got the care they needed. But obviously that was something that was specific to the USSR, and the same thing would never happen here, right? So let's just suck up the money from the people that work for a living, and give it a try! After all, the only thing we have to lose is our lives!
How about taxes? Since YOU said you like to go back 500 years for reference, maybe you'd like to know that the Founding Fathers specifically stated that Congress "no tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census". Oh, and about the 16th amendment? Before the Democrats passed it in 1913, the Supreme Court found it Unconstitutional. Imagine that. So, Federal Income Tax is Unconstitutional. While we raise the federal income tax, we should also probably raise the state income tax... just in case there isn't enough money being drained out of "working families" pockets.
Education? Well, let's consider. Here's a test that was actually given to 8th graders in 1895. Can you pass it now? Can you get over 50%? Maybe our current education system isn't working then. Maybe it's time to hold children accountable for what they know, and what they don't know. If they can't pass a test, they don't pass the grade. Period. I don't see what's so hard about that. If more than 50% of the class doesn't pass a test, then fire the teacher. No more teacher's unions and whining about money. There are PLENTY of people out there looking for jobs as teachers that would be more than happy to show you how much children can learn.
Environment? The earth, according to all kinds of scientists, is over 10,000,000,000 years old. Do you REALLY think that us driving SUV's is going to kill the environment? The earth has survived earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, meteor showers, explosions, fires, radiation from the sun, UV rays, etc. Do you really think using 0.0005% more gasoline to get from point A to point B is REALLY going to make Mother Nature shiver in her boots?
Any other questions?
If people are that upset and insist that those signatures truly don't reflect the will of the people since the recall is (supposedly) so easy to initiate, then obviously they believe that people are VERY concerned. The solution is simple: Vote no on the recall. If the majority truly wants Davis in, they'll turn out in droves.
The majority never wanted Davis in. Davis won with 47% of the vote. Over 50% is a majority. 47% is 3% off... and in a state of 35,000,000 people, that's about a million people.
Fire him. He never should have been elected in the first place. But, having said that, the people of California elected him, so I think they should have to deal with him, or leave the state. Let the state go straight to the depths of hell... THEN we can talk about how to revive it.
You honestly think it's hard to find that many people in California, a state of 35+ million, who don't really have a clue, or are just bitter enough about Simon's defeat to take this shot at fscking their own state government? Get real.
Who cares? Is that the point? The law required almost 1,000,000 signatures, and they got twice as many. At last count, I heard they had 1.7 million. If they did get 1.75 million, out of "a state of 35+ million", that would be 5%. Yet we hear whining all the time about the 50,000 people that die a year from SUV accidents, or lung cancer, or food poisoning, etc. So if we're going to make big changes that require a LOT of money to companies that make vehicles, cigarettes, and butcher cows, that's only going to help 50,000 people a year (in a country of 270,000,000), why not make a few changes to help 35,000,000 people in a state of 35,000,000?
Besides, Gray Davis has an approval rating of 22% or so. That's the lowest rating OF ANY POLITICIAN IN THIS COUNTRY'S HISTORY.
If the early half of the 20th century should have taught us anything, it's that instability in goverment leads to chaos and populist leaders with dangerous agendas.
So you're still looking at the early half of the 20th century to base your political opinions? Maybe it's time to jump into this century.
I wasn't around at the time, but from what I read, Adolf Hitler's government certainly wasn't "instable"... until the United States kicked his ass.
Here's what I think pisses most Democrats off about the situation in California. It was a Democrat's paradise. You want to increase school funding? Go for it! You have the House, Senate, AND the Governor! It's been a testbed for liberalism for several years... AND IT ISN'T WORKING. I hope some other Democrat gets elected and he does the same thing Davis does. Wait, rephrase... I hope the new governor does exactly what all the democrats in the state want. Then, next year when the state is completely bankrupt, I hope all the Republicans and Libertarians in the country stand up and say "I told you so." That would be great. Go ahead... try to find something in California that didn't go the way of the Left. Try to prove me wrong.
First, did anybody notice that AGES is SEGA spelled backwards?
Second, despite its shortcomings, Phantasy Star III was the only one I played or enjoyed. The graphics were far better than IV, and I enjoyed it immensely. I would absolutely LOVE to play it again, especially if it's updated in some way... Which leads me to...
Three. What is the point of the Ages series? I'd never heard of it. Are they doing REAL remakes of their classic games? Updated sound, graphics, gameplay, etc., but with the same storyline and everything? That's the kind of remake I like... not this re-release that they call a remake. That's just bleeding more money from the customer from games they made 5-10 years ago.
It is a bit odd, isn't it? Except that Red Hat's Update Agent takes at least 6 clicks... one to launch, one to submit the details to RHN, one to hit Next after they list all the packages you have installed, one to hit Next when they tell you what updates are available, one to hit Next after they download the updates, one to hit Next after they install the updates, and one to hit Close (or Finish... whatever) after they're all done.
Windows Update only takes 2 clicks. One to open the window, and one to hit Install...
When speaking of the humans with a lower-level intelligence than ourselves, we DO need to count the clicks. It DOES make a difference.
It actually says:
# Comment by Linus:
# This is not code written by SCO. I swear to god, I wrote it myself.
# It just looks a lot like SCO's code. It just happened that way. There's
# only so many ways to do certain things... I mean, hey, I have to make
# a living too! Where are my lawyers? Well? I don't have any! I have to
# scrap by on a measly salary trying my best to make a difference in the
# world, all the while, companies like IBM and Microsoft release shitty
# software all the time, and nobody seems to care! They're all getting
# butt-raped, and they don't even know it! Well, not anymore! I'm going to
# make the best operating system in the world, and name it after myself!
# M$ and IBM sux0rs!
Then show me the rules that say card counting isn't allowed in blackjack.
Here's my official answer: It may not be a rule that was signed into law, but it's a rule that should be followed.
Here's my unofficial answer: If you can keep track of 50+ cards in your head without any notepads, paper, or anything else, then goddamnit, you should win as much as you're able to. If the casino makes you accept their abilities (to throw you out after you win XXXX dollars), then they should accept that as a customer, you can use any abilities you're able to. If you can count cards, you have a talent, and should be rewarded for using that talent.
What I don't understand is why the process of discovering, downloading, and applying security patches has to be as difficult as it currently is.
Use the Red Hat Network Update Agent sometime if you want to see an updating process that's REALLY a pain in the ass.
For example, when trying to find a patch for the vulnerability that Blaster is currently exploiting on many systems...
Going to Google and typing "blaster patch" isn't easy enough? Considering the news coverage it's getting, you'd think that by going to any news site and doing a search for Blaster, you'd get some clue where to look next. Or, you could do what I did... SUBSCRIBE TO CERT. That way, you get the vulnerability notification the same day all the other professional system administrators do.
the vulnerability I thought it was, then find a download link, then be presented with a multipage license agreement -- all for one fix.
Two points I'd like to make. First, when is there a vulnerability that gets airtime on the major news channels (like CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.) that should NOT be fixed immediately? Second, clicking 3 times (Windows Update, Scan for Patches, Install) is a lot simpler than the 10 or so that Red Hat requires. (I only have Red Hat Network to compare to, so if there's any better way to update RH8, someone let me know.)
My thought is that Microsoft would do better to be a little more proactive in their approach.
You mean besides the bubble that pops up near the clock that says "You have updates. Click here to install."? You'd prefer a popup window that takes up 80% of the screen when it boots that says "Jesus Fucking Christ, update your system, dumbass!"?
I'd appreciate having the machine automatically seek out the patches I need and apply them (particularly the most critical) without requiring my intervention...
It already can do that. When you format a new machine, the first or second time it boots, a little bubble pops up near the clock that says "Set up automatic updates." One of the options (out of the 3) is "Automatically download and install patches." For those of us that don't know where to look without formatting our systems, that's under Start, Control Panel, System, Automatic Updates. I prefer to take a look at the updates before I install them though... just my preference.
The exploit that worm used was fixed months ago.
_A_ month hardly constitutes months.
So "Permanently Secured" now basically means "Permanently Offline"? Why didn't they just let the worm eat the domain? What's the difference, really? Whether they pull the plug, or the worm does it for them, it still means windowsupdate.com won't work...
How the hell are you associating donations under $1000 with lower income bracket donations?
... the president on 24 (the TV show). I think the racist thing speaks for itself. Where's the black Democrat presidential candidate (who's taken seriously)?
Granted, it doesn't necessarily mean lower incomes, but it means that more people contributed to Bush than Gore in 2000. I just figured that for all the whining about poor people these days, that most of those
Listen man, you're living in the past. This isn't the 70's. Fiscal conservatism is no longer the hallmark of a republican administration. The Bush administration has increased government spending more than any administration in the last 20 years.
Yes, I know. I'm not happy about that either. But hey, at least he's giving me back more of the money I earn, rather than giving the money I work for to someone else. That's a step in the right direction.
As far as Condie becoming vice prez, it's a miracle she isn't "spending more time with her family." She put the president in a very difficult position. In a country where the media wasn't so "liberal" her repeated lying would have actually been an issue.
She's a lot more dependable and honest than Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton. It's not even cool to make fun of Bill Clinton for his honesty anymore because it's such a joke. Oh, and BTW, Iraq is so much better off today than they were 5 years ago, it's not even an issue. The Democrats always want to whine about what we were wrong about... what about what we were RIGHT about? Saddam was a monster, and the Iraqi people are glad he's gone. Professors in Iraq have gone from making $5 to $300 per month. There's more electricity available today than there was 5 years ago... but that's not enough, is it? It's always about what we're failing at, not what we're succeeding at. You've got such a depressing point of view on the world, it makes ME want to kill myself.
Leave it to a republican to accuse the left being racist and misogynist.
Republicans have nominated Estrada to a federal court bench. Republicans have selected Colin Powell to Secretary of State. Republicans have also selected Condeleezza Rice to National Security Advisor. Democrats have
The question all of us have to ask ourselves is: do we want jobs and more money, a balanced budget, a smaller deficit, our soldiers not getting pay cuts while in a war zone?
Do you mean more government jobs that pay unreasonably high pensions (thanks Gray Davis!)? Balanced budget for the imperialist federal government? What effect has the deficit EVER had on your life? Who gives a crap if it has the highest dollar amount ever? What difference does it make to the quality of lives for Americans?
By the way, I'm not a Republican or a Green. I'm a Libertarian.
Where do you think most campaign money comes from? Hint: it isn't from regular people choosing to donate that money to their favorite candidate. That does happen, but it isn't the major source of major party candidates.
Actually, George W. Bush collected more money from the lower-income brackets (donations under $1000) than any other candidate, including Gore. It seems ironic that the poor generally "support" Democrats while volunteering money to Republicans.
Then again, at the same time, african americans generally support Democrats too, even though common sense says that they shouldn't. The average lifespan of a black male in this country is lower than the retirement age, which means that most black men will never see a penny of their social security... yet they still vote for the party that wants to increase programs like social security. Of course, we won't mention that it was a Republican president in the 1860's that freed the slaves.
On the other hand, hispanics also generally support Democrats, even though Democrats are foaming at the mouth trying to prohibit any hispanics (or blacks, for that matter) from having any positions of importance. Where was Clinton's black Secretary of State? Did he ever have any black or hispanic heads of departments? But of course, the Republicans are the enemy because Republicans believe people should make their own living rather than forcing some people to support other people. Maybe that'll change once Bush decides to make Condeleeza (sp?) Rice his Vice President in 2004, clearing the way for her to run for President in 2008. (What? A black woman REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT? That can't be allowed!)
I never understood the mindless zombie-like following the Democrats have from the minorities of the country... but last week I spoke to someone who cleared it up a bit for me. He told me that all his Democrat friends honestly don't know too much about politics or the issues in the country, and just vote Democrat because they "feel" that Democrats "care" more. Say that when you have to pay $10,000 of your $30,000 income to taxes for other people to sit at home and watch soap operas...
One of my friends' significant other's did that, and got majorly sick from it for about 2 weeks... all the cramps and bad attitude, but no period to show for it. I don't have any details, and I don't particularly want them...
Remember - only about 15% of all inception results in birth; the rest are spontaneously aborted.
/sarcasm
And that leads to us to those wonderful few days women have every month. Gee, thanks god. I really appreciate that.
Although I was only an early teen, or pre-teen when Maniac Mansion and Day of the Tentacle came out, I thought the dialogue was hilarious. I'd love to see a third in the series, or a remake of the first two, with updated graphics and voice acting... as long as it kept the point and click interface. Would anybody else like to see a remake of some of the more memorable games like Maniac Mansion?
It's not a lax hiring process either. They just have an incredibly high turnover. Either people don't come to work, come in late, or just hate their job so VERY much that they leave, they lose people FAST.
Agreed. Tech Support has one of the highest turnover rates of any position in any industry... except maybe toilet cleaners. I worked in phone tech support for an ISP for about 3 years before I took a job that didn't have 1000+ irate people when they couldn't get their e-mail. I learned to enjoy my job by having fun with it. I had fun with it by learning a couple simple rules:
1) Let the customer vent.
When someone calls tech support, they've either already tried to fix it and failed (and are then upset at their failure), or haven't yet tried to fix it and are upset because it isn't working in the first place. In both cases, just let the person sit on the phone and scream at you until they run out of breath. When they stop to think about some more curses they can scream, you can calmly say "Sir/Maam, I have a couple ideas that might fix your problem..."
2) Don't get stressed out.
It's not YOUR computer that isn't working. It's theirs. Yours is working just fine, right? Besides, what's the worst that can happen? So what if you get fired for telling someone you can't help them. With the high turnover rate of tech support, you'll have another job in a matter of hours.
Follow those two guidelines, and tech support won't seem that bad. Oh, and I almost forgot...
3) Don't be afraid to yell back if you're having a bad day.
If someone yells that you can go to hell on the same day your girlfriend left you, your house burnt down, your bank closed your account and siezed your assets, and the FBI is hunting for you, don't be afraid to yell "Well slap my ass and call me Shirley you dumb shit. I thought the whole time I was trying to help YOU. Maybe I should just shove your computer up my ass, think that would fix it, you ignorant fuck." That always puts them in their place.
I see that CNN finally bought and tried to play Star Wars Galaxies! That's a nice thought... rather than researching REAL news, just write an article about something everybody already knows.
Over the past 10 years I've accumulated a massive library of scripts which I carry from job to job. Back to the original point, about "fixing" unix tools for ease-of-use, where is my benefit in breaking my whole library by redefining how "ls" works? If you don't like "ls", create a new command with a different name.
If the scripts have worked for 10 years, congratulations. I'm not saying go back through and re-write them all immediately. I'm saying don't hold back the rest of the Linux community because you don't have the time or the energy to revisit scripts you wrote 10 years ago. (By the way, if you wrote them 10 years ago, I'm 100% positive you could improve greatly on them. Unless, of course, you haven't learned one single thing over the last 10 years. Are they all annotated and commented to the point that you can immediately find what you're looking for?)
If progress is going to be made, some eggs are going to have to get broken. I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but that's the way it is and always has been. If people want to be able to burn CD's by dragging into their Nautilus window, and you try to hold back that feature because it disables a few of your scripts and you'll have to re-write them, which choice would you make? Whose time is more important, the users' (in learning how to simply burn a CD, and ultimately, the fate of Linux on the desktop), or yours?
Linux still has a LONG way to go to become the OS of choice among most of the population. If you can't offer them something they need that Microsoft can, it doesn't matter if Linux is free. If they need a command to do something, and it doesn't, they can't use it. They're certainly not going to "create a new command with a different name" for ls. So why can't everyone's scripts work and have a user-friendly commandline AND graphical interface?
no easy menu editing (ie: drag to where you want it)
This has been driving me nuts for a while... In Red Hat 8 (and 9, I think) how do you get rid of that stupid "Lock Screen" option right above "Log Off" in the menu?
You see: you "fix" a whole bunch of silly RTFM problems all over Linux, so that the "obvious" (to a Windows user) behavior occurs. You gain a whole bunch of happy Windows users who don't want to learn about "old fashioned" ways of doing things. But you break a whole bunch of older scripts, methods, and tools in the process.
/., I can guarantee you that...
This is definitely going to draw a lot of fire from the *nix people here, but I can't hold back. Fixing things that break over time is called PROGRESS. Keeping everything old-school just for the sake of saving time (and admittedly money) by avoiding the task of re-writing scripts isn't going to further the goal of the Linux community.
Now, I will admit that a lot of things shouldn't be changed. I personally don't see any problem at all with the operational use of the command "ls" or "cd". However, do a man on any choice of commands, and you'll see all kinds of "obsolete" and "outdated" remarks about options that no longer work, or have been replaced. At what point in the future can we FINALLY get rid of all those things that were obsoleted 8 years ago? What if they finally did remove that option and break some of your precious scripts?
Say it's a very simple change... like changing "ls -l" to "ls -z" (for example). A very simple sed command can change all the ls -l's to ls -z's. Voila, all your scripts work again.
I haven't even gotten into the fact that every now and then it's healthy to go back through all the scripts you've written to find errors, omissions, etc. I wrote a bunch of scripts about 6 months ago, and just went back through them this week to make sure everything was running as well as it could be. Re-writing scripts is one step of optimizing your system. If you never revisit the work you did 10 years ago, you never know if it could be simplified. What would your response to Microsoft be if they announced they were going to keep DOS commands around for all future versions of Windows, just to make sure that everybody's batch files worked properly? There'd be a massive Microsoft bashing session on
Yeah, but once you are over being afraid it gradually turns to anger and then to hatred.
... RIAA subpoenas, legal fees and impounded computers?
Fear leads to Anger. Anger leads to Hate. Hate leads to
Somehow just doesn't have the right ring to it...
Yeah, that's pretty close. Of course, you just basically admitted that your Democrat friends don't read the newspapers or watch news on TV, so they really don't know what's going on, other than the Democratic party gives them checks every month. =) Fine with me... but I personally don't see the point in voting if you don't know about the issues you're voting for or against.
However, their methods also allow out of control captitalism and monopolies. Many libertarians supported MS and think it is OK to have that kind of monopoly power.
/. rant about them all the time.
/., I'm guessing it's a *nix of some kind. If so, then obviously you're not a Microsoft customer. If you're not a Microsoft customer, and there are many people like you (and there are), then Microsoft cannot possibly be described as a "monopoly". They can, however, be described as a company that has used their near-monopoly position to stiffle innovation and forces choices on most of the population that are in Microsoft's best interests, which also conflicts with the best interests of the consumers.
I have several points that I'd like to make, but unfortunately, I'm bound by time at the moment, so I'll try to keep this short and to the point.
First, is it at all possible that Microsoft got to where it is by offering the best (and easiest to learn) product for the best price to the best portion of the populace? Take a minute to think about that before answering. Is Starbucks a monopoly? They charge WAY too much for a cup of coffee, yet I don't hear people on
Second, define "monopoly". Basically, it means that a market is 100% saturated by products by one company, and that company purchases all the companies that try to compete with it. Microsoft hasn't tried to purchase Red Hat or Apple, so they're not really a monopoly. You might say they are a monopoly on desktops. Interesting point... What OS do you have loaded? Since you're on
Third, if Microsoft is so terrible, and everyone hates them, why aren't there any companes that compete with them? You might say that they buy all the companies that try. IBM released OS/2 Warp about 7-8 years ago. It sucked, but Microsoft didn't buy them. Red Hat is still around, as is Mandrake (which would make an easy purchase, since they're in such dire straits, financially), SuSE, Apple, etc. The only conclusion is that Microsoft doesn't serve the needs of all the customers, which leaves room for competitors. If those competitors can convince people that their product can serve the needs and desires of the customers better than Microsoft can, and at a price (of both time to learn, and money) that is attractive, they will switch.
Libertarians believe that people can make their own choices, not that a company, or the government, should make their choices for them. Unfortunately, most people these days seems to think that the government is smarter than they are, and knows what's best for them. That couldn't be more wrong. The way you inherently distrust Microsoft should be exactly equal to how you inherent distrust the government. They're both out to screw you of your time, energy, and money.
Obviously you don't understand the viewpoint of Libertarians. Maybe you need a history lesson. When Federal Withholding began in WW2, it was meant to speed up tax paying so the government could afford to spend more on the military. It was supposed to last only until the end of WW2. Instead, it's gone on for nearly 60 years now. Why? Because government never wants to give anything back to the people, unless absolutely necessary. Basically, Libertarians believe that since the government never wants to give anything BACK to the people, government should never GET anything from the people.
Think for a minute how much money you make. Let's say you make $25,000 a year. After all the money the government takes away from you (social security, federal taxes, state taxes, local taxes, FEMA, sales tax, etc.) you're probably only actually making $15,000, maybe less. For proof, keep a record of all your receipts over the next year, and add up the sales tax you had to pay. Remember, for just about every dollar you spend, about $.05 - $.08 goes directly to the government.
Gone With The Wind would still stomp all over everything else, which would be pretty embarrassing for the movie industry, since it implies they haven't made anything with that much appeal in the last 64 years.
Sorta, yeah... When Gone with the Wind came out, VCR's and DVD players didn't exist, so if you wanted to watch it, you had to go to the theater, which counted towards its box office total. If you add Titanic's DVD sales and rentals in, along with worldwide box office, it "stomps" Gone With the Wind pretty handily.
Interestingly enough, I see that the gross for M:R solidly beats M1, at about $272M vs. $171M. Budget for M1 is listed at $63M vs. $127M for M:R, though, so although M:R still netted more, it wasn't as good of a return on investment.
Yes... I must be pissing your point. $272m - $127m = $145m profit for M:R. $171m - $63m = $108m profit for Matrix. However, M:R is still in theaters, and hasn't been released to video yet. The Matrix was the highest-selling DVD of all-time, until relatively recently (I think Shrek was the first one to beat it, but it might have been something else). M:R will probably also make a good chunk of change on DVD and VHS purchases. The Matrix made an additional $100m on rentals... so M:R has already made back the full budget of both Matrix Reloaded, and Revolutions, just in domestic box office, not counting rentals, DVD and VHS sales, or world-wide box office.