And incidentally, I seem to remember Clinton firing cruise missiles at Osama.
Yes, he did a nice job of taking out the Asprin Factory of Doom and assorted empty buildings, but his followup was rather weak (i.e. nonexistent) considering he utterly failed to achieve his goal (assuming his goal was in fact to get bin Laden and not keep Monica out of the headlines).
even though he got just as close to knocking the pious bastard off as George Bush ever did, and spent a hell of a lot less taxpayer dollars to do it!
Right, all Bush did was spend more money. Unless you count the destruction of the Taliban, crippling of al Qaeda, and liberation of the Afhan people, but why bother with details? Oh, and Osama is very probably in many thousands of pieces at Tora Bora
The right wing needs to get past this whole Clinton thing, I mean, it really makes them look like a bunch of chumps. The rest of us are ready to move on.
That's just funny, considering this sub-thread started with yet another whine about the 2000 election.
Sorry to burst your little persecution complex, but I don't give a rat's ass about Clinton. I pointed out the three major causes of the recession (which we're recovering from nicely; I know how that must disappoint you), and exactly zero of them are due to Bush's actions in office.
Exactly. They developed time travel and went back to 1996, where they assumed top positions at Enron and Worldcom, deliberately inflated the stock market bubble, and convinced Clinton not to do anything about Osama.
I think it did to some extent (an IndexOutOfBoundsException is much better than a potentially exploitable buffer overrun) but you're absolutely right that it could easily have been better. Most of my non-work development is in Objective C, and it's annoying to see the things that it does right that Java doesn't, despite being many years older (e.g. real class objects and no magical "new" constructor syntax).
Okay, I finally found something (for some reason getting the right Google keywords was unusually difficult). Here's exit poll data from the 2000 and 1996 presidential elections. Both show the highest Republican support coming from voters with some college or a college degree. Those without any college or with postgraduate study are more likely to vote Democratic.
Drat. I'm positive I saw a study to that effect not long ago, showing Republican/conservative support increasing as level of education increased, with a dramatic drop after a 4-year college degree. But now I can't find it, so I'll withdraw my claim.
And about 50 IQ points. I'll let people's personal biases dictate which way to interpret that.
Heh. Actually it sort of does work both ways. Both uneducated and very highly educated people tend to be liberals; those in the middle tend to be conservatives.
For starters, it kills free software (both speech and beer). If warranties can't be disclaimed, releasing any kind of freeware would be suicidal. This harms me both as a free software developer and user. It removes my right to voluntarily assume the risks of running a piece of software and to obtain a lower price for doing so.
If you want to assume full responsibility for losses when your software fails, there's nothing stopping you. Put it on your boxes, advertise it as a selling point, and let the market decide.
If I build a car, give it away for free and its brakes fail while going 40 mph in a city and it plows through a kindergarten on an excursion, shouldn't I be held responsible?
What if you're a hobbyist who posts plans for a car on your website, and somebody tries to build it and it crashes? What if you answer a programming question on Usenet, but the code you post contains an obscure error that ultimately finds its way into a production system? Real-world analogies really aren't good for these types of issues, but consider why Good Samaritan laws are common.
They do a few things to make people believe that the tax cuts benefit the middle class, but the OMB says otherwise.
I have a hard time believing that, considering that all income tax rates were decreased, and the lower rates were decreased proportionally more than the higher ones. Yes, I'm sure the rich benefit more in absolute dollars, but that's because they make more money in the first place, being rich and all.
Fighting over statements that every honest conservative would have to admit is true is foolish.
I don't deny that conservatives want to lower taxes for the rich. What always gets left out is that we also want to lower taxes for the middle class, the poor, and whatever other groups you can name. And we do in fact care about controlling government spending; I'm disappointed in Bush and Congress for doing a poor job of that.
I will work harder to benefit myself and my family than I will to benefit the collective. If that makes me a selfish bastard, so be it. Any socialist utopia has to deal with people like me, and traditionally that's when the guns have come out.
They are not interested in saving taxpayer's money, they are interested in seeing rich-people pay less taxes
Of course. Only liberals have pure motives, anyone who questions whether government could spend less is a right-wing extremist who wants to throw old people out in the streets. Come on.
They could do without the silly "socialist" comments, but their main point-that government should not discriminate against or in favor of free software-is entirely reasonable.
Passed a pure food and drug act so I don't have to eat food that has been treated / raised/ slaughtered in an unhealthy manner.
And also imposes delays of years for potentially life-saving drugs. There are always tradeoffs.
but. . . we don't need no stinking govment
There is a difference between limited government and no government. And I would submit that even if you do believe an activist government is a good way to solve the ills of society, there are much more pressing problems than Coke cans in TV shows.
I note for the record that I see way too many Apple's on Fox's "24"
Sounds about right to me. CTU needs really fast, really secure machines. NSA was one of NeXT's biggest customers.
That's a rhetorical question because obviously the reason is the author is unwilling to consider an alternative to winner-take-all as the only way for society to operate.
1. Capitalism is not "winner take all". Yes, the rich get richer, and so does everyone else. And not just in absolute dollars: today you can buy a computer for under $1000 that is more powerful than all the computers used in the Apollo project combined. Why? Because Andy Grove and others wanted to make more money.
2. What's your alternative, and how does it avoid the problems of previous experiments such as 100 million people murdered by their own governments?
How did they blow it? It obviously takes them far less time to get iTMS up and running on Mac OS X than Windows. Would you prefer they delayed releasing the Mac version until the Windows version was ready?
But I admire a person who is willing to go against the grain and take an upopular route to protect the jobs of his constituants.
And I don't. I see nothing admirable about "protecting constituents" by voting to take the money, resources, or time of others. Do you also support Congressmen for voting for pork-barrel projects whose sole purpose is to get federal cash for their districts?
What if you stole five cents at a time from every person in the country? That's the kind of equation telemarketers are making -- small returns from small inconveniences, multiplied by every person in the country.
Exactly correct. It's the same reason we spend billions on corporate welfare and pork barrel projects that benefit a few by taking tiny amounts from everyone else. Individually it's not enough to notice, but add it all up and it's a major problem.
When did bending-over for big business become "defending the constitution?"
Why do you assume that's his motivation? Have you considered that he really believes the do not call list is not constitutional, and it's therefore proper to oppose it even if that results a benefit to evil corporations?
I happen to disagree with Ron Paul on this issue, but from everything I've seen he's an exceptionally principled Congressman, and I wouldn't mind having a few dozen more of him.
All the neolib economists, starting with old man Milton, would just love to tear down the state and the protections it provides and let us become modern day serfs.
Ridiculous strawman. Sorry, economic conservatives are not anarchists.
I certainly take issue with the notion that people always act out of self-interest. People are too lazy to do that.
That could be "rational ignorance". It's often in your self-interest to not study a decision too deeply, because the opportunity cost of such study is greater than the loss from making a sub-optimal choice. This happens in politics all the time and it's why it's relatively easy for special interests to extract money and power from the general public.
So you mean if I write a monster project which results in 10 megabytes of bytecode, it will all have to be compiled to the local platform when I start it before it can start??
No; google for "HotSpot". The VM watches to see which code executes most frequently and dynamically determines what to compile.
For a database driven application, how do you propose not to have hardcoded SQL statements?
Here's one way. In WebObjects, you don't manipulate database rows.. You create, search for, and modify objects, tell them to persist themselves, and the SQL is generated for you. Actually the persistence layer doesn't even have to be a SQL database; it could be LDAP or a flat file, but your code remains the same.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're only burning in order to re-rip, it's more convenient to transcode with iMovie or WireTap.
Yes. Although I *think* I could do wide windows on my home G4 when it was using two cards (it now has a dual-head Radeon so I can't check).
Not true on my dual-head G5. You can even make a window wider than the combined width of both monitors. (Why you'd want to is another matter).
Hooray, we can agree on something. With that, I'll be done.
Yes, he did a nice job of taking out the Asprin Factory of Doom and assorted empty buildings, but his followup was rather weak (i.e. nonexistent) considering he utterly failed to achieve his goal (assuming his goal was in fact to get bin Laden and not keep Monica out of the headlines).
even though he got just as close to knocking the pious bastard off as George Bush ever did, and spent a hell of a lot less taxpayer dollars to do it!
Right, all Bush did was spend more money. Unless you count the destruction of the Taliban, crippling of al Qaeda, and liberation of the Afhan people, but why bother with details? Oh, and Osama is very probably in many thousands of pieces at Tora Bora
The right wing needs to get past this whole Clinton thing, I mean, it really makes them look like a bunch of chumps. The rest of us are ready to move on.
That's just funny, considering this sub-thread started with yet another whine about the 2000 election.
Sorry to burst your little persecution complex, but I don't give a rat's ass about Clinton. I pointed out the three major causes of the recession (which we're recovering from nicely; I know how that must disappoint you), and exactly zero of them are due to Bush's actions in office.
Exactly. They developed time travel and went back to 1996, where they assumed top positions at Enron and Worldcom, deliberately inflated the stock market bubble, and convinced Clinton not to do anything about Osama.
I think it did to some extent (an IndexOutOfBoundsException is much better than a potentially exploitable buffer overrun) but you're absolutely right that it could easily have been better. Most of my non-work development is in Objective C, and it's annoying to see the things that it does right that Java doesn't, despite being many years older (e.g. real class objects and no magical "new" constructor syntax).
Okay, I finally found something (for some reason getting the right Google keywords was unusually difficult). Here's exit poll data from the 2000 and 1996 presidential elections. Both show the highest Republican support coming from voters with some college or a college degree. Those without any college or with postgraduate study are more likely to vote Democratic.
Drat. I'm positive I saw a study to that effect not long ago, showing Republican/conservative support increasing as level of education increased, with a dramatic drop after a 4-year college degree. But now I can't find it, so I'll withdraw my claim.
Heh. Actually it sort of does work both ways. Both uneducated and very highly educated people tend to be liberals; those in the middle tend to be conservatives.
For starters, it kills free software (both speech and beer). If warranties can't be disclaimed, releasing any kind of freeware would be suicidal. This harms me both as a free software developer and user. It removes my right to voluntarily assume the risks of running a piece of software and to obtain a lower price for doing so.
If you want to assume full responsibility for losses when your software fails, there's nothing stopping you. Put it on your boxes, advertise it as a selling point, and let the market decide.
If I build a car, give it away for free and its brakes fail while going 40 mph in a city and it plows through a kindergarten on an excursion, shouldn't I be held responsible?
What if you're a hobbyist who posts plans for a car on your website, and somebody tries to build it and it crashes? What if you answer a programming question on Usenet, but the code you post contains an obscure error that ultimately finds its way into a production system? Real-world analogies really aren't good for these types of issues, but consider why Good Samaritan laws are common.
I have a hard time believing that, considering that all income tax rates were decreased, and the lower rates were decreased proportionally more than the higher ones. Yes, I'm sure the rich benefit more in absolute dollars, but that's because they make more money in the first place, being rich and all.
Fighting over statements that every honest conservative would have to admit is true is foolish.
I don't deny that conservatives want to lower taxes for the rich. What always gets left out is that we also want to lower taxes for the middle class, the poor, and whatever other groups you can name. And we do in fact care about controlling government spending; I'm disappointed in Bush and Congress for doing a poor job of that.
Oh well, we're a bit off topic now.
I will work harder to benefit myself and my family than I will to benefit the collective. If that makes me a selfish bastard, so be it. Any socialist utopia has to deal with people like me, and traditionally that's when the guns have come out.
Of course. Only liberals have pure motives, anyone who questions whether government could spend less is a right-wing extremist who wants to throw old people out in the streets. Come on.
They could do without the silly "socialist" comments, but their main point-that government should not discriminate against or in favor of free software-is entirely reasonable.
And also imposes delays of years for potentially life-saving drugs. There are always tradeoffs.
but. . . we don't need no stinking govment
There is a difference between limited government and no government. And I would submit that even if you do believe an activist government is a good way to solve the ills of society, there are much more pressing problems than Coke cans in TV shows.
I note for the record that I see way too many Apple's on Fox's "24"
Sounds about right to me. CTU needs really fast, really secure machines. NSA was one of NeXT's biggest customers.
1. Capitalism is not "winner take all". Yes, the rich get richer, and so does everyone else. And not just in absolute dollars: today you can buy a computer for under $1000 that is more powerful than all the computers used in the Apollo project combined. Why? Because Andy Grove and others wanted to make more money.
2. What's your alternative, and how does it avoid the problems of previous experiments such as 100 million people murdered by their own governments?
How did they blow it? It obviously takes them far less time to get iTMS up and running on Mac OS X than Windows. Would you prefer they delayed releasing the Mac version until the Windows version was ready?
And I don't. I see nothing admirable about "protecting constituents" by voting to take the money, resources, or time of others. Do you also support Congressmen for voting for pork-barrel projects whose sole purpose is to get federal cash for their districts?
Exactly correct. It's the same reason we spend billions on corporate welfare and pork barrel projects that benefit a few by taking tiny amounts from everyone else. Individually it's not enough to notice, but add it all up and it's a major problem.
Why do you assume that's his motivation? Have you considered that he really believes the do not call list is not constitutional, and it's therefore proper to oppose it even if that results a benefit to evil corporations?
I happen to disagree with Ron Paul on this issue, but from everything I've seen he's an exceptionally principled Congressman, and I wouldn't mind having a few dozen more of him.
All the neolib economists, starting with old man Milton, would just love to tear down the state and the protections it provides and let us become modern day serfs.
Ridiculous strawman. Sorry, economic conservatives are not anarchists.
That could be "rational ignorance". It's often in your self-interest to not study a decision too deeply, because the opportunity cost of such study is greater than the loss from making a sub-optimal choice. This happens in politics all the time and it's why it's relatively easy for special interests to extract money and power from the general public.
The vulnerability apparently only affects OpenSSH version 3.7, and Mac OS X uses 3.4, so we should be ok.
No; google for "HotSpot". The VM watches to see which code executes most frequently and dynamically determines what to compile.
Here's one way. In WebObjects, you don't manipulate database rows.. You create, search for, and modify objects, tell them to persist themselves, and the SQL is generated for you. Actually the persistence layer doesn't even have to be a SQL database; it could be LDAP or a flat file, but your code remains the same.
Yes, on dual Xeons running RedHat. Works great, the only problems we've had have been physical drive failures.