Maybe you should tell that to my wife. I could use some 'time off'.
The most obvious concern with gay "marriage" is that same sex couple don't have the biological ability to reproduce.
And, whose concern is that? Yours? What about all those couples that either choose to not have children or can't have children. Should we not allow them to get married?
Obviously, I don't understand why you are making such a fuss over some decision that is between two people. There are benefits and penalties to marriage. Two people that enter into a marriage (hopefully) go into it aware of those benefits and penalties. And, those benefits and penalties do not impact you in any way.
In fact, heterosexual couples with children (like myself & my wife) cause more 'societal' impact when they divorce than a childless couples.
requirement that marriage partners have to be opposite genders?
Uh, where do you get the idea that there is a requirement that marriage partners have to be of opposite genders? That "requirement" has been created by those homophobes who hate the idea of two same-sex people actually being in love with each other.
You can't just decide to remove one of these pillars and expect the other three to hold.
In other words, you proposing the Domino Theory of marriage. If you were alive in the mid-1950s, you would have been saying that we should send troops into Vietnam, because if Vietnam fell to the Communists, then Japan would be next. Pretty soon, the commies are marching straight down Main Street in Omaha, Nebraska.
The Domino Theory was discredited as a legitimate argument for anti-communisma a long time ago. Although I don't have any proof, I doubt it is a valid argument against gay marriage. Try to come up with a btetter argument.
Aggregation by itself is valuable. Google News is only an aggregation service. With both of them, I learn about stuff I'd probably never stumble across on my own.
True. After all, isn't Slashdot an aggretation service? And, I find it to be valuable. However, note that Roland has a tendency to link to his blog. He points you to his blog and from there, you can link to the source. When submitting an ariticle to Slashdot, why doesn't Roland point most, or, better yet, ALL of his links to the source?
In both of the stories he submitted yesterday (the one here and the one in the Science section), he has at least two links to his blog (I am counting the one on his name) and only one link to the source. And, his blog is purely a copy of the source. What is the point of going to the blog? Maybe if he had something new in his blog, I could see it (such as an interview related to the source article).
Maybe I am being harsh. But, IMHO, Roland is only doing this to drive traffic to his blog. I thought Slashdot was all about going beyond self-promotion and instead spreading news and ideas around for the good of the community.
OK. That almost sounds silly. It's as if I'm expecting a great light to shine down upon Slashdot and have angels singing in the background, but you know what I mean....
After reading another post, I realize that I am guilty of misusing the term plagiarize. Roland does not plagiarize, but he appears to be guilty of some copyright infringement.
I have been known to make a few anti-Roland posts in the past. When I first started paying attention to Roland's posts, I couldn't understand why many people hated him, either. But, now, I understand why. On one hand, Maybe part of it is overexposure. However, I think more of it has to do with his neverending spam and questionable approach to copyright law.
If you look here, you will see the T's & C's for using information from the source of Roland's story. If you read the fine print, you will see a sentence that reads "Use of this material for commercial purposes without explicit, written permission from Technology Research News, LLC is strictly prohibited".
Roland's blog is purely a commercial enterprise. He uses the ads on his blog to collect money. By copying and pasting entire paragraphs from the Technology Research News article, he is breaking the copyright.
Of course, maybe he does have 'explicit written permission'. But I doubt it. Why do I say this? Look at how he writes the article. Where is isn't copying and pasting, he is purely summarizing what was originally written by anybody else. Now, look at this link. Look at how he writes. No new information. he just collects information from dozens of web sites and either plagiarizes those sites or points to them through his blog. He must be collecting dozens of RSS feeds and picking and choosing what he thinks are the best.
Even worse, some of his posts are nothing but advertisements for products.
Now, let us say Roland DOES have legal explicit permission from all of those sites to copy and paste articles for his personal profit. I could live with that, IF he was adding additional insight into technology. Unfortunately, he isn't. His blog adds nothing to society.
No insight. No thoughts on where technology is heading. No review of how technology has come this far. He is just parroting what somebody else has written. The only logical explanation for him even having a web log is for the hope that you will be dumb enough to click one of his revenue-generating ads.
Why do they need to know how the underlying system works?
Well, there are comfort issues with any unfamiliar system. I have put in new systems before. If it's on an unfamiliar platform, it makes users uncomfortable. Their level of comfort definitely has an impact on the number of mistakes.
Yes, you can give Linux a GUI. But, most of the senior citizens that staff polling places will be uncomfortable with using something that is not windows-based.
It's not like we need to encrypt the results, is it?
Well, I would recommend encrypting every part of the message. But, essentially, you are correct. I had a brain cramp and forgot about public/private keys.
I was thinking of accuracy checks, dispute resolution when I was composing the note. I just didn't want to spend all day typing on/.
This explains *SO* much about why HP has changed from a technically innovative company to a supplier of printer ink
But, hey, not all is lost. At least Ms. Fiorina can explain the socio-economic forces that led to the 1066 invasion of Britain by William the Conquerer and how his invasion later led to the various French/English conflicts of the 12th, 13th & 14th centuries.
sucks for those history majors... -4.80% from last year
The numbers were probably skewed by one person's salary. Carly Fiorina is a medieval history major (or is that medieval studies?). I doubt she took a pay cut.
Here in Canada the counting is does by volunteers of each party.
In Pennsylvania (and probably most other states), the voting district (precinct) staff is volunteer. They do get paid a very small stipend, to make up for the day that most of them took off.
why spend money on quality when price is the only thing that matters?
Well, there's the problem. The data can either go directly from each machine to the county elections board, or it can be collected and counted at the precinct level, then sent to the elections board.
There are a couple of reasons why you would keep the preliminary counting to the precinct level: Cost is one.
The cost of centralizing the count would mean that every machine has to be given a secure, direct connection to the central computer. Personally, I wouldn't trust a phone line. Cost? Pretty high, since many counties around the US have thousands of polling places, each with multiple machines.
So, you are almost forced to use collect the data locally. If that is the case, then, that means you need a local election judge handling the data. That local election judge may be very honest, but probably doesn't know anything about computers. And, even though I don't like Windows, I don't think you have much of a choice. You are almost forced to use it. The cost of training all of the election workers on how to use Linux would probably be too high. You might look at Mac, but then you'd end up spending more money on a Mac programmer than you do on a MS programmer.
Don't get me wrong. Diebold obviously never thought about security. If they did, they would have found ways to control for VB scripts updating the data. But, I do understand why they chose Windows and Access. I don't agree with their choice, but I understand why they chose it. Cost.
These could be the first hairline fractures in the Vast Anti-Microsoft Pro-Linux Corporate Alliance
Well, I don't know if these are the first fractures. IBM and Oracle have been competing fiercely in the Database market for many years now. IBM has been nearly giving away DB2 in order to steal Oracle customers. When IBM purchased Informix, Oracle used the opportunity to switch more than a few Informix customers to Oracle.
>higher versions of PeopleTools seem to only be supported with the BEA junk at the moment... maybe this new deal will change their tune some
I doubt it. Tuxedo and Jolt are tied into PeopleSoft's Application Server pretty tightly. It would require PeopleSoft to completely rebuild the App Server layer. Since this is a five year deal, that may happen over time, but I don't think you'll see it occur any time soon. As I recall, the existing WebSphere product that PeopleSoft delivers is nothing but a slimmed down web server (same with WebLogic). You were just getting a tool to throw up a few web pages, you weren't getting any of the funcitonality built within either WebLogic or WebSphere.
This deal appears to focus on the middleware layer. In other words, how you get PeopleSoft to integrate with every other system you are running.
This new deal lists a focus on the following products: WebSphere Portal, WebSphere Business Integration, WebSphere Business Integration Modeler and Monitor, WebSphere Application Server, and DB2.
Of the above, I have only ever worked with is a version of WBI (called WBI Connect Express) -- which is basically an http listener for XML messaging.
I think it's kind of cool. I'd love to move out of the ERP world and start learning some of these middleware tools.
its to make the car more visible, especially at night
Yeah, Right. Just keep believing that, and one day, it may come true. I tend to agree with the parent -- Having your 4-ways on gives the appearance that you only intend to park in that spot temporarily. The drivers are just trying to avoid a ticket.
Slashdot Mirror
OK. Give me a legitimate reason. I have not heard one that can't be boiled down to some personal objection against gays or lesbians.
Maybe you should tell that to my wife. I could use some 'time off'.
The most obvious concern with gay "marriage" is that same sex couple don't have the biological ability to reproduce.And, whose concern is that? Yours? What about all those couples that either choose to not have children or can't have children. Should we not allow them to get married?
Obviously, I don't understand why you are making such a fuss over some decision that is between two people. There are benefits and penalties to marriage. Two people that enter into a marriage (hopefully) go into it aware of those benefits and penalties. And, those benefits and penalties do not impact you in any way.
In fact, heterosexual couples with children (like myself & my wife) cause more 'societal' impact when they divorce than a childless couples.
Uh, where do you get the idea that there is a requirement that marriage partners have to be of opposite genders? That "requirement" has been created by those homophobes who hate the idea of two same-sex people actually being in love with each other.
In other words, you proposing the Domino Theory of marriage. If you were alive in the mid-1950s, you would have been saying that we should send troops into Vietnam, because if Vietnam fell to the Communists, then Japan would be next. Pretty soon, the commies are marching straight down Main Street in Omaha, Nebraska.
The Domino Theory was discredited as a legitimate argument for anti-communisma a long time ago. Although I don't have any proof, I doubt it is a valid argument against gay marriage. Try to come up with a btetter argument.
Hey, are you my wife?
True. After all, isn't Slashdot an aggretation service? And, I find it to be valuable. However, note that Roland has a tendency to link to his blog. He points you to his blog and from there, you can link to the source. When submitting an ariticle to Slashdot, why doesn't Roland point most, or, better yet, ALL of his links to the source?
In both of the stories he submitted yesterday (the one here and the one in the Science section), he has at least two links to his blog (I am counting the one on his name) and only one link to the source. And, his blog is purely a copy of the source. What is the point of going to the blog? Maybe if he had something new in his blog, I could see it (such as an interview related to the source article).
Maybe I am being harsh. But, IMHO, Roland is only doing this to drive traffic to his blog. I thought Slashdot was all about going beyond self-promotion and instead spreading news and ideas around for the good of the community.
OK. That almost sounds silly. It's as if I'm expecting a great light to shine down upon Slashdot and have angels singing in the background, but you know what I mean....
After reading another post, I realize that I am guilty of misusing the term plagiarize. Roland does not plagiarize, but he appears to be guilty of some copyright infringement.
You don't have to mention the moderation system to me. Sorry about the 'troll' rating.
I have been known to make a few anti-Roland posts in the past. When I first started paying attention to Roland's posts, I couldn't understand why many people hated him, either. But, now, I understand why. On one hand, Maybe part of it is overexposure. However, I think more of it has to do with his neverending spam and questionable approach to copyright law.
If you look here, you will see the T's & C's for using information from the source of Roland's story. If you read the fine print, you will see a sentence that reads "Use of this material for commercial purposes without explicit, written permission from Technology Research News, LLC is strictly prohibited".
Roland's blog is purely a commercial enterprise. He uses the ads on his blog to collect money. By copying and pasting entire paragraphs from the Technology Research News article, he is breaking the copyright.
Of course, maybe he does have 'explicit written permission'. But I doubt it. Why do I say this? Look at how he writes the article. Where is isn't copying and pasting, he is purely summarizing what was originally written by anybody else. Now, look at this link. Look at how he writes. No new information. he just collects information from dozens of web sites and either plagiarizes those sites or points to them through his blog. He must be collecting dozens of RSS feeds and picking and choosing what he thinks are the best.
Even worse, some of his posts are nothing but advertisements for products.
Now, let us say Roland DOES have legal explicit permission from all of those sites to copy and paste articles for his personal profit. I could live with that, IF he was adding additional insight into technology. Unfortunately, he isn't. His blog adds nothing to society.
No insight. No thoughts on where technology is heading. No review of how technology has come this far. He is just parroting what somebody else has written. The only logical explanation for him even having a web log is for the hope that you will be dumb enough to click one of his revenue-generating ads.
Well, there are comfort issues with any unfamiliar system. I have put in new systems before. If it's on an unfamiliar platform, it makes users uncomfortable. Their level of comfort definitely has an impact on the number of mistakes.
Yes, you can give Linux a GUI. But, most of the senior citizens that staff polling places will be uncomfortable with using something that is not windows-based.
Well, I would recommend encrypting every part of the message. But, essentially, you are correct. I had a brain cramp and forgot about public/private keys.
I was thinking of accuracy checks, dispute resolution when I was composing the note. I just didn't want to spend all day typing on /.
But, hey, not all is lost. At least Ms. Fiorina can explain the socio-economic forces that led to the 1066 invasion of Britain by William the Conquerer and how his invasion later led to the various French/English conflicts of the 12th, 13th & 14th centuries.
The numbers were probably skewed by one person's salary. Carly Fiorina is a medieval history major (or is that medieval studies?). I doubt she took a pay cut.
What does salary increase mean?
I went to the closest Best Buy yesterday, thinking it would be in stock. Before I try that again, I'll look at a calendar.
Wait a minute, you are supposed to design before you begin to code? Come on! The next thing you know, you'll be asking for documentation.
BTW, love the username.
In Pennsylvania (and probably most other states), the voting district (precinct) staff is volunteer. They do get paid a very small stipend, to make up for the day that most of them took off.
Well, there's the problem. The data can either go directly from each machine to the county elections board, or it can be collected and counted at the precinct level, then sent to the elections board.
There are a couple of reasons why you would keep the preliminary counting to the precinct level: Cost is one.
The cost of centralizing the count would mean that every machine has to be given a secure, direct connection to the central computer. Personally, I wouldn't trust a phone line. Cost? Pretty high, since many counties around the US have thousands of polling places, each with multiple machines.
So, you are almost forced to use collect the data locally. If that is the case, then, that means you need a local election judge handling the data. That local election judge may be very honest, but probably doesn't know anything about computers. And, even though I don't like Windows, I don't think you have much of a choice. You are almost forced to use it. The cost of training all of the election workers on how to use Linux would probably be too high. You might look at Mac, but then you'd end up spending more money on a Mac programmer than you do on a MS programmer.
Don't get me wrong. Diebold obviously never thought about security. If they did, they would have found ways to control for VB scripts updating the data. But, I do understand why they chose Windows and Access. I don't agree with their choice, but I understand why they chose it. Cost.
Are you suggesting that every state in the US use an election model that has been tested in Louisiana?
No thanks. You might as well be suggesting it come from Chicago.
Well, I don't know if these are the first fractures. IBM and Oracle have been competing fiercely in the Database market for many years now. IBM has been nearly giving away DB2 in order to steal Oracle customers. When IBM purchased Informix, Oracle used the opportunity to switch more than a few Informix customers to Oracle.
I doubt it. Tuxedo and Jolt are tied into PeopleSoft's Application Server pretty tightly. It would require PeopleSoft to completely rebuild the App Server layer. Since this is a five year deal, that may happen over time, but I don't think you'll see it occur any time soon. As I recall, the existing WebSphere product that PeopleSoft delivers is nothing but a slimmed down web server (same with WebLogic). You were just getting a tool to throw up a few web pages, you weren't getting any of the funcitonality built within either WebLogic or WebSphere.
This deal appears to focus on the middleware layer. In other words, how you get PeopleSoft to integrate with every other system you are running.
This new deal lists a focus on the following products: WebSphere Portal, WebSphere Business Integration, WebSphere Business Integration Modeler and Monitor, WebSphere Application Server, and DB2.
Of the above, I have only ever worked with is a version of WBI (called WBI Connect Express) -- which is basically an http listener for XML messaging.
I think it's kind of cool. I'd love to move out of the ERP world and start learning some of these middleware tools.
Tower: Who is this General Protection, anyway? And, how did he break my computer?
I thought that I only had to turn it off and turn it back on again.
Yeah, Right. Just keep believing that, and one day, it may come true. I tend to agree with the parent -- Having your 4-ways on gives the appearance that you only intend to park in that spot temporarily. The drivers are just trying to avoid a ticket.
Odd. That's the first thing I thought of. Of course, I'm a Visionary Thought Leader. Really. It says that, right on my business card.