I believe that voters _should_ be informed in order to vote, but would not argue for any restriction requiring them to be informed--due to the almost certainty of abuse. Consequently, I do not think that people should be blindly encouraged to vote. Uninformed voters are too easy to manipulate.
I'll not be voting for either GWB or JFK, but I will be voting Libertarian, because I strongly support the platform--despite the fact that Badnarik has essentially no chance of winning. I'd rather not have my vote diluted by a popularity contest amongst people who don't really care who wins.
If I couldn't find a candidate I felt I could support, I'd leave the position blank, but I'd still show up and vote--because I believe it is important, not because someone told me it is.
Ah, a representative of the Michael Moore-school of selective quoting.
Quoting me:
But the current system is better: rather than a nationwide hunt for hanging chad
while leaving out:
, the 2000 election only resulted in such nonsense in Florida
The current system is better than a nationwide hunt for hanging chad. Do you know anyone that has advocated such a system? Me neither.
Did not the 2000 election in Florida result in a statewide hunt for hanging chad? It seems that you are advocating applying this nationally.
So long as everyone understands that there's nothing inherently better about the current system.
But the current system is better: rather than a nationwide hunt for hanging chad, the 2000 election only resulted in such nonsense in Florida. I believe that the Electoral College system tends to make very close elections (in electoral votes) less common, which to me is a very good thing--we don't need Florida 2000 to happen again every time the electorate is almost evenly divided.
Realistically, it is better to let the popular vote 'loser' win by the already agreed to rules than to have a revolution in the event of a near-tie, and I say that without regard to who winds up in the oval office--as bad as Florida 2000 was, it could have been far worse.
At $100/sh, google's market cap is over $25Billion, according to my broker (etrade, if it matters). The fact that well over 60% of the stock is held by insiders, means that google is almost certainly one of the things that microsoft can't buy.
I believe the idea of the Dutch auction process is to allow regular people to participate in the IPO. Normally on an IPO this hot, only 'high-rollers' associated with the offering brokers would get a shot at buying at the IPO price.
Also, with this technique, Google gets a _lot_ more money--to their credit (well, actually it is also in their best interest), they did leave enough money on the table so that people would want to bid for the auction.
I had used clonecd in the past, had uninstalled it 2 years ago, and Doom 3 refused to install, claiming that it couldn't read the cd until after I regedited away the lingering registry entries from clonecd.
Completely bogus, especially because clonecd was not installed anymore, and I've never used it to make an unauthorized copy of anything (I use it so I don't have to expose irreplaceable game cds to my 4 and 1 year olds. They're bad enough on my disks, you wouldn't believe how many children's game cds and DVDs they've nearly destroyed (most can be fixed with a DVD doctor).
I had long ago switched to using Alcohol (even kids game cds now feature the most sophisticated protection methods)--and I promptly unloaded it and disabled the virtual drive it offered, but Doom III still insisted it couldn't read the CD until after I scanned my registry for clonecd-related entries.
I briefly considered returning Doom III, but my desire for virtual blood and gore exceeded my indignation at being labeled a pirate by id.
True, nc has higher requirements than distcc, and it may not be for everyone, however, it is generally very easy to set up.
If you have common filesystems (not necessarily even mounted in the same place, though this requires some unattractive transformation rules in the nc config file), and a synchronized clock (anyone heard of ntp?), nc will either definitely be faster than distcc, or will bring your NFS server to its knees (occasionally both).
I personally liked working with NetApp support explaining how 1 user doing 1 make could swamp a NetApp F840 (pushing about 1.6Gbit/sec over load balanced gig links to a cluster of 10 4-processor ultrasparcs). Our build, which would normally take ~1.5 hours (with -j4 on one machine) could finish in only about 12 minutes with nc.
When used across a workgroup, with distributed ccache, CCACHE_HARDLINK, scons and content signatures, it still rocks with a much more lame fileserver (it spreads the ccache jobs over the cluster, and most writes are just creating hardlinks on the server).
This may not help people trying to build random packages they picked up, but if you work on a large project in a workgroup environment, all of these tools:
within the last month I set up a RAID5 system after a nasty disk crash.
I know I still need to do backups, but I needed lots of space anyway.
I went with:
3ware 9500S-8 8 port SATA RAID controller $485
5 250GB Maxtor Maxline Plus-II drives $195 each
Supermicro 742T 7-bay SATA hotswap server case $330
The drives are in a 4 drive array with one drive as a hot spare.
About $1800 total, which includes the server case--pretty steep for ~700GB usable space, but I now have:
expandability to at least 7 hot swap drives
a hot spare
a dual xeon capable case with a 550W supply
plenty of airflow
online capacity expansion (3ware says available this summer)
Yes, it is still a personal server, but we keep a lot of video on it as part of my DVArchive setup to support my ReplayTVs. I installed Fedora Core 2 on it right after Core 2 was released.
Now, when I need to store a few hundred more hours of video, I can just throw 2 more Maxline Plus-II drives at it to get up to ~1.2TB--leaving final cost at under $2/GB, including the computer case, power supply and hotswap bays.
provantage.com has the 4 port 3ware 9000 card for about $320, I think.
-se
You know, what really perturbs me is that now we're hearing that all the oil is going to be running out soon. If this is the case, then doesn't it make sense to aggressively pursue alternative forms of energy, and do so now?
The problem is, 30 years ago we were told we had 30 years of oil reserves left--now, we have >50 years of reserves, and yet we use much more oil now than then.
Certainly oil will run out eventually, but at it gets more scarce, prices will rise, and demand will fall, mostly due to alternative sources of energy being used. Let the market work.
This is all Paul Erlich vs. Julian Simon-type stuff (from nationalcenter.org):
Perhaps Ehrlich's best known blunder is a 1980 bet he made with University of Maryland economist Julian Simon. Dr. Simon, who believes that human ingenuity holds the answers to population growth problems, asserted that if Ehrlich were correct and the world truly was heading toward an era of scarcity, then the price of various commodities would rise over time. Simon predicted that prices would fall instead and challenged Ehrlich to pick any commodity and any future date to illustrate his point. Ehrlich accepted the challenge: In October 1980, he purchased $1,000 worth of five metals ($200 each) -- tin, tungsten, copper, nickel and chrome. Ehrlich bet that if the combined value of all five metals he purchased was higher in 1990, Simon would have to pay him the difference. If the prices turned out to be lower, Ehrlich would pay Simon the difference. Ten years later, Ehrlich sent Simon a check for $576 -- all five metals had fallen in price.
Generally, you can only collect your actual damages*, which presumably you can collect just by returning the product (with no restocking fee or shipping costs). In practice, if you wanted to sue, you might have to sue the retailer, since the only direct dealing you had was with the retailer.
*Certain states may have more of a pro-consumer bias that allows you to choose whether you want your money back, or to compel them to provide the service that you bought.
"There seems to be a general consensus that people shouldn't be allowed to own something that makes it easy for them to kill more than n people in a row. Right now, n is generally agreed to be about 1, although the difficulty in killing that 1 person is pretty low"
You are right. Please surrender your automobiles, after all, "the ability to kill people with them is just too high".
Guns, like cars, are TOOLS. Both can kill multiple innocents, as well as stupid users with ease.
We have laws that say that you aren't supposed to kill people, whether you use a gun, a car, a sword, or golf club. Why should we have laws that prevent people from being able to defend themselves?
Believe me, if someone wants to kill you, there are countless tools they could use, but a gun is one of the easiest to use as defense/deterrrent.
Now, what exactly does this have to do with the DMCA? beats the heck out of me.
The XT was still an 8088-based (or was it 8086??) machine, you are thinking of the AT (presumably Advanced Technology??).
I believe the XT's claim to fame was the addition of harddrive storage (as well as more memory supported on the motherboard)
The point really should have been that just because I _might_ break the law (or violate the copyright, or whatever) doesn't mean that I should be prevented from a legal action because it could lead to lawbreaking (or copying for fair use).
Depending on your definition of currency, that is not strictly correct. It was added to paper money in the 1950's, for no doubt essentially the same reasons as 'under god' was put into the Pledge of Allegiance.
However, I hold in my greedy little fingers a collection of coins from the early 1900's that all contain 'In God We Trust'--apparently, it has been a part of US coinage since the ~1890's.
I'm reluctant to call myself an atheist, and have recently become enamored of self-identifying as a 'heathen', but I think there are plenty of things that the court could better spend its time on than this.
I'm not particularly fond of 'under god' or 'in god we trust', but as long as we deliver them as an opiate to the masses, we _won't_ have pinheads in the senate calling for constitutional amendments authorizing the pledge (yes, I'm talking to you Senator Lieberman).
Also, despite their Biblical linkage, I'm rather fond of the 10 commandments--the last thing I want to see is a bunch of religious nuts coveting my wife (or stealing my stuff, or offing me). But seriously, for the most part the commandments are good rules to live by (at least numbers 4-10, the first 3 pretty much only have value to the believers in the 'Almighty').
I believe the correct terminology is "reverse defenestration", which as far as I know was coined by the beautiful people at brouhaha.com (though they are just as likely to credit someone else, instead).
Slashdot Mirror
It was 640KB of memory, and it is likely an urban legend that he ever actually said it.
Back to the original subject:
I believe that voters _should_ be informed in order to vote, but would not argue for any restriction requiring them to be informed--due to the almost certainty of abuse. Consequently, I do not think that people should be blindly encouraged to vote. Uninformed voters are too easy to manipulate.
I'll not be voting for either GWB or JFK, but I will be voting Libertarian, because I strongly support the platform--despite the fact that Badnarik has essentially no chance of winning. I'd rather not have my vote diluted by a popularity contest amongst people who don't really care who wins.
If I couldn't find a candidate I felt I could support, I'd leave the position blank, but I'd still show up and vote--because I believe it is important, not because someone told me it is.
-se
Quoting me: But the current system is better: rather than a nationwide hunt for hanging chad while leaving out: , the 2000 election only resulted in such nonsense in Florida
The current system is better than a nationwide hunt for hanging chad. Do you know anyone that has advocated such a system? Me neither.
Did not the 2000 election in Florida result in a statewide hunt for hanging chad? It seems that you are advocating applying this nationally.
-se
But the current system is better: rather than a nationwide hunt for hanging chad, the 2000 election only resulted in such nonsense in Florida. I believe that the Electoral College system tends to make very close elections (in electoral votes) less common, which to me is a very good thing--we don't need Florida 2000 to happen again every time the electorate is almost evenly divided.
Realistically, it is better to let the popular vote 'loser' win by the already agreed to rules than to have a revolution in the event of a near-tie, and I say that without regard to who winds up in the oval office--as bad as Florida 2000 was, it could have been far worse.
-se
At $100/sh, google's market cap is over $25Billion, according to my broker (etrade, if it matters). The fact that well over 60% of the stock is held by insiders, means that google is almost certainly one of the things that microsoft can't buy.
Also, with this technique, Google gets a _lot_ more money--to their credit (well, actually it is also in their best interest), they did leave enough money on the table so that people would want to bid for the auction.
I had used clonecd in the past, had uninstalled it 2 years ago, and Doom 3 refused to install, claiming that it couldn't read the cd until after I regedited away the lingering registry entries from clonecd.
Completely bogus, especially because clonecd was not installed anymore, and I've never used it to make an unauthorized copy of anything (I use it so I don't have to expose irreplaceable game cds to my 4 and 1 year olds. They're bad enough on my disks, you wouldn't believe how many children's game cds and DVDs they've nearly destroyed (most can be fixed with a DVD doctor).
I had long ago switched to using Alcohol (even kids game cds now feature the most sophisticated protection methods)--and I promptly unloaded it and disabled the virtual drive it offered, but Doom III still insisted it couldn't read the CD until after I scanned my registry for clonecd-related entries.
I briefly considered returning Doom III, but my desire for virtual blood and gore exceeded my indignation at being labeled a pirate by id.
If you have common filesystems (not necessarily even mounted in the same place, though this requires some unattractive transformation rules in the nc config file), and a synchronized clock (anyone heard of ntp?), nc will either definitely be faster than distcc, or will bring your NFS server to its knees (occasionally both).
I personally liked working with NetApp support explaining how 1 user doing 1 make could swamp a NetApp F840 (pushing about 1.6Gbit/sec over load balanced gig links to a cluster of 10 4-processor ultrasparcs). Our build, which would normally take ~1.5 hours (with -j4 on one machine) could finish in only about 12 minutes with nc.
When used across a workgroup, with distributed ccache, CCACHE_HARDLINK, scons and content signatures, it still rocks with a much more lame fileserver (it spreads the ccache jobs over the cluster, and most writes are just creating hardlinks on the server).
This may not help people trying to build random packages they picked up, but if you work on a large project in a workgroup environment, all of these tools:
- ccache
- scons
- distcc
- nc
deserve a close look.-se
(My apologies for the shameless self-promotion)
- 3ware 9500S-8 8 port SATA RAID controller $485
- 5 250GB Maxtor Maxline Plus-II drives $195 each
- Supermicro 742T 7-bay SATA hotswap server case $330
The drives are in a 4 drive array with one drive as a hot spare. About $1800 total, which includes the server case--pretty steep for ~700GB usable space, but I now have:- expandability to at least 7 hot swap drives
- a hot spare
- a dual xeon capable case with a 550W supply
- plenty of airflow
- online capacity expansion (3ware says available this summer)
Yes, it is still a personal server, but we keep a lot of video on it as part of my DVArchive setup to support my ReplayTVs. I installed Fedora Core 2 on it right after Core 2 was released.Now, when I need to store a few hundred more hours of video, I can just throw 2 more Maxline Plus-II drives at it to get up to ~1.2TB--leaving final cost at under $2/GB, including the computer case, power supply and hotswap bays.
provantage.com has the 4 port 3ware 9000 card for about $320, I think. -se
The problem is, 30 years ago we were told we had 30 years of oil reserves left--now, we have >50 years of reserves, and yet we use much more oil now than then.
Certainly oil will run out eventually, but at it gets more scarce, prices will rise, and demand will fall, mostly due to alternative sources of energy being used. Let the market work.
This is all Paul Erlich vs. Julian Simon-type stuff (from nationalcenter.org):
Generally, you can only collect your actual damages*, which presumably you can collect just by returning the product (with no restocking fee or shipping costs). In practice, if you wanted to sue, you might have to sue the retailer, since the only direct dealing you had was with the retailer. *Certain states may have more of a pro-consumer bias that allows you to choose whether you want your money back, or to compel them to provide the service that you bought.
"There seems to be a general consensus that people shouldn't be allowed to own something that makes it easy for them to kill more than n people in a row. Right now, n is generally agreed to be about 1, although the difficulty in killing that 1 person is pretty low"
You are right. Please surrender your automobiles, after all, "the ability to kill people with them is just too high".
Guns, like cars, are TOOLS. Both can kill multiple innocents, as well as stupid users with ease.
We have laws that say that you aren't supposed to kill people, whether you use a gun, a car, a sword, or golf club. Why should we have laws that prevent people from being able to defend themselves?
Believe me, if someone wants to kill you, there are countless tools they could use, but a gun is one of the easiest to use as defense/deterrrent.
Now, what exactly does this have to do with the DMCA? beats the heck out of me.
The XT was still an 8088-based (or was it 8086??) machine, you are thinking of the AT (presumably Advanced Technology??). I believe the XT's claim to fame was the addition of harddrive storage (as well as more memory supported on the motherboard)
The point really should have been that just because I _might_ break the law (or violate the copyright, or whatever) doesn't mean that I should be prevented from a legal action because it could lead to lawbreaking (or copying for fair use).
However, I hold in my greedy little fingers a collection of coins from the early 1900's that all contain 'In God We Trust'--apparently, it has been a part of US coinage since the ~1890's.
I'm reluctant to call myself an atheist, and have recently become enamored of self-identifying as a 'heathen', but I think there are plenty of things that the court could better spend its time on than this.
I'm not particularly fond of 'under god' or 'in god we trust', but as long as we deliver them as an opiate to the masses, we _won't_ have pinheads in the senate calling for constitutional amendments authorizing the pledge (yes, I'm talking to you Senator Lieberman).
Also, despite their Biblical linkage, I'm rather fond of the 10 commandments--the last thing I want to see is a bunch of religious nuts coveting my wife (or stealing my stuff, or offing me). But seriously, for the most part the commandments are good rules to live by (at least numbers 4-10, the first 3 pretty much only have value to the believers in the 'Almighty').
I believe the correct terminology is "reverse defenestration", which as far as I know was coined by the beautiful people at brouhaha.com (though they are just as likely to credit someone else, instead).