Yeehaw. Now I can make me a law that forbids non-incumbents from mentioning anything about their candidacy, since that ain't "political speech" and ain't protected. Now, bow down to me, campaign finance suckers!
Since Congress and the President can so easily pull out a hundred billion dollars to bomb the hell out of another country, I see no reason we can't come up with a whimpy $260 million for something as worthwhile as this.
I'm sorry, I don't get it. How does your proposal bomb anybody?
Are you suggesting we should bomb libraries?
I mean, I see libraries, I see money, but I'm missing the bombs.
Tell you what, rewrite your proposal with bombs and maybe some cool submunitions and make sure they're Furin libraries, and we'll talk.
That was tried with extremely mixed results by the International Telecommunications Union, an IGO (intergoverernmental oragnization) that pre-existed the UN. As far as a body for purely technical standardization, it had some success.
However, the Soviet Union saw it as a way to legitimize its and its client states' control over information (under an early version of anti-globalization) throughout the 70s. Instead of promoting local content, it propped up government control of telecommunications networks and helped insure that telephone growth in the Third World would not take off until the rise of the cell phone. (Canadian view here).
You can just imagine what influence China would have on the process if it were applied to the Internet.
That's just with a quick Google search, and the only reason I bothered is because I live in the DC area, where schools last year were increasing pay and offering signing bonuses in the VA suburbs of DC. DC itself has trouble holding on to teachers, but that's because it's a hellhole.
Table rendering, especially for long lists, is MUCH faster on Camino. I usually use Safari for blogging, due to its built-in spell checking, but if I need to mess with MT-Blacklist and its gigantotable of denial rules, I switch back to Camino.
So for day to day browsing, Camino is my default.
At work I use Firefox, mainly for its Web development features.
You're kidding, right? Those are junkets for people who have done yeoman's work for the party. But you won't find Karl Rove or Vernon Jordan among them. The power brokers are too busy to wear silly hats on a convention floor all day long.
I mean, given your statements about voting, you'd think you'd be sufficiently cynical, but I think you need to turn it up a notch.
Huh? This has everything to do with policy. Not so long ago the official policy was called "segregation" and those same nuts who have hard time gaining support today were considered "defenders of our way of life".
So we removed their support by changing the policy to re-institute slavery. By your original argument, that is the only way we could remove the support for those nut jobs. So that is what must have happened.
Oh wait, you mean we got even more liberal instead? But wouldn't that just inflame the local population? Wouldn't that drive the South into the arms of the terrorists?
Yes, I get my news exclusively from Tom Brokawstien. He and Peter Jenningsman tell me about the dirty Arabs during the Four Minute Hate. I have no choice but to watch them, as it is impossible to load BBC World News on my browser, which was designed to be pro-Jewish by Tim Berners-Leeman. Al Jazeera? Impossible to get at all! And my teacher, Mrs. MacDonaldstien, let me play during the Israel Is Always Right time every day and punished me by hitting me with the Palestinian Stick.
Must be nice to be the only one resistant to the mind control rays.
So do white supremacists in the ole good US of A and in Germany, Russia and you name it. The difference is that they have no base to stand on with the exception of a few nuts like themselves.
Thanks for making my point. Blacks are still citizens yet white supremacists don't do very well. So something other than policy is at work.
The groups now in charge in Israel are for the most part no different then the Skinheads running around Berlin. They consider themselves superior, God-chosen nation and everyone else their serfs or tools. USA included.
OK, you caught me. The Mossad paid me to write my post. I am a helpless slut-puppy for my Jewish masters. We will soon all be pressed into eating bagels with lox and cream cheese every morning. You have uncovered the Breakfast Plot.
If IBM transferred all but 400 jobs out of India and back to the US, do you think Slashdot would be talking about IBM's success in offshoring or their admission that it doesn't work?
Yes and no. Foreign policy contributes to the situation, no doubt. However it is naiive in the extreme to think that, as in the example I gave above, outlawing abortion in the US would have caused the religious nutso movement to stop recruiting Timothy McVeighs and Eric Rudolphs to do violent things. Sure, the public policy issue of evangelicals feeling like the whole government was "out to get them" was a factor, but hardly the sole determinant.
Al Quaeda does not recruit from reasoned foreign policy treatises. They recruit from videos filled with quotes from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, wild stories about how the Americans, led by their Jewish masters, are behind every evil to befall the region, etc. etc.
There is no short term solution. We can't make al Quaeda threat go away even if Kerry is elected and hangs Israel out to dry as a sacrificial goat (which he won't do, nor will he immediately pull out of Iraq). Even if the French take over security in Iraq and no US forces are in the region, the threat will still be there.
Would eliminating the Israeli/Palestinian issue help focus the debate in areas where the Islamicists have few, if any, useful answers or bits of propoganda? Sure. But don't expect that Al Qaeda or related groups will go away just because that issue is resolved...there are very few current issues in the Balkans, yet they kill each other really well over things that happened 500 years ago.
Except that all American military personnel left Saudi Arabia some time ago, but he didn't even call for a reduction in terrorism, let alone a halt, even temporary. Read a paper.
Look at yourself in the mirror, AC. By your logic, Eric Rudolph could have been appeased by a change in US abortion law. I doubt you campaigned for that. Yet you write as if this is simply some policy dispute. It's not.
Terrorists have many and complex motiviations, not "sole intentions". I think you'll find they have laundry lists of stuff they want to change after their current issue is resolved.
You don't have to pretend terrorists are misunderstood policy wonks in order to criticize US foreign policy.
Any Mac you bought 6 years ago will go on broadband just fine with the OS it shipped with and won't be a security risk. In fact, I use one that's even older (albeit with slightly more recent OS) as my router for my broadband connection (shhhh). It stays exposed to the world because it's not a multiuser OS and Apple didn't see fit to program in all the hooks for virus/spyware writers on it.
P'raps you should re-read my post. I'm saying that at worst, diversity of opinion is no worse than it was, and that's a dubious proposition. I don't care if Ted Turner says "no, it isn't."
I don't care who owns it--Fox owns the studio that turned out "Day After Tomorrow," which wasn't exactly on Bill O'Reilly's top ten list of movies for 2004. I care more whether you hear a spectrum of views. The point is that a) you get more news, and b) you get more opinion.
Now if you want to make the argument that it could be better than it is, then by all means do so. But to say that things were better when we only had 3 or 4 networks...I mean, really, you have to be under the age of 25 to make that argument with a straight face. Or maybe a Baby Boomer who just started watching TV three years ago. That could happen.
So what about the Internet, anyway? The networks didn't want to cover Monicagate...
Much simpler? It was in development for over ten years, and had loads of bureaucratic problems to overcome. Now if you want a new cable channel all you need is funding, and you'll be bought out for a nice profit if you're successful--and the content and format will usually remain consistent (because they're interested in profit more than control).
Sure, it's easier for a big media company to start a new channel--they can take advantage of economies of scale and previous investments--but it wasn't until media deregulation that they started doing so with any regularity.
When I was a kid, you got CBS, NBC, ABC, and PBS, plus a regional paper and your local paper, unless you lived in a really large city. Now any dork can get dozens of channels, subscribe to distant newspapers (including USA Today, which didn't even exist then) with timely delivery, and that doesn't even get to the Internet.
Really, go back and read old newspaper articles and op-ed pages. You want to talk about sameness of opinion and bland pablum, you really should go back and look at recent history. In broadcast, you got a half-hour of national news, a half-hour of local news, all presented at identical times with almost no variation among them. Then you got maybe one chat show and one local affairs show on Sunday morning, while you were at Church (and it was much more expected that you'd be at church back then).
Then there's this thing called the Internet, but I guess the media consolidation folks have never heard of it.
The proper reaction to this is "Great! Now XML requires us to define the scope and requirements of all pieces of our solution. But in return for the extra management burden, you get great power and flexibility, in addition to reduced development costs."
The fascination with XML will last for approximately 10 nanoseconds after that--or until you repeat yourself enough times that they believe you.
I just invent restrictions on technology all the time if it will either a) cause them to do their job in management or b) get me out of Stupid Half-Understoon Tech Fixation of the Week.
I think you can understand why longtime Microsoft watchers will be kind of unimpressed by this sort of thing. We've heard it before. Sure, this may be the time (pretty much the first) that MS actually does what it says to the level that reasonable people expect, but positive statements about Microsoft products have historically been in the future tense.
"Windows 3.0 will make the Mac look hard to use."
"Windows 94 will be modern and stable and make the Mac look hard to use."
"Windows 97 will be modern and stable and integrate the Internet, and it will be as easy to use as a Mac."
"NT will be stable and crashless."
"NT 3 will be stable and crashless."
"NT 5 will be stable, secure, and crashless, and will be as easy to use as a Mac."
"XP will be stable, secure, and as easy to use as a Mac."
Every time I hear "but this time, Microsoft will get X right," the consensus after it comes out that Microsoft got X about 50% or not at all, and there are really serious drawbacks.
It's not like Linux ("KDE/Gnome/Eazel's new release will be as easy to use as Windows" or "the new Debian/Red Hat/Mandrake will be as easy to install as Windows") or Apple ("Mac OS X will be a gamer's dream platform" or "Copland will be modern, stable, and crashless, and will actually ship" or "Security update 05-24-2004 fixes the URL vulnerability") are immune, but they do get to point out areas where they excel currently rather than continually point at the next release.
It may be that this time, Microsoft will Get It about security. But you'll forgive the rest of us if we don't get too excited until we actually see the things in operation.
It would be extremely difficult to tell, as movie (and recording) bookkeeping is an arcane cult that disguises all profits and usually reports a loss. I don't know the details of how they do it, but somehow they've managed to get away with what in most businesses would be called tax evasion and get you the perp walk, even under the Bush administration.
So we could see what reported net profits were, but it would be difficult in the extreme to figure out what the actual profitability is per film--except to look at it for the enterprise as a whole (or whichever reporting unit comes closest, if the studio reports earnings separate from the parent company). And even then you'd have to find a studio with an equivalent number of hits and as few misses, and that would be hard indeed to find.
True, but you're going to get a lot of false positives.
Consider that they host with one company and have a dynamic app that sends confirmation or other e-mails (through a confirmed opt-in system, of course). That system has the FROM: set to some address of the organization, not the Web host, so they can get replies. The Web host only hosts their Web site, but the MX is pointing to another system entirely that handles their internal mail. The two won't match, and you'll throw the message away. Very annoying when you wanted to get the link to download that document on the impact of AIDS on the economy of Liberia--or your pr0n.
Slashdot Mirror
The French are leading the charge with Corot in 2008. ...and leading the retreat if space Germans are found instead of space frogs.
Yeehaw. Now I can make me a law that forbids non-incumbents from mentioning anything about their candidacy, since that ain't "political speech" and ain't protected. Now, bow down to me, campaign finance suckers!
-GWB
Since Congress and the President can so easily pull out a hundred billion dollars to bomb the hell out of another country, I see no reason we can't come up with a whimpy $260 million for something as worthwhile as this.
I'm sorry, I don't get it. How does your proposal bomb anybody?
Are you suggesting we should bomb libraries?
I mean, I see libraries, I see money, but I'm missing the bombs.
Tell you what, rewrite your proposal with bombs and maybe some cool submunitions and make sure they're Furin libraries, and we'll talk.
That was tried with extremely mixed results by the International Telecommunications Union, an IGO (intergoverernmental oragnization) that pre-existed the UN. As far as a body for purely technical standardization, it had some success.
However, the Soviet Union saw it as a way to legitimize its and its client states' control over information (under an early version of anti-globalization) throughout the 70s. Instead of promoting local content, it propped up government control of telecommunications networks and helped insure that telephone growth in the Third World would not take off until the rise of the cell phone. (Canadian view here).
You can just imagine what influence China would have on the process if it were applied to the Internet.
Seems to depend on what you're teaching, and where:
Shortage areas by skill and geography and year
NEA has a whole section on shortage
Article for administrators on the shortage and need to attract teachers
Same source, saying how some disagree in view of low pay, but some districts are increasing pay
State of FL forgiving student loans for 04-05 for education students
more on where and in what areas teachers are needed
That's just with a quick Google search, and the only reason I bothered is because I live in the DC area, where schools last year were increasing pay and offering signing bonuses in the VA suburbs of DC. DC itself has trouble holding on to teachers, but that's because it's a hellhole.
Table rendering, especially for long lists, is MUCH faster on Camino. I usually use Safari for blogging, due to its built-in spell checking, but if I need to mess with MT-Blacklist and its gigantotable of denial rules, I switch back to Camino.
So for day to day browsing, Camino is my default.
At work I use Firefox, mainly for its Web development features.
You're kidding, right? Those are junkets for people who have done yeoman's work for the party. But you won't find Karl Rove or Vernon Jordan among them. The power brokers are too busy to wear silly hats on a convention floor all day long.
I mean, given your statements about voting, you'd think you'd be sufficiently cynical, but I think you need to turn it up a notch.
Huh? This has everything to do with policy. Not so long ago the official policy was called "segregation" and those same nuts who have hard time gaining support today were considered "defenders of our way of life".
So we removed their support by changing the policy to re-institute slavery. By your original argument, that is the only way we could remove the support for those nut jobs. So that is what must have happened.
Oh wait, you mean we got even more liberal instead? But wouldn't that just inflame the local population? Wouldn't that drive the South into the arms of the terrorists?
Yes, I get my news exclusively from Tom Brokawstien. He and Peter Jenningsman tell me about the dirty Arabs during the Four Minute Hate. I have no choice but to watch them, as it is impossible to load BBC World News on my browser, which was designed to be pro-Jewish by Tim Berners-Leeman. Al Jazeera? Impossible to get at all! And my teacher, Mrs. MacDonaldstien, let me play during the Israel Is Always Right time every day and punished me by hitting me with the Palestinian Stick.
Must be nice to be the only one resistant to the mind control rays.
So do white supremacists in the ole good US of A and in Germany, Russia and you name it. The difference is that they have no base to stand on with the exception of a few nuts like themselves.
Thanks for making my point. Blacks are still citizens yet white supremacists don't do very well. So something other than policy is at work.
The groups now in charge in Israel are for the most part no different then the Skinheads running around Berlin. They consider themselves superior, God-chosen nation and everyone else their serfs or tools. USA included.
OK, you caught me. The Mossad paid me to write my post. I am a helpless slut-puppy for my Jewish masters. We will soon all be pressed into eating bagels with lox and cream cheese every morning. You have uncovered the Breakfast Plot.
OK, "all but 400 or so".
If IBM transferred all but 400 jobs out of India and back to the US, do you think Slashdot would be talking about IBM's success in offshoring or their admission that it doesn't work?
Yes and no. Foreign policy contributes to the situation, no doubt. However it is naiive in the extreme to think that, as in the example I gave above, outlawing abortion in the US would have caused the religious nutso movement to stop recruiting Timothy McVeighs and Eric Rudolphs to do violent things. Sure, the public policy issue of evangelicals feeling like the whole government was "out to get them" was a factor, but hardly the sole determinant.
Al Quaeda does not recruit from reasoned foreign policy treatises. They recruit from videos filled with quotes from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, wild stories about how the Americans, led by their Jewish masters, are behind every evil to befall the region, etc. etc.
There is no short term solution. We can't make al Quaeda threat go away even if Kerry is elected and hangs Israel out to dry as a sacrificial goat (which he won't do, nor will he immediately pull out of Iraq). Even if the French take over security in Iraq and no US forces are in the region, the threat will still be there.
Would eliminating the Israeli/Palestinian issue help focus the debate in areas where the Islamicists have few, if any, useful answers or bits of propoganda? Sure. But don't expect that Al Qaeda or related groups will go away just because that issue is resolved...there are very few current issues in the Balkans, yet they kill each other really well over things that happened 500 years ago.
Except that all American military personnel left Saudi Arabia some time ago, but he didn't even call for a reduction in terrorism, let alone a halt, even temporary. Read a paper.
Look at yourself in the mirror, AC. By your logic, Eric Rudolph could have been appeased by a change in US abortion law. I doubt you campaigned for that. Yet you write as if this is simply some policy dispute. It's not.
Terrorists have many and complex motiviations, not "sole intentions". I think you'll find they have laundry lists of stuff they want to change after their current issue is resolved.
You don't have to pretend terrorists are misunderstood policy wonks in order to criticize US foreign policy.
Any Mac you bought 6 years ago will go on broadband just fine with the OS it shipped with and won't be a security risk. In fact, I use one that's even older (albeit with slightly more recent OS) as my router for my broadband connection (shhhh). It stays exposed to the world because it's not a multiuser OS and Apple didn't see fit to program in all the hooks for virus/spyware writers on it.
P'raps you should re-read my post. I'm saying that at worst, diversity of opinion is no worse than it was, and that's a dubious proposition. I don't care if Ted Turner says "no, it isn't."
I don't care who owns it--Fox owns the studio that turned out "Day After Tomorrow," which wasn't exactly on Bill O'Reilly's top ten list of movies for 2004. I care more whether you hear a spectrum of views. The point is that a) you get more news, and b) you get more opinion.
Now if you want to make the argument that it could be better than it is, then by all means do so. But to say that things were better when we only had 3 or 4 networks...I mean, really, you have to be under the age of 25 to make that argument with a straight face. Or maybe a Baby Boomer who just started watching TV three years ago. That could happen.
So what about the Internet, anyway? The networks didn't want to cover Monicagate...
Much simpler? It was in development for over ten years, and had loads of bureaucratic problems to overcome. Now if you want a new cable channel all you need is funding, and you'll be bought out for a nice profit if you're successful--and the content and format will usually remain consistent (because they're interested in profit more than control).
Sure, it's easier for a big media company to start a new channel--they can take advantage of economies of scale and previous investments--but it wasn't until media deregulation that they started doing so with any regularity.
When I was a kid, you got CBS, NBC, ABC, and PBS, plus a regional paper and your local paper, unless you lived in a really large city. Now any dork can get dozens of channels, subscribe to distant newspapers (including USA Today, which didn't even exist then) with timely delivery, and that doesn't even get to the Internet.
Really, go back and read old newspaper articles and op-ed pages. You want to talk about sameness of opinion and bland pablum, you really should go back and look at recent history. In broadcast, you got a half-hour of national news, a half-hour of local news, all presented at identical times with almost no variation among them. Then you got maybe one chat show and one local affairs show on Sunday morning, while you were at Church (and it was much more expected that you'd be at church back then).
Then there's this thing called the Internet, but I guess the media consolidation folks have never heard of it.
Even if that weren't a crap argument, which it is, that's no reason not to switch.
John Gruber effectively demolished that claim in this post.
Depends on the byte-order--Big Endian or Little Endian?
Yeah, but imagine Star Wars without whiny Anakin, and suddenly it doesn't seem so bad. Take out Jar-jar and you might have a good movie.
The proper reaction to this is "Great! Now XML requires us to define the scope and requirements of all pieces of our solution. But in return for the extra management burden, you get great power and flexibility, in addition to reduced development costs."
The fascination with XML will last for approximately 10 nanoseconds after that--or until you repeat yourself enough times that they believe you.
I just invent restrictions on technology all the time if it will either a) cause them to do their job in management or b) get me out of Stupid Half-Understoon Tech Fixation of the Week.
anyone that speaks out about the government is branded a radical, an extremist
Yeah, but that was true under Clinton, too. Just the opposite people making the treason/hitler comparisons.
XPSP2 assuming it ever comes out
MSSQL 2005 security will probably be very good
I think you can understand why longtime Microsoft watchers will be kind of unimpressed by this sort of thing. We've heard it before. Sure, this may be the time (pretty much the first) that MS actually does what it says to the level that reasonable people expect, but positive statements about Microsoft products have historically been in the future tense.
"Windows 3.0 will make the Mac look hard to use."
"Windows 94 will be modern and stable and make the Mac look hard to use."
"Windows 97 will be modern and stable and integrate the Internet, and it will be as easy to use as a Mac."
"NT will be stable and crashless."
"NT 3 will be stable and crashless."
"NT 5 will be stable, secure, and crashless, and will be as easy to use as a Mac."
"XP will be stable, secure, and as easy to use as a Mac."
Every time I hear "but this time, Microsoft will get X right," the consensus after it comes out that Microsoft got X about 50% or not at all, and there are really serious drawbacks.
It's not like Linux ("KDE/Gnome/Eazel's new release will be as easy to use as Windows" or "the new Debian/Red Hat/Mandrake will be as easy to install as Windows") or Apple ("Mac OS X will be a gamer's dream platform" or "Copland will be modern, stable, and crashless, and will actually ship" or "Security update 05-24-2004 fixes the URL vulnerability") are immune, but they do get to point out areas where they excel currently rather than continually point at the next release.
It may be that this time, Microsoft will Get It about security. But you'll forgive the rest of us if we don't get too excited until we actually see the things in operation.
It would be extremely difficult to tell, as movie (and recording) bookkeeping is an arcane cult that disguises all profits and usually reports a loss. I don't know the details of how they do it, but somehow they've managed to get away with what in most businesses would be called tax evasion and get you the perp walk, even under the Bush administration.
So we could see what reported net profits were, but it would be difficult in the extreme to figure out what the actual profitability is per film--except to look at it for the enterprise as a whole (or whichever reporting unit comes closest, if the studio reports earnings separate from the parent company). And even then you'd have to find a studio with an equivalent number of hits and as few misses, and that would be hard indeed to find.
True, but you're going to get a lot of false positives.
Consider that they host with one company and have a dynamic app that sends confirmation or other e-mails (through a confirmed opt-in system, of course). That system has the FROM: set to some address of the organization, not the Web host, so they can get replies. The Web host only hosts their Web site, but the MX is pointing to another system entirely that handles their internal mail. The two won't match, and you'll throw the message away. Very annoying when you wanted to get the link to download that document on the impact of AIDS on the economy of Liberia--or your pr0n.
I have an anniversary of May 9...Maybe they didn't start feeding workunits until the 17th?
Anyone who can't understand a triple - a subject, verb, and object - probably failed second grade english.
You haven't read much on the Internet before, have you?