Re:Yes, but measuring webserver market share is ha
on
2003: Year of Apache
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Shouldn't these issues remain fairly constant? Maybe it's tricky to count market share in absolute terms, but the trend-line should be pretty accurate.
That's the way old-school blue collar unions operate, but it doesn't have to be that way. The only thing a union does is give its members collective bargaining power, which can be used any way they want.
I'm a liberal. I dislike Bush and have opposed the war from the start. That said, I still think Saddam was a bastard and it's good news that he was captured, and will be brought to justice. A quick check of the blogosphere shows my lefty fellow-travellers in agreement.
I recall Black Isle releasing a buggy and unusable Fallout 2 (it was a great game a few months later when patches came out but on release it was crap). I don't think excessive QA was their problem.
Here is the real data. You might notice that Federal Debt increased every year under Bill Clinton. So much for that "budget surplus" he bragged about.
Interesting. I suppose the government cooks the books just like private sector businesses (and Clinton was certainly not above misleading the public). But even the statistics you cite don't look good for Bush. From 1994 to 2000, according to your link, the debt increased by about a trillion dollars. From 2001 - 2003, the debt increased by about a trillion dollars. Statistics showing Bush getting us in the hole roughly 3 times as fast don't really help the Republicans.
Oh, and Public Debt as a percentage of GDP has actually declined from 33.6% to 32.7% under George W. Bush.
This is just misleading and wrong. Let me quote the whole paragraph from the link you posted:
The deficit will increase outstanding debt held by the public from an estimated $3.5 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2002 to an estimated $3.6 trillion in 2003, but measured as a percentage of GDP, debt will actually decline from 33.6 percent of GDP to 32.7 percent of GDP.
Gross debt, on the other hand, whether measured in absolute terms or as a percentage of GDP, will be increasing this year and beyond.
Specifically, due to increased intragovernmental debt, the President's budget calls for an increase in gross debt from an estimated $6.1 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2002 to $6.5 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2003.
And what's worse, these are projected numbers from Feb. 2002. The actual public debt in October 2003 is $6.8 trillion.
I'd say this administration has the fiscal responsibility of drunken sailors, but that would be an insult to drunken sailors.
A problem with these machines is that there's no way to prove, one way or another, whether these stories are true or not. You could be right. It could all be a bunch of paranoid horseshit. If there were a voter verified paper trail, we could count that and show once and for all that the elections were legit. As it is, there will always be that shadow of doubt hanging over the legitimacy of the winners. That's reason enough NOT to use these machines. Participatory democracy is all about making people feel that they have a voice in government. Elections with shady circumstances undermines that.
I don't know what planet you're from, but here on Earth Bush inherited a large budget surplus which he has managed, quite spectacularly, to turn into a record deficit.
Check this graph out when the little green men let you come back. If you're interested in looking at some actual facts, that is.
Anti-trust threat? As long as the Republicans are in power, MS (and other big businesses) will get to do whatever they want. And they might well be in power for a long time.
I wouldn't bank on the government saving the Mono project.
This article is about a government possibly switching to linux; all of that crap will be taken care of by the geeks. For normal people with normal needs and a properly configured system, there's a very short learning curve. "This is Mozilla. It's your web browser. This is OpenOffice. That's your office suite. Enjoy." It's really just not that big of a deal. I've had several non-technical people use my system without a problem.
They do pay people to hang around blogs and talk about the virtues of windows.
I came across a post on a blog in whichthis guy admitted that he was paid by MS to surf weblogs and post stuff in favor of MS. So there are probably some on/. too.
With the states in financial crises, and the schools unable to afford to be open for the whole school year or to give students bus rides and other basics, do you really think paying for MS Office is worth the money?
Anybody who learns OO.o could pick up MS Office in about 3 minutes. Schools should spend the money on something more important.
Look, it's just not true that government doesn't influence the unemployment rate. In general, the Federal Reserve sets employment. They have a target rate, around 5%, which they consider the "natural" rate of unemployment (the lowest rate at which inflation is not a problem). They adjust interest rates accordingly, up as unemployment gets too low, and down as unemployment gets too high. That is the main tool the government uses to control unemployment.
here is an article that explains it better than I could. Econ 101 stuff.
And deficits definitely do affect unemployment - they create jobs, at least in the short run. Here's an article which explains how, in a concise, readable way, if anyone is interested. The bottom line is that deficits are good during a recession (to be paid off later, when the economy improves). Even Bush calls his deficit spending a jobs package. Unfortunately, tax cuts for the rich give the least jobs per dollar of any form of deficit.
The problem now is that the Fed has lowered interest rates about as low as they can go, and the job market is still sluggish. It's true that Clinton never had to deal with that, but that doesn't excuse Bush for failing to create jobs with his bogus "stimulus" package.
f you still want to bicker about the "open-source = good, admirable", then you have two problems. (A) you are convinced that CCAGW is anti open-source, which they aren't
(B) You are using a red herring to get out of a losing argument
My argument, regarding your statement, was simply that you were rude and snide to the OP, and accused him of not Reading TFA, when you're attributing to it things it did not say (showing that you either didn't R or understand TFA). It had nothing to do with
It could well be that I'm wrong that they meant Linux when they talked about a "state-imposed monopoly on software", but I find it hard to imagine what else they were talking about. Open source software in general?
And I never said CCAGW was anti-open source. You're good at reading things into other peoples' words.
Here's the sum-up of the press release for those of you who still refuse to RTFA:
Open-source software = good, admirable
First of all, maybe you need to RTFA yourself, or else improve your reading comprehension skills. Nowhere does the FA say that "Open-source software = good, admirable." And they call Linux a monopoly in the same sentence that you quoted. Linux is not a monopoly, it is free software which can be sold by anybody, and is being sold by many companies. MS could roll their own distro and sell it. That's the opposite of a monopoly.
,
1. Novak looks into "yellow-cake" incident.
2. Novak wonders why a Clinton-appointee was sent on a highly sensitive mission.
3. Novak contacts Wilson and asks him why he was chosen.
4. Wilson says he was sent because of the influence of his wife - who is a WMD expert analyst for the CIA.
This is from Talking Points Memo:
Bob Novak is is now saying that his source says that Valerie Plame was an "analyst" and not an "operative" at the CIA. Joe Wilson remembers their conversation in July a bit differently.
According to what Wilson told TPM early Monday evening, when Novak first contacted him in July, he told him that he had a CIA source that told him that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a "CIA operative."
Would Wilson confirm it?
Wilson declined to discuss the matter, as Novak's original article made clear.
When Novak's article appeared, it sourced the story to "two senior administration officials."
5. Novak - now knowing that the wife is an employee of the CIA contacts administration officals to verify Wilsons story.
6. Administration officals believing that Novak already knew that the wife was a CIA Agent (he did) and that she was "covered" as part of another government agency (he didn't know that yet) confirmed Wilson's story that he was sent to Niger due to the influence of his wife - a long time CIA employee.
Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."
Novak is a lying sack of shit. He's trying to cover his ass, which is to be expected given the scandal that has erupted.
As for jobs, no, the president does not determine the unemployment rate. But he can influence it. I don't want to go into too much detail, but sometimes aggregate demand needs a boost, which government can provide by either directly creating jobs (like the WPA in the 1930's or the military buildup in the 1940s and again in the 1980s, all of which substantially reduced unemployment) or by getting money into the hands of people who will spend it. This would mean normal people, not the ultra-rich who benefit from Bush's tax cut ($400 checks notwithstanding).
The most striking example of government reducing unemployment was in Nazi Germany. When Hitler took over in 1933, unemployment was around %40 percent, under a laissez faire government. 3 years later, it was essentially nothing. (disclaimer - Hitler was a bad, bad man, not someone to be emulated. But it proves the point that government is not helpless).
5 things Clinton did right: Acted sane and responsible (economically), didn't screw things up. He opened up more free trade and balanced the budget. Mainly, he stayed out of the way and American business created the jobs. He was lucky to be president in the 1990s, when unemployment was not a problem. (if Bush had been president in the '90s he may have been adequate, but that really doesn't matter)
5 things Bush did wrong: Cut taxes on the rich instead of implementing a real stimulus package. Raised tariffs on steel, which only hurts our industries which *buy* steel. Brought back deficits as far as the eye can see. Failed to go after his buddies who rip off investors (think Enron), which frays the social contract necessary for people to do business.
Ok, that's only 4, but I have to go now. The first one is the really important one, and should be enough anyway. With a proper stimulus package, the recovery would probably be over and the economy would be back on track after what was really a relatively mild recession.
I agree, and I can see why he's unemployed. Why would any company want a to hire high maintenance anti-capitalist whiner like that guy? His views kind of clash with want businesses need. He blames capitalism from idealogical viewpoints, and yet wants no-nosense business to glady hire him with a healthy salary.
What do his views on capitalism have to do with his ability in a tech job? Or any job, except for Economics professor? They must have a different interview process where you come from, because I've never once been asked my opinion on capitalism in a job interview.
We're hemorrhaging 400k jobs a month,
No, not exactly. The most recent month statistics shows a net loss of 93,000 jobs. Check it out yourself here.
We "only" lost 93,000 jobs? Great, let's give the president a medal. We've actually lost around 400K jobs this year, which is about a million jobs short of the 500k+ jobs the president said would be created.
top administration officials are leaking the names of covert CIA agents
One agent is in question...(blah blah blah) Additionally, before Novak broke the story it was common knowledge that Plame worked for the CIA. Read Novak's defense of the situation and you'll probably change your mind on the situation.
Oh, please. Of course Novak is going to try to minimize the fact the he outed an undercover agent. If it's no big deal, then why is the CIA going after the administration?
Here's a quote from a former CIA analyst (and registered Republican) on PBS's newshour
Let's be very clear about what happened. This is not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's out them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.
I've always wondered why teachers don't "open source" some text books....
It almost seemed as if they were colluding with the publishers.
I think you've answered your own question. I took a class in high school, then again in college 2 years later that used the same book. There was a different edition out by then, but it was indistinguishable from the earlier one except for the cover art.
It makes sense. If you've got an audience that's forced to buy your book, why wouldn't you make the old one obsolete as soon as possible and force those students to buy new ones? I mean, if you're a greedy asshole, that is.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't these issues remain fairly constant? Maybe it's tricky to count market share in absolute terms, but the trend-line should be pretty accurate.
No, but it'll sure address the problem that some people would electronically steal elections if given half a chance.
Note that this article is about scanning tunneling microscopy, not electron microscopy.
That's the way old-school blue collar unions operate, but it doesn't have to be that way. The only thing a union does is give its members collective bargaining power, which can be used any way they want.
Move on, no Saddam sympathizers to see here.
I recall Black Isle releasing a buggy and unusable Fallout 2 (it was a great game a few months later when patches came out but on release it was crap). I don't think excessive QA was their problem.
I'd say this administration has the fiscal responsibility of drunken sailors, but that would be an insult to drunken sailors.
A problem with these machines is that there's no way to prove, one way or another, whether these stories are true or not. You could be right. It could all be a bunch of paranoid horseshit. If there were a voter verified paper trail, we could count that and show once and for all that the elections were legit. As it is, there will always be that shadow of doubt hanging over the legitimacy of the winners. That's reason enough NOT to use these machines. Participatory democracy is all about making people feel that they have a voice in government. Elections with shady circumstances undermines that.
Check this graph out when the little green men let you come back. If you're interested in looking at some actual facts, that is.
Umm.. Warren Harding?
I wouldn't bank on the government saving the Mono project.
10 PRINT "FUCK"
20 GOTO 10
Best done on a display computer at a retail store.
Yeah, I had a C64.This article is about a government possibly switching to linux; all of that crap will be taken care of by the geeks. For normal people with normal needs and a properly configured system, there's a very short learning curve. "This is Mozilla. It's your web browser. This is OpenOffice. That's your office suite. Enjoy." It's really just not that big of a deal. I've had several non-technical people use my system without a problem.
I did too, and it crashed. (Mozilla 1.4, Linux).
I came across a post on a blog in whichthis guy admitted that he was paid by MS to surf weblogs and post stuff in favor of MS. So there are probably some on /. too.
Anybody who learns OO.o could pick up MS Office in about 3 minutes. Schools should spend the money on something more important.
AGGHH!! That's the second time today I've seen that gaping red hole!
here is an article that explains it better than I could. Econ 101 stuff.
And deficits definitely do affect unemployment - they create jobs, at least in the short run. Here's an article which explains how, in a concise, readable way, if anyone is interested. The bottom line is that deficits are good during a recession (to be paid off later, when the economy improves). Even Bush calls his deficit spending a jobs package. Unfortunately, tax cuts for the rich give the least jobs per dollar of any form of deficit.
The problem now is that the Fed has lowered interest rates about as low as they can go, and the job market is still sluggish. It's true that Clinton never had to deal with that, but that doesn't excuse Bush for failing to create jobs with his bogus "stimulus" package.
It could well be that I'm wrong that they meant Linux when they talked about a "state-imposed monopoly on software", but I find it hard to imagine what else they were talking about. Open source software in general?
And I never said CCAGW was anti-open source. You're good at reading things into other peoples' words.
As for jobs, no, the president does not determine the unemployment rate. But he can influence it. I don't want to go into too much detail, but sometimes aggregate demand needs a boost, which government can provide by either directly creating jobs (like the WPA in the 1930's or the military buildup in the 1940s and again in the 1980s, all of which substantially reduced unemployment) or by getting money into the hands of people who will spend it. This would mean normal people, not the ultra-rich who benefit from Bush's tax cut ($400 checks notwithstanding).
The most striking example of government reducing unemployment was in Nazi Germany. When Hitler took over in 1933, unemployment was around %40 percent, under a laissez faire government. 3 years later, it was essentially nothing. (disclaimer - Hitler was a bad, bad man, not someone to be emulated. But it proves the point that government is not helpless).
5 things Clinton did right: Acted sane and responsible (economically), didn't screw things up. He opened up more free trade and balanced the budget. Mainly, he stayed out of the way and American business created the jobs. He was lucky to be president in the 1990s, when unemployment was not a problem. (if Bush had been president in the '90s he may have been adequate, but that really doesn't matter)
5 things Bush did wrong: Cut taxes on the rich instead of implementing a real stimulus package. Raised tariffs on steel, which only hurts our industries which *buy* steel. Brought back deficits as far as the eye can see. Failed to go after his buddies who rip off investors (think Enron), which frays the social contract necessary for people to do business.
Ok, that's only 4, but I have to go now. The first one is the really important one, and should be enough anyway. With a proper stimulus package, the recovery would probably be over and the economy would be back on track after what was really a relatively mild recession.
Here's a quote from a former CIA analyst (and registered Republican) on PBS's newshour
Is this as true in the 3rd world as it is here in the US?
It makes sense. If you've got an audience that's forced to buy your book, why wouldn't you make the old one obsolete as soon as possible and force those students to buy new ones? I mean, if you're a greedy asshole, that is.