just get the source. it compiles fine. I put it in/usr/local/bin while OSX puts their version in/usr/bin. other than that, most OSS packages should compile with minor tweaks. even the latest python conpiles perfectly. again, I put the latest version in/usr/local/bin so that OSX's default is not touched. some OSS apps come compiled into OS X bundles like gimp-app. sure it's more work, but it's not impossible. for what it's worth, Apple knows that it's bread and butter is not with FOSS, but that all the *nix and FOSS are simply a value added for those in the know. plus, it gives them a great platform to sell for web development, with apache, etc., already built in. it would be nice if Apple was more OSS friendly, but it serves them very little. they've been less than helpful and open with the core OS and perhaps that is the reason opendarwin is closing. Apple has alot of license issues and many things, like wireless, won't work with darwin alone. so, to get a truly working system, you need OS X, not just darwin.
there was a time when granny had her retirement in IBM stocks and counted on her quarterly dividend. you could buy from brokerage houses but way back when, then stock market was very different. there are many differences, in fact there's books about it, but things like companies buying their own stocks for the 401k's, the stocks being used at assets, paying CEO's in stocks, stuff like that. think about that for a moment: a stock price is based supposedly on a company's profitability. but...let's just say that the stock is used as an asset, and the company buys its own stocks to invest for its employees. thus its assets increase and its profitacbility increases. hmmm...something smells rotten in denmark...on paper the company is doing well, but what makes a company profitabl is its stock price, not the other way around. it can manipulate the stock price by simply buying more. oh, and here's the kicker: they can buy their stock from themselves, taking the capital gain as a profit. and we wonder how the enrons and adelphias and such ever came to be. best part of all? the fed would come down the chimney with loads of cash and easy credit. talk about enabling!!!
and for those with a partisan swing to them, this was mostly began in the 1990's. now, it was truly a bipartisan affair, congress had their hand in the mess. it's just that some people tend to see it as one sided, when it's most definitely not.
the stock market, since the 1990's at last, has been more about stock supply/demand rather than actually company performance. for far too long stocks were manipulated by companies who used them in 401k packages, stock options, etc. this is a problem with the market and the rules (SEC) and the nature of the stock market today. too many day traders amd individual investors are entering the market and since companies are not required to disperse dividends as they once were, stocks are now a modern form of keno rather than actual investment in a company.
I program mostly with java and python, and php for web sites. I'll probably agree(though I can't actually verify it myself) that C/C++ programs will run faster. However...I can accomplish alot more in a much shorter amount of time, and do so much safer in java. Java's object serialization, I/O, and networking for example make so many projects much faster and easier. Sure, they don't run as fast as a native program, but that's not the point. There are tradeoffs to any language/platform one chooses.
Re:This is why I don't use GIMP
on
Beginning GIMP
·
· Score: 1
it's worth $600 when you need professional color matching. it isn't about UI's at all. the only user interface that's "intuitive" is a breast (or a tit, see previous comments!!) and that is good when you're 6mos old. after that, you learn how to use everything. what is intuitive about anything really? all user interfaces are based on a standard. why are the new/open/save etc icons on the top left? is that really the bestplace for them? and why is the start button in the bottom left? OS X puts the close/minimize/etc. buttons on the top left, winders on the top right. why the diff? everything is learned, be it UI's or even keyboards. it's simpl a matter of knowledge, reptition, and understanding. it makes no sense to someone who has no computer experience to "minimize" or "close" a window, double click an icon, drag the mouse, etc. do it enough times and it becomes intuitive. what matters is how fast you can learn to do what you need to do. and there a UI is not as important. PS has the tools, though oddly placed I think. but my wife, who is a professional photographer and needs PS, does some amazing things in PS. she learned how, that's all.
gimp is an excellent tool, especially when used in tandem with inkscape. there is very little that gimp can't do for most non-professionals and even most pros alike. for non-pros, it will handle every photo problem, while not handling colors well enough for pros is a killer for it. however, for web development, used intandem with inkscape, it is an awesome tool. my wife, who is a professional photographer and needs photoshop, is asked all the time about using it. if you aren't a photographer, photoshop will be of little help to you. and neither will gimp for that matter. photoshop can't help you take better pictures, nor will it magically turn you into a good photographer. and she can't really explain how, or why, to do x, y, or z, if you don't understand photography. (i don't.) but I can use gimp and inkscape for web design. i think the real push should be after web software like fireworks. there, gimp/inkscape can do everything and alot more. perhaps that is free software's biggest problem, that there are many good products, but nothing commerically packaged into a suite. i mean, wouldn't a gimp/inkscape/quanta+ suite be a killer design suite? I think so.
I'll take that as a compliment. There is nothing wrong with being libertarian. In fact, it is far better than those around here who cry about freedom and lost privacy and liberty, than support statist policies which deprive one of all sense of liberty and privacy. You want state-run health care: fine. I've no problem with that position, except don't complain when the gov't asks you about (and perhaps penalizes you for) smloking, drugs, sex, etc. And want to save the trees: fine. I've no problem with that either. Except be ready to accept higher costs of housing, gas, living, etc. Want to enforce your social values on schools: fine. I've no problem with that either, just don't complain when people who don't think like you try to do the same exact thing. You're not right, and they're not wrong. You both want the same things. You want to use the gov't to enact your particualr agenda, it's not right vs. left, it's the same just with different outcomes. I prefer something else altogether. I prefer not having the government intervene, period. That's where you and I differ. Personally, I'd vote againt same-sex marriage, but I'd much prefer a ballot measure or a law that approves it than a judge that denies it. And no, there is nothing inconsistent in being libertarian and exacting some control over what contracts a society chooses to hold as legal and binding. I at least don't want to enforce my particular values on history, but rather would examine the past and not worry about feelings. The truth, they say, is a bitch. Am I proud of slavery. Absolutely not. It was the greatest crime in our history, and ending it our greatest moral triumph. But, we sent half a million to die to do so, and doesnt't that deserve some accolade? We sent half a million men to die so that Europe and Asia could breathe free, spent billions in reconstruction, and asked for nothing in return. Doesn't that merit the moral high ground when you compare to the post WW2 Soviet Union in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary?
It is not fair to impose one's views of homosexuality on society at large, and certainly schools are not the place to do so. As for the terrorist comment, are we seriously to acknowledge that the mysoginistic, anti-semetic, theorcratic regimes and those with the desires are somehow equivalent to our free, open, tolerant, and liberal cultures and societies. A true multi-culturalist would have to accept when a _____________ (take your pick) student from a land where women are property says that "I can't have a female/Jewish/Christian/etc. teacher" because it conflicts with my "culture". Umm...I'll take the alternative: "we don't do that here. Here, we respect all peoples and you will do it our way. Thank you very much." but then again, I'm just a white male, so I am evil!!!
NCLB is a disaster because you have the federal government running what it is a state function. Where does the federal gov't have any right to do anything about education? Not in the Constitution.
Socialism = state run. Our public schools are. Monopoly = one firm. Our public schools are. (Yes, private schools are competition, but taxpayers still pay for them.) Unions have nothing to do with either. Although they have leaned for some reason towards socialist policies, but that's another issue...
Perhaps you are not familiar with the California political system. No unions don't directly write the budget, but they give millions to pols who do, and they wield enormous, did I say enormous, did I say enormous, influence over the budget process and the people who do. That's as close as you can get.
I don't know that the auto workers' unions argue about car models, MPG, or air bags. The teacher unions wield influence, did I say enormous, ditto, over that as well. Sure my perspective is only California, but California is unique in that it sets the standards, so to speak, and leads the agenda for the rest of public educaiton in the country. It's not law, just de facto the way things are. Most textbooks are written for California first, as we're the largest market. Then they're adapted, er modified, to meet other states' needs. That's one example. There are many others.
Teacher wages and quality are tied directly to the lack of any free market structure.
Too bad you missed out on English history. Not only is it terribly interesting and exciting, (better than any novel that's for sure) but it's really hard to explain how a bunch of crazed colonists thought it okay to remove a potentate and limit his power if you don't know about the English Civil War or Glorious Revolution. Just another notch on the failure of our schools post.
as for mentioning one's sexuality, seriously, what role does it have unless it has a role? As I mentioned with Chuck I, it did. But it could easily have been his wife, as in Marie Antionette, an Austrian who influenced her childish husband Louis XVI. And history should never about helping people "feel pride" in themselves. Nothing more clearly illustrates that than the complete hijacking of the mythical Aztlan. The Aztecs were a racist, sexist, enslaving, hegemonic, imperialistic, violent, theocratic regime, no different than the Spanish. Except...except that doesn't make some groups "feel good", so we lie about them. Did you nkow Cortez had help from the local populations? Did you know Cortez was wanted for treason by the Spanish? Did you know he was pursued by the Governor of Cuba, Narvaez?
Nothing of his "accomplishments" are ever discussed. Not that he was a "good guy", but he, nor the Spanish, did anything the Aztecs didn't also do. And, imagine this: Cortez sent word back to Spain about the riches. Spanish merchants set up a trade outpost in Veracruz. They risked capital on the venture. Cortez organized and led one fo the most seuccessful expeditions in military history. He built new boats out of materials he found. And he did all this in a hostile and foreign environment. What one should compare is the contrasting cultures.
While in the 1500's, European ships would land repeatedly on the coasts of the New World, there was never a possibility that New World ships would ever land on Iberia. Why? Difference in cultures. The conquest of the New World was a triumph of culture as much as anything. While a politically incorrect statement, it is an accurate historical analysis. Sad but true. Capitalism, rational inquiry, and individualism, the products of western culture were triumphant. Note, this is not a judgement about which one is "better", but rather which one is more successful in achieving progress, success, and domination. It is as true today. What societies are more prosperous today? The free, tolerant, liberal democratic, capitalist, individualistic ones. Which ones do people flock t
influential in no ways implies positive. I'm of the Friedman/Hayek/Marshall school (my BA was in Econ) by the way. I don't agree with the Keynesian school at all, and in fact, Keynes got everything wrong about the depression as historical research has shown. It was a failure of the banking system, the gold standard, monetary policy, price deflation, and trade protection that sent us into depression. But, again, he's as influential as any economist in the 20th century.
it's a lonely world we're living in!!! In my government classes I confess to being a hypocritical libertarian. See, I have three small children, and sometimes, as much as I don't care if or what someone wants to snort, smoke, shoot, or screw, I fear for my kids health, safety, and well being. Libertarianism works best in an educated society, one where people are willing to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. We don't. So it pains me my hypocrisy. But at least I'm honest about it!!
if you privatized the schools and they were actually, you know, accountable, then there wouldn't be a "need" for unions. The "right to work" teachers suffer from the worst of two evils: socialism and monopolies. The state runs the schools and has a monopoly on them. So, yes, they're screwed. I'm not anti-union at all. As for the CTA (California), for instance, they are ever working for increasing taxes and lowering the bond threshhold. I'm a home owner, when you lower the bond threshhold, it simply raises my property taxes. Hell, it's hard enough to buy a home in Cali without assessing even more property taxes. And, as for the unions, they work to define the standards, the curriculum, and infest (right word) the teacher colleges. Their reach is far and wide. And it's not just in California.
As for portrayal of gays, it doesn't matter at all of a "portryal". Here's two examples: Charles I and John Maynard Keyens. The former was influenced by his gay lover and made bad decisions from raising excessive taxes on the nobility and even the poor, to sending his troops overseas to help his brother-in-law (or cousin, it might be) regain the Palatinate. This eventually led to the English Civil War and his beheading. The latter was perhaps the most influential economist of the 20th century, and gay. The former it matters only as much as history is concerned, but it would certainly cast a negative light on gays. The latter it matters not one iota, but might cast a positive light on gays. So, do we exclude Chuck (where it matters) and include JMK where it doesn't? If it matters to Chuck and we exclude, we rewrite history, include and offend. If we include for JMK, it is trivialized, paternalizing, and egregious, if we exclude, we can concentrate on what is truly important. You decide...
wish I had mod points. of course around here this gets modded flamebait, but you are 110% correct. I am a high school history teacher and am thoroughly disgusted with the treatment history gets in our textbooks. It is sanitized, whitewashed, and outright rewritten. Dianne Ravitch (hardly a right-wing ideologue) wrote a great piece a while ago titled: PC textbooks full of skewed history which details the way California (where I teach) purposefully uses history for every reason other than to teach about the past.
Public schools have failed precisely because they are not doing precisely what it is they are required to do. There are many solutions, not the least of which is to eliminate teacher unions (of which I am a member) completely. I can think of no greater conflict of interest than unions lobbying the state on educational issues. There is no concern for educational quality only what is in the teachers' best interests. In fact, I believe that public employees shouldn't be allowed to strike. This is hardly an anti-labor/anti-union position, as public employees (police, fire, teachers) a) chose their profession b) have job security and c) serve vital roles which the market cannot remedy. Unlike say an auto manufacturer who has competitors, is accountable to shareholders, and has to actually market and sell a product, you have no real choice when you dial 911 or send your child to school.
The unions have been infiltrated with very left-wing ideologues and it has permeated every sector of education. Now, before people get upset, just think about those places where "intelligent design" has been adopted into the cuuriculum. Many want that no more than others want Heather has two mommies but it is exactly the same prinicple. I've always believed that privatization of schools is the ultimate answer. In fact, government should stay out of the schools, marriage, business, the internet, etc.
the first gulf war never "ended", only reached a cessation of ground operations. we continued to patrol the no fly zone (an act of war, or continuation of one), bombed Iraq on several occasions (again, an act of war), had the UN impose sanctions (again, an act of war or at least belligerence), and militarily enforced said sanctions (an act of war). It doesn't matter the intensity, but the fact is that we never ceased hostile operations against Iraq/Saddam. The war never actually ended, as Saddam was supposed to uphold hi send of the bargain and he didn't. Whether the finality was right, will work, or could have been done differently, we'll never know. It is accurate to say that the war against Iraq (or Saddam if one prefers) has been continual since 1991. Any other is purely ignorance or denial of the facts. Again, whether OIF and the aftermath were right, wrong, somewhere in between is wholly separate from the actual situation which was one of anything but peace.
The point is that we have no sense of history. For us being in a war, the government has actually done very little. In fact, everything has been detailed to members of congress from both parties. The NY Times feels free to disclose national secrets without fear of reprisal. Most people claim that privacy has been eroded, but really? Look at the tax code for instance. Hell, the feds know damn near everything about us from the tax forms. House, kids, jobs, income, spending, etc. We have no privacy anymore, and we've given the government the ability to gleen anything it wants about anyone. It's no longer "privacy", but now how, when, or why, the information is used.
we're in a war folks. i'm no apologist for the administration (hell, from spending to trade to immigration, they're killing us), but what he's doing, NSA wiretaps, financial snooping, gitmo, pales in comparison to lincoln (suspending habeas corpusm, imposing martial law, attacking democratic party meetings, arresting congressmen, imprisoning several thousand, shutting down newspapers, arresting editors), wilson (sedition act, arrests of dissenters), or FDR (interment, shooting spies on sight, massive censorship). those who scream we're living in a police state are clueless and worse, endangering our security. the bill of rights is not a suicide pact, nor are those rights absolutes. in Schenck and even in Roe, and in many other cases, the courts have ruled that there are no absolute rights, including privacy.
he's criticized for not "connecting the dots" before 9/11, then afterwards, criticized for trying to connect the dots. when a bomb goes off and kills several hundred, or thousand (like the plot just foiled on in NY), and if it could have been avoided by simple measures, there'll be hell to pay. if you want to confuse a war in iraq (which has been ongoing since 1991) with overall oposition to sane and reasonable measures to protect us, then accept the consequences. it's not some overused, and very misunderstood, franklin observation about security and freedom.
Around my school I get asked all kinds of questions. As I have used linux since '98 and OS X since 2002, and our windows machines at school are locked down, I honestly haven;t used windows since circa Win98. I know very little of XP at all. People assume that since I do alot of development that I'm some computer guru. They are most shocked that I honestly can't answer simple questions about windows. I usually explain that I don't have that problem in linux or OS X. I am polite, but sincere. I explain that what I need to do on a computer is much more difficult (LAMP, java, etc.), or impossible, on windows.
when you have the gov't throw around billions like candy at halloween, why are we surprised that people will do this kind of stuff? when are we gonna figure out that most scientists are spouting some BS either for corporate or gov't money. yes, some are hard at work, but the real money is in getting others to fund your work. global warming? sure. nope. need money to tell you!! abortion harms women? sure. nope. need money to tell you!! but this is true of almost all the federal gov't does. the gov't spends 2.8 trillion dollars, 95% of which is completely unconstitutional. that in itself is a crime. so when someone tries to skim a few mil for themselves...
my G4 ibook has had repeated problems with the trackpad. it went back two times and even thoguh I have a few months left on the extended warranty, i just use a usb mouse. in fact, the trackpad problem is exactly why I haven't bought a new MacBook. I am unsure whether I want to go through the hassles again. I am really pissed at apple, I expect to pay a little more, but I expect to get better quality hardware. hell, if I wanted a cheap Dell, I'd buy one and run ubuntu. this doesn't bode well for apple as they've had all these recent problems with the macbooks and MB pro's. I think I'll wait before I buy another apple.
Re:distro fragmentation
on
Ubuntu Hacks
·
· Score: 1
I think you're right, most differences are superficial. where httpd.conf is kept is hardly a matter. I would love to see a single linux, or all of *nix including my OS X, agree on a single location. but since the source compiles the same, i guess it doesn't matter that much. as long as distros stay source compatible, then it probably won't matter too much.
distro fragmentation
on
Ubuntu Hacks
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
shouldn't most distro hacks be more applicable to any distro, or has linux become too fragmented? every distro has different ways to handle packages, and ubuntu's (synaptic) is a good front end to apt-get. I really like it far better than the rpm methods. however, most "hacks", such as installing LAMP, tuning perforamnce, file sharing, etc., should be mostly the same for all linux distros. I liked the Knoppix hacks from a while ago which was cool in that you could do things like build your own specialty live CD. Things like that are truly hacks. Configuring X or getting DVD's to play in ubuntu are hardly hacks. Ubunut is a great distro and I use it now instead of Fedora or Mandr*.
After four hours of tweaking, our expert C++ programmer was finally able to write something that beat our ten lines of Python code that took under five minutes to write. And it didn't beat it by much, whereas the first pass at a C++ version was an order of magnitude slower.
Which is why languages like python were written in the first place. They pretty much just make the underlying C calls anyways, but do so in a way that handles buffer overflows, pointers, etc., that pretty much make C/C++ so troublesome, hazardous, and hard to learn. I like java (alot really), but nothing beats a good scirpting language, like perl or python, to handle tasks like text manipulation. Python is especially good at using libraries, such as the imaging library, which are written in C anyways. How much faster can you get calling a C library from C than from python? I honestly don't know, but I can't imagine it's that much more. But when you add in speed of development, safety, and even portability, it's powerful.
Python's OOP is also a feature that makes it far more attractive than perl for me. Perl does OOP, but it's not as clean as python's, and I don't think it supports all the OOP features either. Doing GUI's is not the strength of any scripting language, but it depends on what you need to do. You can write a native frontend and embed python into a C or even a java application.
or, you could have copied the executable to C:\windows and renamed it notepad.exe. it sucks that windows doesn't use symlinks though. would make it a whole lot easier. but then again, isn't that the point of windows, making what need to do impossible, everything you don't want to do easy.
what exactly is Sun's business model? java is free, their hardware is expensive, linux is also free, and thin clients are great but not what the market wants. are they a hardware company like apple, or a software company like microsoft? or are they a services company?
Slashdot Mirror
just get the source. it compiles fine. I put it in /usr/local/bin while OSX puts their version in /usr/bin. other than that, most OSS packages should compile with minor tweaks. even the latest python conpiles perfectly. again, I put the latest version in /usr/local/bin so that OSX's default is not touched. some OSS apps come compiled into OS X bundles like gimp-app. sure it's more work, but it's not impossible. for what it's worth, Apple knows that it's bread and butter is not with FOSS, but that all the *nix and FOSS are simply a value added for those in the know. plus, it gives them a great platform to sell for web development, with apache, etc., already built in. it would be nice if Apple was more OSS friendly, but it serves them very little. they've been less than helpful and open with the core OS and perhaps that is the reason opendarwin is closing. Apple has alot of license issues and many things, like wireless, won't work with darwin alone. so, to get a truly working system, you need OS X, not just darwin.
no, it means a lawsuit from SCO.
there was a time when granny had her retirement in IBM stocks and counted on her quarterly dividend. you could buy from brokerage houses but way back when, then stock market was very different. there are many differences, in fact there's books about it, but things like companies buying their own stocks for the 401k's, the stocks being used at assets, paying CEO's in stocks, stuff like that. think about that for a moment: a stock price is based supposedly on a company's profitability. but...let's just say that the stock is used as an asset, and the company buys its own stocks to invest for its employees. thus its assets increase and its profitacbility increases. hmmm...something smells rotten in denmark...on paper the company is doing well, but what makes a company profitabl is its stock price, not the other way around. it can manipulate the stock price by simply buying more. oh, and here's the kicker: they can buy their stock from themselves, taking the capital gain as a profit. and we wonder how the enrons and adelphias and such ever came to be. best part of all? the fed would come down the chimney with loads of cash and easy credit. talk about enabling!!!
and for those with a partisan swing to them, this was mostly began in the 1990's. now, it was truly a bipartisan affair, congress had their hand in the mess. it's just that some people tend to see it as one sided, when it's most definitely not.
the stock market, since the 1990's at last, has been more about stock supply/demand rather than actually company performance. for far too long stocks were manipulated by companies who used them in 401k packages, stock options, etc. this is a problem with the market and the rules (SEC) and the nature of the stock market today. too many day traders amd individual investors are entering the market and since companies are not required to disperse dividends as they once were, stocks are now a modern form of keno rather than actual investment in a company.
I program mostly with java and python, and php for web sites. I'll probably agree(though I can't actually verify it myself) that C/C++ programs will run faster. However...I can accomplish alot more in a much shorter amount of time, and do so much safer in java. Java's object serialization, I/O, and networking for example make so many projects much faster and easier. Sure, they don't run as fast as a native program, but that's not the point. There are tradeoffs to any language/platform one chooses.
it's worth $600 when you need professional color matching. it isn't about UI's at all. the only user interface that's "intuitive" is a breast (or a tit, see previous comments!!) and that is good when you're 6mos old. after that, you learn how to use everything. what is intuitive about anything really? all user interfaces are based on a standard. why are the new/open/save etc icons on the top left? is that really the bestplace for them? and why is the start button in the bottom left? OS X puts the close/minimize/etc. buttons on the top left, winders on the top right. why the diff? everything is learned, be it UI's or even keyboards. it's simpl a matter of knowledge, reptition, and understanding. it makes no sense to someone who has no computer experience to "minimize" or "close" a window, double click an icon, drag the mouse, etc. do it enough times and it becomes intuitive. what matters is how fast you can learn to do what you need to do. and there a UI is not as important. PS has the tools, though oddly placed I think. but my wife, who is a professional photographer and needs PS, does some amazing things in PS. she learned how, that's all.
gimp is an excellent tool, especially when used in tandem with inkscape. there is very little that gimp can't do for most non-professionals and even most pros alike. for non-pros, it will handle every photo problem, while not handling colors well enough for pros is a killer for it. however, for web development, used intandem with inkscape, it is an awesome tool. my wife, who is a professional photographer and needs photoshop, is asked all the time about using it. if you aren't a photographer, photoshop will be of little help to you. and neither will gimp for that matter. photoshop can't help you take better pictures, nor will it magically turn you into a good photographer. and she can't really explain how, or why, to do x, y, or z, if you don't understand photography. (i don't.) but I can use gimp and inkscape for web design. i think the real push should be after web software like fireworks. there, gimp/inkscape can do everything and alot more. perhaps that is free software's biggest problem, that there are many good products, but nothing commerically packaged into a suite. i mean, wouldn't a gimp/inkscape/quanta+ suite be a killer design suite? I think so.
Your truthiness is showing, libertarian.
I'll take that as a compliment. There is nothing wrong with being libertarian. In fact, it is far better than those around here who cry about freedom and lost privacy and liberty, than support statist policies which deprive one of all sense of liberty and privacy. You want state-run health care: fine. I've no problem with that position, except don't complain when the gov't asks you about (and perhaps penalizes you for) smloking, drugs, sex, etc. And want to save the trees: fine. I've no problem with that either. Except be ready to accept higher costs of housing, gas, living, etc. Want to enforce your social values on schools: fine. I've no problem with that either, just don't complain when people who don't think like you try to do the same exact thing. You're not right, and they're not wrong. You both want the same things. You want to use the gov't to enact your particualr agenda, it's not right vs. left, it's the same just with different outcomes. I prefer something else altogether. I prefer not having the government intervene, period. That's where you and I differ. Personally, I'd vote againt same-sex marriage, but I'd much prefer a ballot measure or a law that approves it than a judge that denies it. And no, there is nothing inconsistent in being libertarian and exacting some control over what contracts a society chooses to hold as legal and binding. I at least don't want to enforce my particular values on history, but rather would examine the past and not worry about feelings. The truth, they say, is a bitch. Am I proud of slavery. Absolutely not. It was the greatest crime in our history, and ending it our greatest moral triumph. But, we sent half a million to die to do so, and doesnt't that deserve some accolade? We sent half a million men to die so that Europe and Asia could breathe free, spent billions in reconstruction, and asked for nothing in return. Doesn't that merit the moral high ground when you compare to the post WW2 Soviet Union in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary?
It is not fair to impose one's views of homosexuality on society at large, and certainly schools are not the place to do so. As for the terrorist comment, are we seriously to acknowledge that the mysoginistic, anti-semetic, theorcratic regimes and those with the desires are somehow equivalent to our free, open, tolerant, and liberal cultures and societies. A true multi-culturalist would have to accept when a _____________ (take your pick) student from a land where women are property says that "I can't have a female/Jewish/Christian/etc. teacher" because it conflicts with my "culture". Umm...I'll take the alternative: "we don't do that here. Here, we respect all peoples and you will do it our way. Thank you very much." but then again, I'm just a white male, so I am evil!!!
NCLB is a disaster because you have the federal government running what it is a state function. Where does the federal gov't have any right to do anything about education? Not in the Constitution.
Socialism = state run. Our public schools are. Monopoly = one firm. Our public schools are. (Yes, private schools are competition, but taxpayers still pay for them.) Unions have nothing to do with either. Although they have leaned for some reason towards socialist policies, but that's another issue...
Perhaps you are not familiar with the California political system. No unions don't directly write the budget, but they give millions to pols who do, and they wield enormous, did I say enormous, did I say enormous, influence over the budget process and the people who do. That's as close as you can get.
I don't know that the auto workers' unions argue about car models, MPG, or air bags. The teacher unions wield influence, did I say enormous, ditto, over that as well. Sure my perspective is only California, but California is unique in that it sets the standards, so to speak, and leads the agenda for the rest of public educaiton in the country. It's not law, just de facto the way things are. Most textbooks are written for California first, as we're the largest market. Then they're adapted, er modified, to meet other states' needs. That's one example. There are many others.
Teacher wages and quality are tied directly to the lack of any free market structure.
Too bad you missed out on English history. Not only is it terribly interesting and exciting, (better than any novel that's for sure) but it's really hard to explain how a bunch of crazed colonists thought it okay to remove a potentate and limit his power if you don't know about the English Civil War or Glorious Revolution. Just another notch on the failure of our schools post.
as for mentioning one's sexuality, seriously, what role does it have unless it has a role? As I mentioned with Chuck I, it did. But it could easily have been his wife, as in Marie Antionette, an Austrian who influenced her childish husband Louis XVI. And history should never about helping people "feel pride" in themselves. Nothing more clearly illustrates that than the complete hijacking of the mythical Aztlan. The Aztecs were a racist, sexist, enslaving, hegemonic, imperialistic, violent, theocratic regime, no different than the Spanish. Except...except that doesn't make some groups "feel good", so we lie about them. Did you nkow Cortez had help from the local populations? Did you know Cortez was wanted for treason by the Spanish? Did you know he was pursued by the Governor of Cuba, Narvaez?
Nothing of his "accomplishments" are ever discussed. Not that he was a "good guy", but he, nor the Spanish, did anything the Aztecs didn't also do. And, imagine this: Cortez sent word back to Spain about the riches. Spanish merchants set up a trade outpost in Veracruz. They risked capital on the venture. Cortez organized and led one fo the most seuccessful expeditions in military history. He built new boats out of materials he found. And he did all this in a hostile and foreign environment. What one should compare is the contrasting cultures.
While in the 1500's, European ships would land repeatedly on the coasts of the New World, there was never a possibility that New World ships would ever land on Iberia. Why? Difference in cultures. The conquest of the New World was a triumph of culture as much as anything. While a politically incorrect statement, it is an accurate historical analysis. Sad but true. Capitalism, rational inquiry, and individualism, the products of western culture were triumphant. Note, this is not a judgement about which one is "better", but rather which one is more successful in achieving progress, success, and domination. It is as true today. What societies are more prosperous today? The free, tolerant, liberal democratic, capitalist, individualistic ones. Which ones do people flock t
influential in no ways implies positive. I'm of the Friedman/Hayek/Marshall school (my BA was in Econ) by the way. I don't agree with the Keynesian school at all, and in fact, Keynes got everything wrong about the depression as historical research has shown. It was a failure of the banking system, the gold standard, monetary policy, price deflation, and trade protection that sent us into depression. But, again, he's as influential as any economist in the 20th century.
p.s. MV really does equal PQ
it's a lonely world we're living in!!! In my government classes I confess to being a hypocritical libertarian. See, I have three small children, and sometimes, as much as I don't care if or what someone wants to snort, smoke, shoot, or screw, I fear for my kids health, safety, and well being. Libertarianism works best in an educated society, one where people are willing to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. We don't. So it pains me my hypocrisy. But at least I'm honest about it!!
if you privatized the schools and they were actually, you know, accountable, then there wouldn't be a "need" for unions. The "right to work" teachers suffer from the worst of two evils: socialism and monopolies. The state runs the schools and has a monopoly on them. So, yes, they're screwed. I'm not anti-union at all. As for the CTA (California), for instance, they are ever working for increasing taxes and lowering the bond threshhold. I'm a home owner, when you lower the bond threshhold, it simply raises my property taxes. Hell, it's hard enough to buy a home in Cali without assessing even more property taxes. And, as for the unions, they work to define the standards, the curriculum, and infest (right word) the teacher colleges. Their reach is far and wide. And it's not just in California.
As for portrayal of gays, it doesn't matter at all of a "portryal". Here's two examples: Charles I and John Maynard Keyens. The former was influenced by his gay lover and made bad decisions from raising excessive taxes on the nobility and even the poor, to sending his troops overseas to help his brother-in-law (or cousin, it might be) regain the Palatinate. This eventually led to the English Civil War and his beheading. The latter was perhaps the most influential economist of the 20th century, and gay. The former it matters only as much as history is concerned, but it would certainly cast a negative light on gays. The latter it matters not one iota, but might cast a positive light on gays. So, do we exclude Chuck (where it matters) and include JMK where it doesn't? If it matters to Chuck and we exclude, we rewrite history, include and offend. If we include for JMK, it is trivialized, paternalizing, and egregious, if we exclude, we can concentrate on what is truly important. You decide...
wish I had mod points. of course around here this gets modded flamebait, but you are 110% correct. I am a high school history teacher and am thoroughly disgusted with the treatment history gets in our textbooks. It is sanitized, whitewashed, and outright rewritten. Dianne Ravitch (hardly a right-wing ideologue) wrote a great piece a while ago titled: PC textbooks full of skewed history which details the way California (where I teach) purposefully uses history for every reason other than to teach about the past.
Public schools have failed precisely because they are not doing precisely what it is they are required to do. There are many solutions, not the least of which is to eliminate teacher unions (of which I am a member) completely. I can think of no greater conflict of interest than unions lobbying the state on educational issues. There is no concern for educational quality only what is in the teachers' best interests. In fact, I believe that public employees shouldn't be allowed to strike. This is hardly an anti-labor/anti-union position, as public employees (police, fire, teachers) a) chose their profession b) have job security and c) serve vital roles which the market cannot remedy. Unlike say an auto manufacturer who has competitors, is accountable to shareholders, and has to actually market and sell a product, you have no real choice when you dial 911 or send your child to school.
The unions have been infiltrated with very left-wing ideologues and it has permeated every sector of education. Now, before people get upset, just think about those places where "intelligent design" has been adopted into the cuuriculum. Many want that no more than others want Heather has two mommies but it is exactly the same prinicple. I've always believed that privatization of schools is the ultimate answer. In fact, government should stay out of the schools, marriage, business, the internet, etc.
the first gulf war never "ended", only reached a cessation of ground operations. we continued to patrol the no fly zone (an act of war, or continuation of one), bombed Iraq on several occasions (again, an act of war), had the UN impose sanctions (again, an act of war or at least belligerence), and militarily enforced said sanctions (an act of war). It doesn't matter the intensity, but the fact is that we never ceased hostile operations against Iraq/Saddam. The war never actually ended, as Saddam was supposed to uphold hi send of the bargain and he didn't. Whether the finality was right, will work, or could have been done differently, we'll never know. It is accurate to say that the war against Iraq (or Saddam if one prefers) has been continual since 1991. Any other is purely ignorance or denial of the facts. Again, whether OIF and the aftermath were right, wrong, somewhere in between is wholly separate from the actual situation which was one of anything but peace.
I suggest you read a bit more about the civil war.
The point is that we have no sense of history. For us being in a war, the government has actually done very little. In fact, everything has been detailed to members of congress from both parties. The NY Times feels free to disclose national secrets without fear of reprisal. Most people claim that privacy has been eroded, but really? Look at the tax code for instance. Hell, the feds know damn near everything about us from the tax forms. House, kids, jobs, income, spending, etc. We have no privacy anymore, and we've given the government the ability to gleen anything it wants about anyone. It's no longer "privacy", but now how, when, or why, the information is used.
we're in a war folks. i'm no apologist for the administration (hell, from spending to trade to immigration, they're killing us), but what he's doing, NSA wiretaps, financial snooping, gitmo, pales in comparison to lincoln (suspending habeas corpusm, imposing martial law, attacking democratic party meetings, arresting congressmen, imprisoning several thousand, shutting down newspapers, arresting editors), wilson (sedition act, arrests of dissenters), or FDR (interment, shooting spies on sight, massive censorship). those who scream we're living in a police state are clueless and worse, endangering our security. the bill of rights is not a suicide pact, nor are those rights absolutes. in Schenck and even in Roe, and in many other cases, the courts have ruled that there are no absolute rights, including privacy.
he's criticized for not "connecting the dots" before 9/11, then afterwards, criticized for trying to connect the dots. when a bomb goes off and kills several hundred, or thousand (like the plot just foiled on in NY), and if it could have been avoided by simple measures, there'll be hell to pay. if you want to confuse a war in iraq (which has been ongoing since 1991) with overall oposition to sane and reasonable measures to protect us, then accept the consequences. it's not some overused, and very misunderstood, franklin observation about security and freedom.
Around my school I get asked all kinds of questions. As I have used linux since '98 and OS X since 2002, and our windows machines at school are locked down, I honestly haven;t used windows since circa Win98. I know very little of XP at all. People assume that since I do alot of development that I'm some computer guru. They are most shocked that I honestly can't answer simple questions about windows. I usually explain that I don't have that problem in linux or OS X. I am polite, but sincere. I explain that what I need to do on a computer is much more difficult (LAMP, java, etc.), or impossible, on windows.
when you have the gov't throw around billions like candy at halloween, why are we surprised that people will do this kind of stuff? when are we gonna figure out that most scientists are spouting some BS either for corporate or gov't money. yes, some are hard at work, but the real money is in getting others to fund your work. global warming? sure. nope. need money to tell you!! abortion harms women? sure. nope. need money to tell you!! but this is true of almost all the federal gov't does. the gov't spends 2.8 trillion dollars, 95% of which is completely unconstitutional. that in itself is a crime. so when someone tries to skim a few mil for themselves...
my G4 ibook has had repeated problems with the trackpad. it went back two times and even thoguh I have a few months left on the extended warranty, i just use a usb mouse. in fact, the trackpad problem is exactly why I haven't bought a new MacBook. I am unsure whether I want to go through the hassles again. I am really pissed at apple, I expect to pay a little more, but I expect to get better quality hardware. hell, if I wanted a cheap Dell, I'd buy one and run ubuntu. this doesn't bode well for apple as they've had all these recent problems with the macbooks and MB pro's. I think I'll wait before I buy another apple.
I think you're right, most differences are superficial. where httpd.conf is kept is hardly a matter. I would love to see a single linux, or all of *nix including my OS X, agree on a single location. but since the source compiles the same, i guess it doesn't matter that much. as long as distros stay source compatible, then it probably won't matter too much.
shouldn't most distro hacks be more applicable to any distro, or has linux become too fragmented? every distro has different ways to handle packages, and ubuntu's (synaptic) is a good front end to apt-get. I really like it far better than the rpm methods. however, most "hacks", such as installing LAMP, tuning perforamnce, file sharing, etc., should be mostly the same for all linux distros. I liked the Knoppix hacks from a while ago which was cool in that you could do things like build your own specialty live CD. Things like that are truly hacks. Configuring X or getting DVD's to play in ubuntu are hardly hacks. Ubunut is a great distro and I use it now instead of Fedora or Mandr*.
After four hours of tweaking, our expert C++ programmer was finally able to write something that beat our ten lines of Python code that took under five minutes to write. And it didn't beat it by much, whereas the first pass at a C++ version was an order of magnitude slower.
Which is why languages like python were written in the first place. They pretty much just make the underlying C calls anyways, but do so in a way that handles buffer overflows, pointers, etc., that pretty much make C/C++ so troublesome, hazardous, and hard to learn. I like java (alot really), but nothing beats a good scirpting language, like perl or python, to handle tasks like text manipulation. Python is especially good at using libraries, such as the imaging library, which are written in C anyways. How much faster can you get calling a C library from C than from python? I honestly don't know, but I can't imagine it's that much more. But when you add in speed of development, safety, and even portability, it's powerful.
Python's OOP is also a feature that makes it far more attractive than perl for me. Perl does OOP, but it's not as clean as python's, and I don't think it supports all the OOP features either. Doing GUI's is not the strength of any scripting language, but it depends on what you need to do. You can write a native frontend and embed python into a C or even a java application.
or, you could have copied the executable to C:\windows and renamed it notepad.exe. it sucks that windows doesn't use symlinks though. would make it a whole lot easier. but then again, isn't that the point of windows, making what need to do impossible, everything you don't want to do easy.
what exactly is Sun's business model? java is free, their hardware is expensive, linux is also free, and thin clients are great but not what the market wants. are they a hardware company like apple, or a software company like microsoft? or are they a services company?