Indeed, the Register is often editorial. I have no problem with that. I do think that the article I linked to was an excellent representation of my opinion on the matter. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
As for the EULA term in question, I didn't take Thomas Greene's word for it. When my work computer prompted me to install SP3, I read it for myself, and decided right then it was not acceptable to me. Not just because of Microsoft's track record of trust, although it was important. But frankly, I wouldn't sign over the rights to my computer to anyone less trustworthy than my own mother.
This means if you make $57,000 as a household, and neither you or your wife pays taxes, but because you are MARRIED and have CHILDREN, suddenly you deserve extra money?
It's rather funny you should use that as an example.
First of all, when you cross into $57,000 territory, your tax rate skyrockets.
Second, when you file married, you pay what's affectionately known as the "marriage penalty" -- your standard deduction is less than if you were unmarried and filing separately. Unless, of course, you've collected enough itemized deductions to break the standard cap, mostly in the form of donations -- you know, where your money does good, but it doesn't do it against your will by force of law.
The tax cuts benefit you if you pay taxes, unless there was a tax increase that I was not aware of.
If you pay x number of dollars in taxes, and x is decreased (which it was, by the cutting of the income tax rate -- unless x is already 0), you will have paid less. I don't see how it could be any more straightforward.
The link provided was not to show liberal bias, but rather a reason for liberal bias. I apologize if it was unclear.
If you look back to when the CPB's funding was up for renewal, it was Republicans who were largely opposed to it. Democrats backed it. But note I said "largely". You cannot jump from "Republican-controlled Congress" to "everything Congress passes is heartily endorsed by conservatives". A measure is still voted up or down by a majority, and a handful of Republicans can back a Democratic measure to get it passed.
You're entirely ignoring the point that you can't refund something someone didn't pay in the first place. How can you have "refunds all around" on something that wasn't paid in the first place? Come on, that's simple arithmetic!
I just double-checked with a friend of mine who makes $28K, married, two kids. He got all but $10 of his taxes back, before even his taxes were cut! He's outside of the bracket we're talking about here, and he would only qualify for $10 in any kind of tax refund, no matter how you sliced it.
This entire argument for giving those who don't pay taxes this ethereal "refund" is simply to create another government entitlement, to make people more dependent on government. No thank you.
The party in power has now purchased 24/7 favorable media coverage in the upcoming election
Yeah, because, umm, there was that fine print at the end that said ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN weren't allowed to broadcast anymore.
(Note that I filled in the blanks in your statement to mean omnipresent 24x7 coverage, and not just 24x7 coverage by itself. Let's face it -- it's not exactly expensive to get favorable coverage 24x7 from a single source.)
Of course, your point of view is the reference. I'll be sure to remember that in the future.
FWIW, NPR has good reason to be liberal-biased. They depend on liberal-minded people for their funding. If they didn't, I imagine they could actually be independent. I could certainly tolerate and support their right to hold whatever viewpoint they wanted if it wasn't my money, taken by law and backed by force, that supported them.
Actually, it would amuse me to see what would happen if NPR's editorial bias went to the right. Would the Democrats be fully behind renewing the CPB's grants in future years?
$10-25k/year people do pay taxes, genius. It's people who make less than $10k that don't.
And then they get all or most of it back when credits, etc. when they actually fill out their returns. Withholding != taxes; it's just a bad estimate. If I were a member of the tinfoil hat brigade, I'd suggest that withholding is calculated to pay out large refunds at the end of the year to make people think they're "getting something".
(Oh, I'd better head this off now. No, a tax cut is not the government "giving" something to me. It's the government requiring less of me. I understand that fully, so you don't need to try to go down that road.)
But I guess a household with 1 kid making $85,000 a year needs that extra $400 (plus the amount from lowering tax rates) more than someone scraping by with $20,000, huh?
Why should they get a tax cut from money they didn't pay in the first place?
Your Robin Hood-ism disturbs me, as someone who thinks he can do a lot better with his money than any government ever could.
Was there ANYONE that thought that massive tax cuts for the rich were a good idea besides the peeps at the top who stand to get more money?
I don't think "massive tax cuts for the rich" are a good idea. Thankfully, that's not what's happening.
What is happening is across-the-board cuts, which helps out my single-income family, and provided Congress has the balls to keep them going, they'll continue to help me out. Oddly enough, the people that don't benefit tax cuts -- the oft-quoted $10,000-$25,000 bracket -- don't even pay taxes now. Imagine that!
The tax cuts just passed are going to help everyone who pays taxes.
What is really needed from Microsoft is flat-out redesign, and that means breaking a few eggshells.
The most telling bit from this article: "...the majority of viruses written attack Microsoft products..." Yes, it is certainly true that some of them exploit real bugs, but the majority of viruses target Microsoft software design, not buffer overflows.
I'm willing to bet the code audit team members don't have redesign authority; nor should they. Hopefully, they do have easy access to people who can make the design decisions and can raise issues quickly. Necessary design changes are going to break things.
You can audit the code all day and all night and you will end up with a more secure product in the end. But to solve the real problems with Microsoft security, the product needs to be designed with that security in mind.
It's not fake. It's real. And I used to use Windows, about six months ago. As far as your definition of "BSOD" goes, it was blue, and it signified that Windows was essentially dead in the water. If you've never seen it, you're quite a lucky person.
Last night, I saw "Boies' Take" on Forbes, in which litigator-to-the-stars David Boies (who is SCO's "hired gun", as the article puts it, in this non-case) tries to make himself and SCO out to be innocent, bewildered, almost childlike in their incomprehension as to why everyone hates him. For what it's worth, I don't think Boies nor SCO expected this backlash.
So, this brings us back to Microsoft's donation (umm, I mean, license, yeah) to SCO. Turn it on its head for a moment. What if Microsoft realized all along Boies (who was up against them in the antitrust case) was going to be tied to these SCO shenanigans, and they figured this would be a great two-for-one hit -- serve that pesky Linux a smackdown, but also give Boies some bad press as revenge?
Or people who just plain don't need what Windows offers. I'm quite comfortable with a mix of Linux and OpenBSD myself, and I don't think that makes me an idiot or a zealot.
It is true that I quit Gentoo, oh, it seems like a year ago now but is probably less; things may have changed for the better since. But I really never saw the benefit of recompiling. It meant my system wasn't available for "real work", even if I niced emerge out of existence. I never would have dreamed of running it on my legacy hardware.
And when it broke -- oh, boy, did it break. I believe I went through the install three times before I gave up for good. Thankfully, I had stage3, I think it was, ready to go. If I'd had to rebuild the system entirely each time, I would have given up after the first try, I think.
I think Debian's quality control is (was?) higher, and you can't beat the comparatively instant gratification. And I think it bears mentioning that I've never been afraid of installing an official package "just to try it out". Gentoo made me afraid of this. Seeing what Gentoo was doing, and having worked on OpenBSD ports for a few years and gaining an acute awareness for just how much a source install can fubarify your system did this to me.
Turn on the faucet and wait for it to fill. Normally this would be a short process, except your water is distilled-on-demand. (You like your water as pure as possible.)
Wait some more.
Still waiting. Take the dog for a walk.
Wait wait wait. Need some sleep, or else you'll sleep through your morning commute tomorrow.
Whoops! You fell asleep, and your pitcher overflowed. You must start over. So, start over.
Twiddle thumbs.
Pitcher falls over due to a freak gust of wind through the open window in your kitchen, and shatters. Sigh, find new pitcher, star over.
(More waiting steps, which I'll spare you.)
Ah, it's done! Brag to all your friends that you have the purest koolaid in town.
Drink the koolaid.
Discover you need new koolaid in order to continue drinking it. Go to step 1.
You can't, but the telco can. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be required to give you that information. At one point, before I started insisting on DNCs and saw the dropoff, I actually opened a case with the cops and had traces on my line -- of course, I got a form letter from the telco saying they couldn't "find enough information to generate a complaint". BS.
Re:Useful for Remote Server Administration
on
Who Needs XFree86?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Sounds like you really want screen. (Yes, it does split screen.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, the Register is often editorial. I have no problem with that. I do think that the article I linked to was an excellent representation of my opinion on the matter. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
As for the EULA term in question, I didn't take Thomas Greene's word for it. When my work computer prompted me to install SP3, I read it for myself, and decided right then it was not acceptable to me. Not just because of Microsoft's track record of trust, although it was important. But frankly, I wouldn't sign over the rights to my computer to anyone less trustworthy than my own mother.
You have a choice today. But you may not in the future.
It's rather funny you should use that as an example.
First of all, when you cross into $57,000 territory, your tax rate skyrockets.
Second, when you file married, you pay what's affectionately known as the "marriage penalty" -- your standard deduction is less than if you were unmarried and filing separately. Unless, of course, you've collected enough itemized deductions to break the standard cap, mostly in the form of donations -- you know, where your money does good, but it doesn't do it against your will by force of law.
Come on, I'm sure you can do better than this.
The tax cuts benefit you if you pay taxes, unless there was a tax increase that I was not aware of.
If you pay x number of dollars in taxes, and x is decreased (which it was, by the cutting of the income tax rate -- unless x is already 0), you will have paid less. I don't see how it could be any more straightforward.
The link provided was not to show liberal bias, but rather a reason for liberal bias. I apologize if it was unclear.
If you look back to when the CPB's funding was up for renewal, it was Republicans who were largely opposed to it. Democrats backed it. But note I said "largely". You cannot jump from "Republican-controlled Congress" to "everything Congress passes is heartily endorsed by conservatives". A measure is still voted up or down by a majority, and a handful of Republicans can back a Democratic measure to get it passed.
You're entirely ignoring the point that you can't refund something someone didn't pay in the first place. How can you have "refunds all around" on something that wasn't paid in the first place? Come on, that's simple arithmetic!
I just double-checked with a friend of mine who makes $28K, married, two kids. He got all but $10 of his taxes back, before even his taxes were cut! He's outside of the bracket we're talking about here, and he would only qualify for $10 in any kind of tax refund, no matter how you sliced it.
This entire argument for giving those who don't pay taxes this ethereal "refund" is simply to create another government entitlement, to make people more dependent on government. No thank you.
You do realize Ted Turner still has sour grapes about losing out in the whole game he played with AOL/TW, right?
Yeah, because, umm, there was that fine print at the end that said ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN weren't allowed to broadcast anymore.
(Note that I filled in the blanks in your statement to mean omnipresent 24x7 coverage, and not just 24x7 coverage by itself. Let's face it -- it's not exactly expensive to get favorable coverage 24x7 from a single source.)
Of course, your point of view is the reference. I'll be sure to remember that in the future.
FWIW, NPR has good reason to be liberal-biased. They depend on liberal-minded people for their funding. If they didn't, I imagine they could actually be independent. I could certainly tolerate and support their right to hold whatever viewpoint they wanted if it wasn't my money, taken by law and backed by force, that supported them.
Actually, it would amuse me to see what would happen if NPR's editorial bias went to the right. Would the Democrats be fully behind renewing the CPB's grants in future years?
And then they get all or most of it back when credits, etc. when they actually fill out their returns. Withholding != taxes; it's just a bad estimate. If I were a member of the tinfoil hat brigade, I'd suggest that withholding is calculated to pay out large refunds at the end of the year to make people think they're "getting something".
(Oh, I'd better head this off now. No, a tax cut is not the government "giving" something to me. It's the government requiring less of me. I understand that fully, so you don't need to try to go down that road.)
Why should they get a tax cut from money they didn't pay in the first place?
Your Robin Hood-ism disturbs me, as someone who thinks he can do a lot better with his money than any government ever could.
I don't think "massive tax cuts for the rich" are a good idea. Thankfully, that's not what's happening.
What is happening is across-the-board cuts, which helps out my single-income family, and provided Congress has the balls to keep them going, they'll continue to help me out. Oddly enough, the people that don't benefit tax cuts -- the oft-quoted $10,000-$25,000 bracket -- don't even pay taxes now. Imagine that!
The tax cuts just passed are going to help everyone who pays taxes.
Just think -- whoever found the Playboy quote on that page was actually reading it for the articles.
(-1, Tired Old Joke)
What is really needed from Microsoft is flat-out redesign, and that means breaking a few eggshells.
The most telling bit from this article: "...the majority of viruses written attack Microsoft products..." Yes, it is certainly true that some of them exploit real bugs, but the majority of viruses target Microsoft software design, not buffer overflows.
I'm willing to bet the code audit team members don't have redesign authority; nor should they. Hopefully, they do have easy access to people who can make the design decisions and can raise issues quickly. Necessary design changes are going to break things.
You can audit the code all day and all night and you will end up with a more secure product in the end. But to solve the real problems with Microsoft security, the product needs to be designed with that security in mind.
It's not fake. It's real. And I used to use Windows, about six months ago. As far as your definition of "BSOD" goes, it was blue, and it signified that Windows was essentially dead in the water. If you've never seen it, you're quite a lucky person.
Last night, I saw "Boies' Take" on Forbes, in which litigator-to-the-stars David Boies (who is SCO's "hired gun", as the article puts it, in this non-case) tries to make himself and SCO out to be innocent, bewildered, almost childlike in their incomprehension as to why everyone hates him. For what it's worth, I don't think Boies nor SCO expected this backlash.
So, this brings us back to Microsoft's donation (umm, I mean, license, yeah) to SCO. Turn it on its head for a moment. What if Microsoft realized all along Boies (who was up against them in the antitrust case) was going to be tied to these SCO shenanigans, and they figured this would be a great two-for-one hit -- serve that pesky Linux a smackdown, but also give Boies some bad press as revenge?
Mmm... conspiracy.
Or people who just plain don't need what Windows offers. I'm quite comfortable with a mix of Linux and OpenBSD myself, and I don't think that makes me an idiot or a zealot.
Maybe, before you do that, you should inform yourself a little more about Michael Moore and his book.
Yes, Michael Moore has demonstrated quite a bit. Primarily his penchant for not letting the truth get in the way of his sensationalism.
But it's all OK. As he said on CNN when challenged on his (to put it mildly) inaccuracies: "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?"
It is true that I quit Gentoo, oh, it seems like a year ago now but is probably less; things may have changed for the better since. But I really never saw the benefit of recompiling. It meant my system wasn't available for "real work", even if I niced emerge out of existence. I never would have dreamed of running it on my legacy hardware.
And when it broke -- oh, boy, did it break. I believe I went through the install three times before I gave up for good. Thankfully, I had stage3, I think it was, ready to go. If I'd had to rebuild the system entirely each time, I would have given up after the first try, I think.
I think Debian's quality control is (was?) higher, and you can't beat the comparatively instant gratification. And I think it bears mentioning that I've never been afraid of installing an official package "just to try it out". Gentoo made me afraid of this. Seeing what Gentoo was doing, and having worked on OpenBSD ports for a few years and gaining an acute awareness for just how much a source install can fubarify your system did this to me.
You forgot
Thanks, I'll keep my Debian. :-)
The first link the guy posted -- to texturizer.net -- is correct.
You can't, but the telco can. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be required to give you that information. At one point, before I started insisting on DNCs and saw the dropoff, I actually opened a case with the cops and had traces on my line -- of course, I got a form letter from the telco saying they couldn't "find enough information to generate a complaint". BS.
Sounds like you really want screen. (Yes, it does split screen.
Blindly, anytime? Hmm. So what happens when a library has a security vulnerability?
And for this they interviewed Captain Cyborg?
Everybody duck, someone's credibility is going flying overhead and out the window...