I have a law that is similar to the one you describe, but more general. I call it Meece's Law of Political Hypocrisy. It states that 'In a two party system, claims of hypocrisy can always be reversed'.
They are therefore nearly always irrelevant to the conversation.
The law generally works, because in a two party system, parties are invariably opposed to each other on every issue. So if one party switches sides on an issue, the other side needs to switch too.
An example:
dem: We shouldn't be the police men of the world (referring to iraq). I'm not for interventionism.
repub: You're a hypocrite. You were for intervention in kosovo.
dem: (reverses hypocrisy) Well, you didn't support the Kosovo intervention, but now you support the iraq intervention.
This is why I don't like to ever claim hypocrisy, and ignore claims when made my others.
Certainly there are nuanced positions, and subtle ways in which you can explain the flip-flops ( it was different then, etc), but the whole thing becomes muddled and pointless. It's much better to invoke Meece's law and move on to the actual topic at hand.
1) Windows Server 2003 R2 - 4 licenses for VMs running on Server 2003 Enterprise and unlimited VMs running on Server 2003 Datacenter
From what I can tell, and the guidance I've gotten from MS and vmware is a slightly different wording:
1) Windows Server 2003 R2 - 1 Physical 2003EE and 4 VMs with 2003EE for each Server 2003 Enterprise Licence on the same hardware.
Ignoring DC edition for the moment, I believe this means you can buy one Enterprise licence and run 4 virtual machines on one physical Vmware ESX host. In other words, I don't think you are limited to running VMs on top of a server with 2003EE installed.
Otherwise, I think MS runs some legal risks, because essentially they would be saying, 'buy one get 4 free....but only if you don't buy the other guys software'.
Using this logic why would a democrat answer the pollsters, since they are routinely called terrorists, traitors, hippies, commies, godless, murderers, adulterers, and demagogues?
Oh right, liberal bias blah blah blah. You have cornered the persecution market.
I love how Bill O'reilly screams about liberal bias one second, acting the victim, then triumphantly touts his huge ratings the next. Which is it, Bill? Persecuted or adored?
Those who fear it propose we do nothing. Those who do have that sense of adventure you speak of are the ones who want to look closely at it and plan for the future, so that we can survive the mass extinctions you predict. Survival, even in the times you mentioned, was not the product of the hardy individual relishing the thought of being able to prove himself more capable, but the product of _groups_ of hominids that either by chance or thought pre-adapted to the new environments they found themselves in.
The saphiens could imagine their future, and devised ways to survive in it, while the groups that relied on their 'hardiness' to the exclusion of planning became extinct.
A lot of environmentalist types are open but skeptical about nuclear power. I'm sure they will remain doubtful but can be convinced with the proper arguments. That argument however, is probably not 'shut up hippie'.
It's funny, actually. Slashdot, supposed home to left wing techno hippies, has far more preemptive 'the hippies won't allow it' posts than actual hippies-complaining-about-nuclear-energy posts.
and the religious position is both open (must profess faith in *some* god) and not really enforced.
How is that open? And how does enforcing capitulation to *some* mythology help increase the values you mention later, like indepenedence, confidence, self-reliance and outdoor skills?
If half of them had decided it wasn't worth it there would've been no need for unions and their jobs wouldv'e paid much better.
The half that quit would be called a 'union'. Because, essentially, they organize, they say they don't like the situation, they ask for more money or they leave. In your scenario, they leave. And why would the jobs pay better? If the amount of work required only half the workforce, then you could vastly increase your profits by eliminating, or encouraging to leave, half your workforce. So you get a productivity boost, increased profits, and half the workers lose their jobs. Why give the workers remaining a pay raise? It would be ethical, sure, but I doubt the shareholders care so much about that versus a dividend increase.
I think it your view which is Victorian. The owners are the kings, and the workers are the peasants. Sure, there is a miniscule chance of a peasant becoming a king. Unionization doesn't take away that chance, but it allows increased rewards if you don't happen to hit the King Lottery.
Fittest is defined as those that survive. Period. You don't get to pre-choose what fittest means. The environment chooses and the winners are the ones that are left.
Why does the linux advocate get the term zealot and the car hobbyist doesn't?
To make your analogy tighter, the friendly auto guy should be called a mechanic zealot.
Not just that, but in the eighties the Avengers had this as a recurring story element. Specifically it was about government regulation of the Avengers, and if I recall correctly, they had some government regulator guy who was always breathing down their neck. Flat-top guy with sunglasses.
Also, that was the same guy ( I'm pretty sure ) that tried to screw Captain America out of his identity, which again is pretty much the same storyline.
Their argument was that they (the government) 'owned' the concept and image of Captain America and wanted to get some return on their investment. CA refused and gave up the costume and shield and became a fugitive hero (much like in Civil War) while the government appointed super patriot as the new CA.
it's already in motion. If you ever have had to drive across the country, you can hear all kinds of rants against democracy on religious-themed radio shows. The basic idea is that democracy is inherently flawed and always degenrates into fascism unless religious doctrine is put in charge.
I have heard it several times now in different locaitons in almost the exact same talking-point-like way.
If I can find links to examples, I'll post them later.
The fact is that most pollsters had bush ahead prior to the election. Zogby and CBS were nearly the only ones to predict Gore and their results are included in at least 3 of the links you have above.
Ask the dixie chicks, the Boss, michael moore, linda ronstatd, howard stern... Some of these are detached protests or decisions by corporate bosses but often they call for picket lines and civil disobediance. And they certainly match your definition of 'where conservatives blocked others messages'.
How about the gallery owner on the west coast who got her nose broken for displaying a painting of the iraqi prison abuse...or the cancelling of the Reagan miniseries...
I read snopes a lot ( which I regard as non-partisan ) and it just amazes me the number of urban legends that have conservative bents to them urging for product protests, petitions, etc.
These are usually emails like 'Marilyn Manson makes audience members kill puppies' that urge 'send this to all your friends' so they can shut him down.
At the beginning of the Iraq war there were tons of new entries on snopes that claimed to be 'real stories' usually involving some upright American Patriot putting some uppity Liberal in their place and urging everyone to spread the word. Usually there is an associated plea to either protest a supposed liberal establishment or patronize a supposed patriotic one.
The problem is they are almost always completely made up.
Go to snopes sometimes and objectively look at how many urban legends are meant to enforce or strengthen conservative or religious views and then see how many are completely void of any truth.
The reason I bring this up is that I have found many conservatives do not have a good idea of what liberals are really like ( and maybe vice versa ). Their impressions are either skewed by one bad impression, the actions of irresponsible and disowned individuals ( as is the case of these hackers ) or from the plethora of dishonest propaganda circulating around by email and word of mouth.
How many people did Timothy McVeigh silence? Not exactly a liberal, that one...
As others have said, it's extremists who resort to tactics like this, on any side of the political spectrum.
So please do me a favor: don't disparage me because of these asshat hackers and I won't blame you for blowing up the Federal Building.
well, I subscribed and City of Heroes won't even install for me. Others are having the same problems, and people who have go it installed are reporting some pretty serious bugs.
Terrorism is a technique often used to facilitate widespread rebellion. My point was that even the most severe tactics have not historically been beneficial in the long term to any movement (including, I would argue, militant Islam). The Soviets had no cure for terrorism despite your anecdote.
The problem is that the most effective way of fighting terrorism is unacceptable to americans.
well, the problem is also that those tactics didn't really work either. The soviets eventually were forced out of afghanistan, and Russia still has problems in Chechnya.
He seems far from undertalented. Just because later in life he preferred to paint in styles that don't appeal to you certainly doesn't mean he had no classical talent.
That presupposes which traits are selected for. Darwin's theory doesn't mention which trait is selected, just that winning traits are propagated forward. 'Survival of the Fittest' can be a misnomer, because many people just assume they know what 'fittest' means. Nature determines that, not you.
So while some may think the future will be full of larger, stronger, smarter, more beautiful people, maybe we end up with smaller, smarter, little-grey-alien looking people.
On a side note, I find that many libertarian types fall for this and assume that larger governments or welfare systems are not 'fit' and produce 'weaker' people not fit for selection. Hard to tell now I suppose but time will tell. I would argue that whatever we end up with is more fit, whatever it looks like.
We just need an API and the Linux IR package. I can already imagine some amazing hacks. Put all the intelligence in a program on some computer with ir connectivity.
Actually, it would be great to hack this thing to use bluetooth or wireles, then you could program all sorts of intelligent behavior. Then you have the intelligence of an aibo like platform with the analog responsiveness of the robosapien.
You could develop an api, and then have kungfu fights between the little buggers, which would be part coding challenge, part robot wars.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a law that is similar to the one you describe, but more general. I call it Meece's Law of Political Hypocrisy. It states that 'In a two party system, claims of hypocrisy can always be reversed'.
They are therefore nearly always irrelevant to the conversation.
The law generally works, because in a two party system, parties are invariably opposed to each other on every issue. So if one party switches sides on an issue, the other side needs to switch too.
An example:
dem: We shouldn't be the police men of the world (referring to iraq). I'm not for interventionism.
repub: You're a hypocrite. You were for intervention in kosovo.
dem: (reverses hypocrisy) Well, you didn't support the Kosovo intervention, but now you support the iraq intervention.
This is why I don't like to ever claim hypocrisy, and ignore claims when made my others.
Certainly there are nuanced positions, and subtle ways in which you can explain the flip-flops ( it was different then, etc), but the whole thing becomes muddled and pointless. It's much better to invoke Meece's law and move on to the actual topic at hand.
1) Windows Server 2003 R2 - 4 licenses for VMs running on Server 2003 Enterprise and unlimited VMs running on Server 2003 Datacenter
From what I can tell, and the guidance I've gotten from MS and vmware is a slightly different wording:
1) Windows Server 2003 R2 - 1 Physical 2003EE and 4 VMs with 2003EE for each Server 2003 Enterprise Licence on the same hardware.
Ignoring DC edition for the moment, I believe this means you can buy one Enterprise licence and run 4 virtual machines on one physical Vmware ESX host. In other words, I don't think you are limited to running VMs on top of a server with 2003EE installed.
Otherwise, I think MS runs some legal risks, because essentially they would be saying, 'buy one get 4 free....but only if you don't buy the other guys software'.
Oh right, liberal bias blah blah blah. You have cornered the persecution market.
I love how Bill O'reilly screams about liberal bias one second, acting the victim, then triumphantly touts his huge ratings the next. Which is it, Bill? Persecuted or adored?
The saphiens could imagine their future, and devised ways to survive in it, while the groups that relied on their 'hardiness' to the exclusion of planning became extinct.
It's funny, actually. Slashdot, supposed home to left wing techno hippies, has far more preemptive 'the hippies won't allow it' posts than actual hippies-complaining-about-nuclear-energy posts.
How is that open? And how does enforcing capitulation to *some* mythology help increase the values you mention later, like indepenedence, confidence, self-reliance and outdoor skills?
The half that quit would be called a 'union'. Because, essentially, they organize, they say they don't like the situation, they ask for more money or they leave. In your scenario, they leave. And why would the jobs pay better? If the amount of work required only half the workforce, then you could vastly increase your profits by eliminating, or encouraging to leave, half your workforce. So you get a productivity boost, increased profits, and half the workers lose their jobs. Why give the workers remaining a pay raise? It would be ethical, sure, but I doubt the shareholders care so much about that versus a dividend increase.
I think it your view which is Victorian. The owners are the kings, and the workers are the peasants. Sure, there is a miniscule chance of a peasant becoming a king. Unionization doesn't take away that chance, but it allows increased rewards if you don't happen to hit the King Lottery.
Fittest is defined as those that survive. Period. You don't get to pre-choose what fittest means. The environment chooses and the winners are the ones that are left.
Why does the linux advocate get the term zealot and the car hobbyist doesn't?
To make your analogy tighter, the friendly auto guy should be called a mechanic zealot.
Also, that was the same guy ( I'm pretty sure ) that tried to screw Captain America out of his identity, which again is pretty much the same storyline.
Their argument was that they (the government) 'owned' the concept and image of Captain America and wanted to get some return on their investment. CA refused and gave up the costume and shield and became a fugitive hero (much like in Civil War) while the government appointed super patriot as the new CA.
It got worked out in the end, though ;-)
I saw the show and he wasn't brainwashed. He was a brainWASHER.
the enclosure is 14.6 cm wide.
it's already in motion. If you ever have had to drive across the country, you can hear all kinds of rants against democracy on religious-themed radio shows. The basic idea is that democracy is inherently flawed and always degenrates into fascism unless religious doctrine is put in charge.
I have heard it several times now in different locaitons in almost the exact same talking-point-like way.
If I can find links to examples, I'll post them later.
what underwear?
http://www.broom.org/epic/
A good summary can be found here
ABC, American Viewpoint, CBS/NYT, Gallup, Harris, Hart, Marist College, Opinion Dynamics, Princeton Survey, Pew, Newsweek, Bloomberg, CNN/USA Today, and Fox all predicted Bush.
So the polls lean which way again?
Ask the dixie chicks, the Boss, michael moore, linda ronstatd, howard stern... Some of these are detached protests or decisions by corporate bosses but often they call for picket lines and civil disobediance. And they certainly match your definition of 'where conservatives blocked others messages'.
How about the gallery owner on the west coast who got her nose broken for displaying a painting of the iraqi prison abuse...or the cancelling of the Reagan miniseries...
I read snopes a lot ( which I regard as non-partisan ) and it just amazes me the number of urban legends that have conservative bents to them urging for product protests, petitions, etc.
These are usually emails like 'Marilyn Manson makes audience members kill puppies' that urge 'send this to all your friends' so they can shut him down.
At the beginning of the Iraq war there were tons of new entries on snopes that claimed to be 'real stories' usually involving some upright American Patriot putting some uppity Liberal in their place and urging everyone to spread the word. Usually there is an associated plea to either protest a supposed liberal establishment or patronize a supposed patriotic one.
The problem is they are almost always completely made up.
Go to snopes sometimes and objectively look at how many urban legends are meant to enforce or strengthen conservative or religious views and then see how many are completely void of any truth.
The reason I bring this up is that I have found many conservatives do not have a good idea of what liberals are really like ( and maybe vice versa ). Their impressions are either skewed by one bad impression, the actions of irresponsible and disowned individuals ( as is the case of these hackers ) or from the plethora of dishonest propaganda circulating around by email and word of mouth.
How many people did Timothy McVeigh silence? Not exactly a liberal, that one...
As others have said, it's extremists who resort to tactics like this, on any side of the political spectrum.
So please do me a favor: don't disparage me because of these asshat hackers and I won't blame you for blowing up the Federal Building.
I've read the opposite
Orrin Hatch, Software Pirate?
I feel kinda misled at this point...
Terrorism is a technique often used to facilitate widespread rebellion. My point was that even the most severe tactics have not historically been beneficial in the long term to any movement (including, I would argue, militant Islam). The Soviets had no cure for terrorism despite your anecdote.
well, the problem is also that those tactics didn't really work either. The soviets eventually were forced out of afghanistan, and Russia still has problems in Chechnya.
He seems far from undertalented. Just because later in life he preferred to paint in styles that don't appeal to you certainly doesn't mean he had no classical talent.
So while some may think the future will be full of larger, stronger, smarter, more beautiful people, maybe we end up with smaller, smarter, little-grey-alien looking people.
On a side note, I find that many libertarian types fall for this and assume that larger governments or welfare systems are not 'fit' and produce 'weaker' people not fit for selection. Hard to tell now I suppose but time will tell. I would argue that whatever we end up with is more fit, whatever it looks like.
Actually, it would be great to hack this thing to use bluetooth or wireles, then you could program all sorts of intelligent behavior. Then you have the intelligence of an aibo like platform with the analog responsiveness of the robosapien.
You could develop an api, and then have kungfu fights between the little buggers, which would be part coding challenge, part robot wars.