How is Kerry going to get anything passed with a majority Senate and a Majority House being Republican?
How are the majority house and senate going to get anything passed with the president being a Democrat?
If Kerry becomes president, the parties will be forced to pass laws that both sides can stomach. There will be no legistlation along the lines of two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. This is how it's supposed to be. It's our system of checks and balances. When any party controls the house, senate, and presidency, that system is weakened.
Their audience is slashdot. A majority of slashdot members would vote for Kerry. Therefore, any increase in turnout will favor Kerry. However, if they were to say who to vote for, like "Get out there and vote for Kerry", they would be alienating perhaps 30% of their members. A 30% minority can still throw almost half as many eggs as the majority. And angry voters tend to have unusually high turnouts.
Quote from article: The recent global malware epidemics have primarily targeted the Windows computing environment and have not caused any significant economic damage to environments running Open Source including Linux, BSD and Mac OS X. When taking the economic damage from malware into account over the last twelve months, including the impact of MyDoom, NetSky, SoBig, Klez and Sasser, Windows has become the most breached computing environment in the world accounting for most of the productivity losses associated with malware - virus, worm and trojan - proliferation.
They still argue Linux is much safer than Windows in terms of malware.
As for manual exploits, I can explain some of it. For example, there are a lot of premade web sites that run on the L.A.M.P. platform. While most asp web sites are written from scratch, with significant investment, any kid can toss a phpBB, Wiki, or other website on a Linux server for free, with a minimal requirement of experience and maintenance. Most people deploying premade websites for non commercial purposes fail to install security updates. But exploits are found and patched all the time, visible to any kid who wants to inflate their ego. It's popularity in the non-commercial commons that leads to exploits on Linux servers. But Linux itself is hardly ever exploited, and these exploits are rarely ever root exploits. While with most Windows exploits, it IS Windows itself that's being exploited, and they're usually as bad as root exploits.
Their study fails to factor in the market shares of each operating systems. If you have 10 Linux systems, 4 Windows systems, and 1 Mac, and 5, 4, and 1, respectively, are successfully exploited, they would argue that the Macs had fewer exploits, followed by Windows and finally Linux. I'm not saying that's what happened but their failure to take this into account negates the usefulness of much of their statistics.
Take a world civ class, or a macroeconomics class. Preferably both.
A flat tax would promote increased stratification, which has historically been the cause of most bloody revolutions. It's not that we don't all want to be rich. It just doesn't work out well that way. People get lots of money, never work again, loan it out to the peasants at hefty interest rates, and pass it on to your kids who don't deserve it. Eventually, 1% of families own 99% of the property, and the other 99% of the population come to the conclusion that they've been reduced to slaves and to resolve the matter they just kill the other 1% and take their stuff.
A progressive income tax helps to balance out the wealth distribution. People can still become filthy rich by most definitions, without severely depriving the rest of the population.
Oh, yeah, vote for Bush because bin Laden said otherwise. If you listen to a terrorist, and vote for whoever simply because he says he disapproves, then you've let a terrorist determine your vote. You can't let the extremists control you like that. Just ignore the fuckers and vote your conscience. And take a look back and see who's really been taking away your rights/freedoms.
In 2000 the liberal protestors made liberal use of eggs to throw at Bush's limo on the way to the inauguration ceremony. I see no need to get violent though. A 20% tithe to the DNC's legal fund might make a difference.
Fact of the matter is, 70% (my guess) of Kerry supporters only support him because they think he is better then Bush.
That's a good reason to vote for one candidate over another, because you think they're better. It's funny seeing the words "fact" and "guess" in the same sentence.
I've figured that roughly 70% (my guess) of Bush supporters do what they're told, and most statistics are made up.
If you like big government, then fine, vote for Kerry
How big do you mean? The government's much bigger than it was in the Clinton years.
If you like massively bigger government with vast military forces at home and overseas, and lower taxes, without destroying medicare and social security, then take some math classes.
I'm sure she'll find a nice Republican gentlemen who will let her marry him, stay at home, clean his house, prepare his food, bear and raise his children, and give him control of the remote.
I'll be voting for Kerry this time around. And like all human beings, everything I say is undoubtably biased in some way. Don't ask for sources. All my stats are best guesses.
I voted for Bush in 2000, but I think he's really let us down. Our national debt, after flattening by the end of the Clinton administration, has skyrocketed. The war on terror has cost us and the world probably 20x (rough mental estimate) what the actual terrorism has cost. His response to terror is greater terror. For the 3000 lives lost to 9/11, he's probably killed 500 genuine terrorists, 50000+ Iraqi soldiers who's only crime is defending their nation, and 100000+ Iraqi civilians. Bush makes heavy use of playing on peoples fears. Fear of terrorism, and such. The terrorists aren't gonna get you. And the circumstances of his election is a real turnoff, which the GOP seems geared up to try and repeat on a larger scale. Democrats aren't trying nearly as hard to suppress votes as the GOP is. My mind goes blank when I try to think of Bush's good qualities.
John Kerry on the other hand. He's sort of a wild card. Some have estimated his IQ to be slightly lower than Bush's, like 120 vs 128, but IQ isn't everything. I'm pretty sure he lies a lot, in the sense that he leaves a lot of stuff out. Bush lies a lot too. I think he's more liberal than he's willing to admit in the campaign. I also expect him to focus more on protecting my civil liberties than Bush. I assume he's less likely to get the Patriot act extended than Bush, who is dead set on it. If elected, he'll be working with a senate that's projected to have a republican majority, which will help with checks and balances. I admit I really don't know much about John Kerry, except that he's a Democrat who wants really bad to be president.
For the media to debate leftward opinions on the certain issues would be suicide. However, appearing too rightward would cost them viewers. So they try to balance it out by appearing leftward on all the issues that don't hurt them.
He might have won had he embraced some of your politics.
I don't think it works out like that.
If a candidate were to move towards a third party, they would lose middle votes to the opposing candidate. They seek the position that maximizes their votes. If some of a third party's supporters move completely out of reach, it may actually force their nearest two party candidate to move the other way to make up the gap by stealing his opponent's votes.
Look at what Kerry is doing. He's described as one of the most liberal liberals in Congress, yet he's taking a position that nearly matches Bush's. The last election, 3rd party votes gave Bush 4 years to "reeducate" the most gullible, pulling many middle voters in his direction. Kerry's only choice is to try to steal those voters back, and hope that the 3rd party voters have learned a lesson. I believe Kerry is a lot greener than he'll admit during his campaign. He's a big liar, but has little choice in the matter because of the damage that's been done.
Possibly the best way to pull the parties in your direction is to educate the opposing party in a non-threatening manner. Plus, by joining a major party you have the ability to influence its direction in the primaries. If you join a third party, your opinion does not affect who wins the two party primaries. I'm a registered Democrat but online surveys tell me David Cobb is my hero.
Convince a voter in a non-swing state to vote for your third party candidate, while you vote for the nearest two-party candidate. In effect, you swap votes. By doing this you can support a third party candidate without helping give away the election to your opponent. There are websites out there for arranging such deals, but I don't have a url.
The problem that I've run into a lot is that I'll copy something, then close the program I copied from, and finally when I try to paste it into another program, I can't, the clipboard is empty. It shouldn't work like that.
Slashdot Mirror
How is Kerry going to get anything passed with a majority Senate and a Majority House being Republican?
How are the majority house and senate going to get anything passed with the president being a Democrat?
If Kerry becomes president, the parties will be forced to pass laws that both sides can stomach. There will be no legistlation along the lines of two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. This is how it's supposed to be. It's our system of checks and balances. When any party controls the house, senate, and presidency, that system is weakened.
Their audience is slashdot. A majority of slashdot members would vote for Kerry. Therefore, any increase in turnout will favor Kerry. However, if they were to say who to vote for, like "Get out there and vote for Kerry", they would be alienating perhaps 30% of their members. A 30% minority can still throw almost half as many eggs as the majority. And angry voters tend to have unusually high turnouts.
Didn't rtfa. The headline and summary are very misleading. However, I stand by my original statement.
We warned them. For 4 years we told them exactly what to expect. Nobody should be surprised. Idiots.
Quote from article:
The recent global malware epidemics have primarily targeted the Windows computing environment and have not caused any significant economic damage to environments running Open Source including Linux, BSD and Mac OS X. When taking the economic damage from malware into account over the last twelve months, including the impact of MyDoom, NetSky, SoBig, Klez and Sasser, Windows has become the most breached computing environment in the world accounting for most of the productivity losses associated with malware - virus, worm and trojan - proliferation.
They still argue Linux is much safer than Windows in terms of malware.
As for manual exploits, I can explain some of it. For example, there are a lot of premade web sites that run on the L.A.M.P. platform. While most asp web sites are written from scratch, with significant investment, any kid can toss a phpBB, Wiki, or other website on a Linux server for free, with a minimal requirement of experience and maintenance. Most people deploying premade websites for non commercial purposes fail to install security updates. But exploits are found and patched all the time, visible to any kid who wants to inflate their ego. It's popularity in the non-commercial commons that leads to exploits on Linux servers. But Linux itself is hardly ever exploited, and these exploits are rarely ever root exploits. While with most Windows exploits, it IS Windows itself that's being exploited, and they're usually as bad as root exploits.
Their study fails to factor in the market shares of each operating systems. If you have 10 Linux systems, 4 Windows systems, and 1 Mac, and 5, 4, and 1, respectively, are successfully exploited, they would argue that the Macs had fewer exploits, followed by Windows and finally Linux. I'm not saying that's what happened but their failure to take this into account negates the usefulness of much of their statistics.
If you're not in a swing state, vote for whoever you like.
Here's a tool to help you if you can't decide:
Presidency Match 2004 Quiz
It asks you several questions, then gives you a sorted list of candidates according to how close their likely answers match yours.
In a nutshell, Bin Laden is saying, "if your state goes for Kerry there won't be an attack in that state." He understands the electoral college.
I knew it. New York voted for Gore. So did D.C. Bin Laden's a flip flopper. A flip flopper!
Take a world civ class, or a macroeconomics class. Preferably both.
A flat tax would promote increased stratification, which has historically been the cause of most bloody revolutions. It's not that we don't all want to be rich. It just doesn't work out well that way. People get lots of money, never work again, loan it out to the peasants at hefty interest rates, and pass it on to your kids who don't deserve it. Eventually, 1% of families own 99% of the property, and the other 99% of the population come to the conclusion that they've been reduced to slaves and to resolve the matter they just kill the other 1% and take their stuff.
A progressive income tax helps to balance out the wealth distribution. People can still become filthy rich by most definitions, without severely depriving the rest of the population.
saying "regardless of who you support, get out and vote" seems pointless.
Not when you're selective about who you say it to.
Oh, yeah, vote for Bush because bin Laden said otherwise. If you listen to a terrorist, and vote for whoever simply because he says he disapproves, then you've let a terrorist determine your vote. You can't let the extremists control you like that. Just ignore the fuckers and vote your conscience. And take a look back and see who's really been taking away your rights/freedoms.
In 2000 the liberal protestors made liberal use of eggs to throw at Bush's limo on the way to the inauguration ceremony. I see no need to get violent though. A 20% tithe to the DNC's legal fund might make a difference.
Are you in a swing state where it matters?
Fact of the matter is, 70% (my guess) of Kerry supporters only support him because they think he is better then Bush.
That's a good reason to vote for one candidate over another, because you think they're better. It's funny seeing the words "fact" and "guess" in the same sentence.
I've figured that roughly 70% (my guess) of Bush supporters do what they're told, and most statistics are made up.
If you like big government, then fine, vote for Kerry
How big do you mean? The government's much bigger than it was in the Clinton years.
If you like massively bigger government with vast military forces at home and overseas, and lower taxes, without destroying medicare and social security, then take some math classes.
Not coincidentally, the creators of "Team America" are jackasses.
That's good, right?
I'm sure she'll find a nice Republican gentlemen who will let her marry him, stay at home, clean his house, prepare his food, bear and raise his children, and give him control of the remote.
I'll be voting for Kerry this time around. And like all human beings, everything I say is undoubtably biased in some way. Don't ask for sources. All my stats are best guesses.
I voted for Bush in 2000, but I think he's really let us down. Our national debt, after flattening by the end of the Clinton administration, has skyrocketed. The war on terror has cost us and the world probably 20x (rough mental estimate) what the actual terrorism has cost. His response to terror is greater terror. For the 3000 lives lost to 9/11, he's probably killed 500 genuine terrorists, 50000+ Iraqi soldiers who's only crime is defending their nation, and 100000+ Iraqi civilians. Bush makes heavy use of playing on peoples fears. Fear of terrorism, and such. The terrorists aren't gonna get you. And the circumstances of his election is a real turnoff, which the GOP seems geared up to try and repeat on a larger scale. Democrats aren't trying nearly as hard to suppress votes as the GOP is. My mind goes blank when I try to think of Bush's good qualities.
John Kerry on the other hand. He's sort of a wild card. Some have estimated his IQ to be slightly lower than Bush's, like 120 vs 128, but IQ isn't everything. I'm pretty sure he lies a lot, in the sense that he leaves a lot of stuff out. Bush lies a lot too. I think he's more liberal than he's willing to admit in the campaign. I also expect him to focus more on protecting my civil liberties than Bush. I assume he's less likely to get the Patriot act extended than Bush, who is dead set on it. If elected, he'll be working with a senate that's projected to have a republican majority, which will help with checks and balances. I admit I really don't know much about John Kerry, except that he's a Democrat who wants really bad to be president.
I don't think the kids got your joke.
The filter is in place to prevent you from typing the same sentence 20 times, or linking to all your similar pages to boost your pagerank.
Amen brother.
For the media to debate leftward opinions on the certain issues would be suicide. However, appearing too rightward would cost them viewers. So they try to balance it out by appearing leftward on all the issues that don't hurt them.
He might have won had he embraced some of your politics.
I don't think it works out like that.
If a candidate were to move towards a third party, they would lose middle votes to the opposing candidate. They seek the position that maximizes their votes. If some of a third party's supporters move completely out of reach, it may actually force their nearest two party candidate to move the other way to make up the gap by stealing his opponent's votes.
Look at what Kerry is doing. He's described as one of the most liberal liberals in Congress, yet he's taking a position that nearly matches Bush's. The last election, 3rd party votes gave Bush 4 years to "reeducate" the most gullible, pulling many middle voters in his direction. Kerry's only choice is to try to steal those voters back, and hope that the 3rd party voters have learned a lesson. I believe Kerry is a lot greener than he'll admit during his campaign. He's a big liar, but has little choice in the matter because of the damage that's been done.
Possibly the best way to pull the parties in your direction is to educate the opposing party in a non-threatening manner. Plus, by joining a major party you have the ability to influence its direction in the primaries. If you join a third party, your opinion does not affect who wins the two party primaries. I'm a registered Democrat but online surveys tell me David Cobb is my hero.
Convince a voter in a non-swing state to vote for your third party candidate, while you vote for the nearest two-party candidate. In effect, you swap votes. By doing this you can support a third party candidate without helping give away the election to your opponent. There are websites out there for arranging such deals, but I don't have a url.
To make NetBeans faster?
The problem that I've run into a lot is that I'll copy something, then close the program I copied from, and finally when I try to paste it into another program, I can't, the clipboard is empty. It shouldn't work like that.
I was discussing the functionality of Linux today with a friend as I struggled to get sound working on an FC2 new install
I think the common solution to the FC2 no-sound problem is to unmute and increase the volume.
What will the Mozilla foundation do with the other $200k?