I still find it absolutely amazing that American's still haven't figured out that there might be something fishy about a plan called "No Child Left Behind" that involves cutting funding for schools in poor neighborhoods.
Make sure you mount all of them in a single tall rack, and put it somewhere conspicuous in your office. Then, when December rolls around you can stick a star on top, turn down the lights, and use it as your office Allegedly-But-Not-Really-Nondenominational-Midwint er-Holiday Tree.
I'm no expert on Linux PPC, but it seems like your example is moot.
Last I checked, the Linux PPC kernel doesn't even support FireWire, so I would be very surprised if it supports the fibre channel bus you need to talk to an XServe RAID. And if you take the (admittedly very inexpensive) XServe RAID out of the equation, XServe hardware doesn't seem so cheap anymore.
I would kill to see some of the science channels buy and start showing old episodes of stuff like Nova and Connections.
Not that I know whether or not PBS would give them up, but it's not like PBS is incredibly devoted to re-running their documentaries after a certain time.
I saw a band called Captured by Robots that includes two drum-playing robots, a robot that plays a double-necked guitar, and various and sundry other automated musical instruments.
For the past several years, I am constantly seeing re-releases of old/retro games. Sometimes they are one-game-to-a-cart, like with GBA retro games, sometimes they are collections like Namco Arcade.
The one constant is that they always cost at least two or three times what I could pay for the original at a used video game store. In the extreme case, I can buy six old Atari games for my PS2 for $30, or I can go spend $20 for an old Atari and a stack of 20 games.
Or I can do what I really did and pick up an old Atari, two of basically every controller, and a box of about 60 games for $5.
Which just leaves me wondering, who buys this stuff?
I think it's really silly to expect any meda outlet to be truly objective/nonpartisan. Nobody can do it because, due to their differing ideas of what is important (which informs their political leanings), they will come up with skewed ideas of what stories to run. And it's all unconscious.
Besides, combined with the unspoken idea that "nonpartisan" is a synonym for "best" or "correct," it encourages people to swallow what they are told without even chewing it.
Much better to end the masquerade and have news agencies and reporters straigt up say, "I'm a Liberal" and have the general population take off the diapers and be willing to listen to the ideas of people who don't have the same label stapeled to their foreheads.
And in the end you may well get a more balanced viewpoint because if someone straight up tells you their motives, it gives you a better chance to consider what they are saying in an informed manner, and look for areas where they might be focusing in on one issue and failing to notice another.
I'm sick of people whining about Ralph Nader. Ralph Nader 2000/04 is NOT Ross Perot 1992.
You're right, you can make arguments about a third party screwing things up (in the eyes of the party) if that third party takes too many votes from one of the parties. However. ..
a) Nader did not lose the election in 2000. Nader is, on the other hand, an excellent scapegoat for turning attention away from other things such as the very real likelihood (maybe even the fact) that Florida would have gone Democrat were it not for massive corruption and other errors (many of them only questionably accidental) that served to disenfranchise a large number of voters in demographic and geographic groups that are predominately Democrat.
b) A third party is nowhere near enough parties, for the reason you pointed out. We need at least four parties, preferably a fluid pool of political parties that come into and out of existence, but which always has at least five reasonably strong parties.
The thing I find most interesting about this project is the way it really brings to light the shortcomings of our electoral system. The current winner-take-all system, while it might serve other purposes, really helps to keep the two big parties in power and all others out of the sandbox.
Our two-party system really isn't serving the country at all. It's not that they're almost the same (argue as you will about that one), but that the turnover of even a couple of seats in the House and/or Senate can potentially have a drastic effect what policy comes out of Congress, especially with everybody voting along partisan lines as they do.
I worry that it also just generally screws up the electoral process. The two-party system has created a painfully artificial dichotomy. Anybody who doesn't strongly agree with one or the other party gets lumped into this huge group labeled, "Independent." We have people who agree with bits and pieces of each party's ideas and people who strongly disagree with both parties getting lumped into the same group because our mental framework for understanding the space of political ideas is unfit to describe reality.
So yeah, here's to vote trading, and let's hope the practise starts some conversation that ultimately renders it useless. =D
Kind of funny how before the primary you don't count if you aren't affiliated with a party, but after the primary fence-sitters are the beginning and end of the world.
I can't speak for all states, but I know that Wisconsin does.
Heck, I just found out at the last minute that I'm going to be shipped far far away for election day by my employer. And it's too late to order an absentee ballot. No worries, I can just go down to the courthouse and fill out an absentee ballot in person, right there.
OS X is heavily optimized with processor-specific functions, be it AltiVec optimizations for G4s or just a lot of black magic to make the Altivec-oriented code still run well on a G3. The next version is going to include features that offload a lot of processing to the graphics card. I'm sure they put little to no effort into making sure that any of their code above the Darwin will run properly on a little-endian machine.
That's potentially a whole lot of rewriting (and potentially creating a need to mantain yet another code branch for various portions of the OS) in order to get an OS that is still going to only work on a very small portion of the PC hardware out there. And I'm not talking "you won't be able to burn DVDs" not working, I'm talking "the OS won't run, period, because Core Image doesn't support your graphics card."
Which means that they will have a target market consisting of people like you who are willing to buy the one and only one OS X Approved PC. Of course, to make that available as something other than a homebuild, Apple will have to make it themselves. Which will probably make it end up costing not much less than any other Apple computer because it will end up being a solid magnesium pyramid with no visible apertures or seams or something like that because that's what Apple does.
At which point Apple has gone through a ridiculous wad of cash in order to make your Mac work less smoothly than other Macs. But at least it cost you $100 less.
Methinks Apple would be much wiser to spend that money on continuing to improve the value of their PPC hardware. Maybe that way they can save you $150 on a better computer, instead.
Now consider what would happen if you registered hasbro.com/org/net and used it to put up an anti-Hasbro website. You'd either give up your website willingly when the lawyers knocked, or you'd find yourself in court defending a trademark infringement lawsuit.
I've actually been really curious to see what life is like in Bhutan - it's the only country in the world that officially measures its health in terms of Gross National Happiness rather than something like GDP.
Interesting, although I'd say that money spent to cure diseases counts as good. I don't like living in a world with car wrecks, but I do indeed enjoy living in a world with penicillin.
It amazes me that after nearly 230 years it's still news to people that our government, in all its permutations, is a horrible kludge. Not as much of a horrible kludge as a lot of other governmental systems, but a horrible kludge nonetheless.
Tomorrow's headline: Study shows nation's wine supply may contain fermented grapes!
Re:a migration to java isn't an improvement.
on
The Ultimate MacDate
·
· Score: 1
A true free market wouldn't be gentle or kind. However, it would be maximally efficent and effective.
Sometimes efficiency isn't the best measure of an economy's health.
If efficiency is all that matters, which of these two is better for the country:
1. I stay at home with my family. We eat a home-cooked meal, play board games, and talk to each other all evening. (total spent: $15, maybe. It was a fancy meal.)
2. I ditch my family and get dinner at McDonald's. ($6) Afterwad, I go to a strip club. I get hammered (spending $20 in the process) and buy a couple lap dances, stic a couple dollars in some panties, etc. ($30) Then I try to drive home, drunk. I hit another car, totaling both and putting three people in the hospital. ($30,000 will be spent on replacing the cars with one used and one new car, and let's say $100,000 in hospital bills) Total cost: $130,056.
It's an extreme example,yes, but the more time people spend doing stuff like option 2, the more money is being spent, the higher the veolicty of cash in the economy, and the more "efficient and effective" the economy is. And experience has shown me that, overall, the things that enrich my life the most aren't the things that stimulate the economy the most.
And I think that with this in mind it makes sense to consider that maybe the government policies that result in the biggest and most powerful whirlwind of cash aren't necessarily the government policies that are going to lead to everyone having the best quality of life.
Unless, of course, you've fallen into the trap of thinking that more money equals more happy. Yes, it does matter if you don't have enough money to make yourself comfortable, but of course the people who generally argue for high-GDP economic policies are also arguing agast government policies aimed at stamping out poverty. =D
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for pointing this out.
I still find it absolutely amazing that American's still haven't figured out that there might be something fishy about a plan called "No Child Left Behind" that involves cutting funding for schools in poor neighborhoods.
Nice.
t er-Holiday Tree.
Make sure you mount all of them in a single tall rack, and put it somewhere conspicuous in your office. Then, when December rolls around you can stick a star on top, turn down the lights, and use it as your office Allegedly-But-Not-Really-Nondenominational-Midwin
I'm no expert on Linux PPC, but it seems like your example is moot.
Last I checked, the Linux PPC kernel doesn't even support FireWire, so I would be very surprised if it supports the fibre channel bus you need to talk to an XServe RAID. And if you take the (admittedly very inexpensive) XServe RAID out of the equation, XServe hardware doesn't seem so cheap anymore.
Why use VNC? Wouldn't this do the job just as well (or better)?
You mean like a HERF gun?
Also good for shutting off cell phones or the car itself.
It's true! I like to use it as a chaser.
speaking of stupid. . .
No, that was pure first-class stupid. No cheap veneers for Americal.
I would kill to see some of the science channels buy and start showing old episodes of stuff like Nova and Connections.
Not that I know whether or not PBS would give them up, but it's not like PBS is incredibly devoted to re-running their documentaries after a certain time.
I saw a band called Captured by Robots that includes two drum-playing robots, a robot that plays a double-necked guitar, and various and sundry other automated musical instruments.
Puts on quite a show with 'em, too.
You know what's even crazier?
President Kennedy has been shot!
For the past several years, I am constantly seeing re-releases of old/retro games. Sometimes they are one-game-to-a-cart, like with GBA retro games, sometimes they are collections like Namco Arcade.
The one constant is that they always cost at least two or three times what I could pay for the original at a used video game store. In the extreme case, I can buy six old Atari games for my PS2 for $30, or I can go spend $20 for an old Atari and a stack of 20 games.
Or I can do what I really did and pick up an old Atari, two of basically every controller, and a box of about 60 games for $5.
Which just leaves me wondering, who buys this stuff?
I think it's really silly to expect any meda outlet to be truly objective/nonpartisan. Nobody can do it because, due to their differing ideas of what is important (which informs their political leanings), they will come up with skewed ideas of what stories to run. And it's all unconscious.
Besides, combined with the unspoken idea that "nonpartisan" is a synonym for "best" or "correct," it encourages people to swallow what they are told without even chewing it.
Much better to end the masquerade and have news agencies and reporters straigt up say, "I'm a Liberal" and have the general population take off the diapers and be willing to listen to the ideas of people who don't have the same label stapeled to their foreheads.
And in the end you may well get a more balanced viewpoint because if someone straight up tells you their motives, it gives you a better chance to consider what they are saying in an informed manner, and look for areas where they might be focusing in on one issue and failing to notice another.
I'm sick of people whining about Ralph Nader. Ralph Nader 2000/04 is NOT Ross Perot 1992.
.
You're right, you can make arguments about a third party screwing things up (in the eyes of the party) if that third party takes too many votes from one of the parties. However. .
a) Nader did not lose the election in 2000. Nader is, on the other hand, an excellent scapegoat for turning attention away from other things such as the very real likelihood (maybe even the fact) that Florida would have gone Democrat were it not for massive corruption and other errors (many of them only questionably accidental) that served to disenfranchise a large number of voters in demographic and geographic groups that are predominately Democrat.
b) A third party is nowhere near enough parties, for the reason you pointed out. We need at least four parties, preferably a fluid pool of political parties that come into and out of existence, but which always has at least five reasonably strong parties.
They're dead. That's rigor mortis setting in.
The thing I find most interesting about this project is the way it really brings to light the shortcomings of our electoral system. The current winner-take-all system, while it might serve other purposes, really helps to keep the two big parties in power and all others out of the sandbox.
Our two-party system really isn't serving the country at all. It's not that they're almost the same (argue as you will about that one), but that the turnover of even a couple of seats in the House and/or Senate can potentially have a drastic effect what policy comes out of Congress, especially with everybody voting along partisan lines as they do.
I worry that it also just generally screws up the electoral process. The two-party system has created a painfully artificial dichotomy. Anybody who doesn't strongly agree with one or the other party gets lumped into this huge group labeled, "Independent." We have people who agree with bits and pieces of each party's ideas and people who strongly disagree with both parties getting lumped into the same group because our mental framework for understanding the space of political ideas is unfit to describe reality.
So yeah, here's to vote trading, and let's hope the practise starts some conversation that ultimately renders it useless. =D
Kind of funny how before the primary you don't count if you aren't affiliated with a party, but after the primary fence-sitters are the beginning and end of the world.
I can't speak for all states, but I know that Wisconsin does.
Heck, I just found out at the last minute that I'm going to be shipped far far away for election day by my employer. And it's too late to order an absentee ballot. No worries, I can just go down to the courthouse and fill out an absentee ballot in person, right there.
OS X is heavily optimized with processor-specific functions, be it AltiVec optimizations for G4s or just a lot of black magic to make the Altivec-oriented code still run well on a G3. The next version is going to include features that offload a lot of processing to the graphics card. I'm sure they put little to no effort into making sure that any of their code above the Darwin will run properly on a little-endian machine.
That's potentially a whole lot of rewriting (and potentially creating a need to mantain yet another code branch for various portions of the OS) in order to get an OS that is still going to only work on a very small portion of the PC hardware out there. And I'm not talking "you won't be able to burn DVDs" not working, I'm talking "the OS won't run, period, because Core Image doesn't support your graphics card."
Which means that they will have a target market consisting of people like you who are willing to buy the one and only one OS X Approved PC. Of course, to make that available as something other than a homebuild, Apple will have to make it themselves. Which will probably make it end up costing not much less than any other Apple computer because it will end up being a solid magnesium pyramid with no visible apertures or seams or something like that because that's what Apple does.
At which point Apple has gone through a ridiculous wad of cash in order to make your Mac work less smoothly than other Macs. But at least it cost you $100 less.
Methinks Apple would be much wiser to spend that money on continuing to improve the value of their PPC hardware. Maybe that way they can save you $150 on a better computer, instead.
Now consider what would happen if you registered hasbro.com/org/net and used it to put up an anti-Hasbro website. You'd either give up your website willingly when the lawyers knocked, or you'd find yourself in court defending a trademark infringement lawsuit.
True.
I've actually been really curious to see what life is like in Bhutan - it's the only country in the world that officially measures its health in terms of Gross National Happiness rather than something like GDP.
Interesting, although I'd say that money spent to cure diseases counts as good. I don't like living in a world with car wrecks, but I do indeed enjoy living in a world with penicillin.
Right.
It amazes me that after nearly 230 years it's still news to people that our government, in all its permutations, is a horrible kludge. Not as much of a horrible kludge as a lot of other governmental systems, but a horrible kludge nonetheless.
Tomorrow's headline: Study shows nation's wine supply may contain fermented grapes!
JavaScript and Java aren't even remotely similar.
A true free market wouldn't be gentle or kind. However, it would be maximally efficent and effective.
Sometimes efficiency isn't the best measure of an economy's health.
If efficiency is all that matters, which of these two is better for the country:
1. I stay at home with my family. We eat a home-cooked meal, play board games, and talk to each other all evening. (total spent: $15, maybe. It was a fancy meal.)
2. I ditch my family and get dinner at McDonald's. ($6) Afterwad, I go to a strip club. I get hammered (spending $20 in the process) and buy a couple lap dances, stic a couple dollars in some panties, etc. ($30) Then I try to drive home, drunk. I hit another car, totaling both and putting three people in the hospital. ($30,000 will be spent on replacing the cars with one used and one new car, and let's say $100,000 in hospital bills) Total cost: $130,056.
It's an extreme example,yes, but the more time people spend doing stuff like option 2, the more money is being spent, the higher the veolicty of cash in the economy, and the more "efficient and effective" the economy is. And experience has shown me that, overall, the things that enrich my life the most aren't the things that stimulate the economy the most.
And I think that with this in mind it makes sense to consider that maybe the government policies that result in the biggest and most powerful whirlwind of cash aren't necessarily the government policies that are going to lead to everyone having the best quality of life.
Unless, of course, you've fallen into the trap of thinking that more money equals more happy. Yes, it does matter if you don't have enough money to make yourself comfortable, but of course the people who generally argue for high-GDP economic policies are also arguing agast government policies aimed at stamping out poverty. =D